years to find WMD's now??

[DKSuddeth]

I'm sure most of you don't care one whit about the 'imminent threat' argument but I, for one, feel misled...and NO, its not due to my 'liberal' ways and its certainly not because of my intelligence.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/21/sprj.nirq.main/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- It could take years before investigators are able to uncover the details of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs under Saddam Hussein, according to the House Intelligence Committee's chairman.

"Every day is a new day for the intelligence people," said Rep. Porter Goss, R-Florida. "I would say that we are probably a couple of years away from getting through all the material and talking to all the people we need to talk to about exactly what was going on, not only with the Saddam Hussein regime but with some of the Taliban and some of the things that have been going on in North Korea, Libya, Iran and other places."

The CIA's Iraq Survey Group, under David Kay, continues to search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and evidence that Saddam concealed such programs from the international community. The search is expected to continue for another three to six months.

Kay presented a preliminary report to the House Intelligence Committee in October that said the group found no weapons of mass destruction, but did uncover evidence that Saddam's regime planned to manufacture them.

The Bush administration said last year that the Iraqi threat of weapons of mass destruction was a main reason for its decision to launch a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March.

In his State of the Union address Tuesday night to Congress and the American people, President Bush cited the Kay report as support for the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

"Had we failed to act, [Saddam's] weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day," Bush said.

 

[jon_forward]

the military was told the main objective was regime change, pure and simple. The military view on WMD is that they were moved to Syria and elsewhere. Dk, you have a right to feel the way you do.sorry to say I dont see it in the same light as you do... saddam was and to a lesser extent still is a very dangerous person

 

[Annie]

Considering the Europeans are still finding ordnance from WWII, right out in the open, I doubt I'll lose sleep wondering why we can't find weapons that might be buried in sand, were carted off to another country, or may have actually been destroyed.

The UN didn't buy the 'destroyed' arguement, if for no other reason that Saddam had lied about this after the Iran-Iraq war. That's one of the problems with lying, people make you prove what you are claiming.

 

[Moi]

I am not going to lose sleep over where they are. We know he had them and we know he would continue to and has used them. I still think they are there and if not, hey, Saddam shouldn't have bluffed. We called it and he paid the price.

 

[Annie]

Sometimes one finds the most interesting places that are unexpected: http://www.guardian.co.uk/libya/story/0,14139,1125310,00.html

Libya's black market deals shock nuclear inspectors

Ian Traynor in Vienna
Saturday January 17, 2004
The Guardian

Colonel Muammar Gadafy of Libya has been buying complete sets of uranium enrichment centrifuges on the international black market as the central element in his secret nuclear bomb programme, according to United Nations nuclear inspectors.
The ease with which the complex bomb-making equipment was acquired has stunned experienced international inspectors. The scale and the sophistication of the networks supplying so-called rogue states seeking nuclear weapons are considerably more extensive than previously believed.

The purchase of full centrifuges, either assembled or in parts, marks a radical departure in what is on offer on the black market, sources said. While it is not yet clear where Col Gadafy obtained the centrifuge systems, at least 1,000 machines, believed to have been made in Malaysia, were seized last October by the Italian authorities on a German ship bound for Libya.

Diplomatic sources familiar with the results of a recent visit to Libya by nuclear experts from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said the Gadafy bomb programme differed in crucial respects from nuclear projects in Iran, Iraq or North Korea.

"What was found in Libya marks a new stage in proliferation," said one knowledgeable source. "Libya was buying what was available. And what is available, the centrifuges, are close to turnkey facilities. That's a new challenge. Libya was buying something that's ready to wear."

As the climax to nine months of secret negotiations with British and US intelligence, Col Gadafy announced last month that he was renouncing his weapons of mass destruction programmes after purchasing what sources said were "a few thousand" centrifuges for enriching uranium to weapons grade.

Another well-placed source said: "We all now realise there is this extraordinarily developed and sophisticated market out there enabling anyone to get this centrifuge equipment."

Mohammed El Baradei, the IAEA chief, visited Libya a couple of weeks ago to view the Libyan equipment and take charge of the upcoming effort to dismantle the Libyan bomb programme. He described the experience as "an eye-opener".

A centrifuge is made up of hundreds of separate components. Typically, a country covertly seeking the uranium enrichment technology will seek to cover its tracks by obtaining a design blueprint and then purchasing the varied components separately from different suppliers.

The German ship was seized by Italians after a tip-off from the CIA. Knowledgeable sources said the centrifuges on board were "made-to-order" in Malaysia for Libya, based on designs directly or indirectly from Pakistan.

While US government sources have claimed that the seizure persuaded Col Gadafy to do his deal with Washington and London, diplomats and analysts closely following the nuclear trade are convinced that the ship was impounded because of information provided by the Libyans.

According to this version circulating in Vienna, headquarters of the IAEA, Col Gadafy told the CIA about the shipment as a goodwill gesture to convince the Americans and the British that he was committed to the deal being negotiated.

A Finnish expert leading the IAEA investigations into the Libyan and Iranian nuclear projects has so far been denied access to the equipment impounded by the Italians, apparently because of the tug-of-war between the Americans and the Vienna agency over how to dismantle the Libyan programme.

Senior US and British officials are due in Vienna on Monday to negotiate with Dr El Baradei over how to proceed in Tripoli. The Americans will be led by John Bolton, the hawk in charge of nuclear proliferation issues at the State Department. He has a reputation for scorning the UN agencies and his officials disparaged the El Baradei trip to Tripoli as a publicity stunt.

 

[DKSuddeth]

by jon forward

the military was told the main objective was regime change, pure and simple.

But the US citizens were not. It was all about the threat from WMD's.

The military view on WMD is that they were moved to Syria and elsewhere.

Or maybe they were moved to the emerald city where the tyrannical Oz has them.

by kathianne

I doubt I'll lose sleep wondering why we can't find weapons that might be buried in sand, were carted off to another country, or may have actually been destroyed.

and that would be why?

That's one of the problems with lying, people make you prove what you are claiming.

as evidenced by the lack of WMD's to be found.

by moi

I am not going to lose sleep over where they are.

Twice in a row, thats disconcerting. If people don't care about where they are now it can only mean they truly felt that they didn't exist. If they didn't truly exist why was it all blown out of proportion by the administration if for no other reason than to scare the people into supporting war?

 

[Annie]

DK, I can't speak for anyone else, but I thought the WMD were there. Why wouldn't I? Our intelligence thought so, the UN thought so, European intelligence thought so, ME intelligence thought so. IF, (and that is a big IF), they aren't, well Saddam played the wrong hand. Again, I really not bothered if they are not there or we don't find them.
The other reasons being given, would have been good enough in the first place. Truth is, for me at least, seems we should have taken him out after Kuwait, certainly when he tried to have Bush I assassinated. I would even think the same if it had been Clinton he'd tried to hit.

 

[Sabir]

In the UK I certainly dont think Tony Blair did him self any favours on the WMD issue. I do think he overstated this in an effort to get the country behind him for the war.

I suppose politicians do this all the time but in this instant I wish he had not.

 

[Annie]

It seems to me a month or so ago, whomever had given him that info on 45 minutes came forward. I believe it was yesterday that BBC came out with Kelly being of the mind that Saddam and WMD were an 'imminient threat', though nothing about 45 minutes. If he overstated his intelligence and subsequent analysis, it doesn't appear to have been by much.l

 

[Sabir]

Fair enough, he had to go by what the intelligence services told him.

But even if he was told by the intelligence services about the 45 minute threat, I never bought it. I just could not see how Iraq could deliver WMD to the UK in that time. I have no doubt that Saddam would have liked them but the whole imminent threat thing was a none starter for.

 

[Annie]

Sabir, the 45 min never had to do with UK or US homelands, rather troops deployed.

 

[Sabir]

But the troops had been deployed for 10 years or more.
Why were the WMD such an imminent threat to them now?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Sabir
But the troops had been deployed for 10 years or more.
Why were the WMD such an imminent threat to them now?

You may want to read the following thread in regards to 'imminent'

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=2229

 

[Annie]

The 10 years had been in the air only. Ground troops is what brought the warning.

To say that the answer then was not to bring in troops, but rather beg the question of what was to be done, since the UN inspectors admitted they weren't getting complete cooperation, yet begging for more 'time', while never explaining how they were going to get where they needed to go without that cooperation.

 

[Sabir]

Jimnyc, I agree with pretty much everything in that article. President Bush never did use WMD as a sole reason for the invasion.

I'm looking at it from what reasons we were given in the UK... I'm not saying other reasons did not exist, just that the public would not have given backing to Tony Blair for those reasons. So he did what politicians do, put greater emphasis on an issue that the public would give him support for.

 

[jon_forward]

Dk, I dont for one second believe we,the general public was mis-lead into supporting the conflict in Iraq. The In-tel given to the higher ups was past on to us. Im I sorry we are in Iraq , NO. IMHO sasddam himself was the WMD!!!! He was a threat to anything breathing. I do also believe that other WMD are still in Iraq and Iraqi WMD are in near-by countrys. just my opinion with some input from my bro and his 29 +years in the corps for what that is worth to you. I did not insult you intelligence and in another thread I stuck up for you, I wonder now if I should have

 

[Sabir]

Originally posted by Kathianne
The 10 years had been in the air only. Ground troops is what brought the warning.

To say that the answer then was not to bring in troops, but rather beg the question of what was to be done, since the UN inspectors admitted they weren't getting complete cooperation, yet begging for more 'time', while never explaining how they were going to get where they needed to go without that cooperation.

Thats just my point, If what you say was the case, the British public would have questioned putting our troops in potential danger when the UN was still asking for more time.

 

[DKSuddeth]

by jon_forward

I dont for one second believe we,the general public was mis-lead into supporting the conflict in Iraq.

which is completely your right and prerogative of which I would never try to deny you.

I did not insult you intelligence and in another thread I stuck up for you, I wonder now if I should have

I very much appreciate your sticking up for me jon, I'm glad you didn't insult my intelligence then, however, if you feel the need to do so now that is still your right but it will not affect my position at this time. I'm comfortable enough in my own intelligence so that I needn't worry about it.

I remember well the press conference that Pres. Bush gave a few days before the invasion and with the exception of one reporters question about his faith every single answer had at least one mention of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

I also remember very well a letter I wrote to my congressman, Pete Sessions, asking him to explain to me why I should support an Iraqi invasion and received almost the same reasoning (If I can ever find the frickin email I'll post it) and yes, Mr. Sessions did add in the numerous violations of the UN resolutions.

Do I doubt that the invasion was warranted? Not really, as I have said a few times before I think that it should have been finished in 91. We may have angered a few arab countries but it would not have lasted, in my opinion anyway, and things would be far easier in dealing with the ME now. I still have issue with the stress of WMD's to the american public, of which I believe was intentional, and now there is nothing to show for it.

I certainly hope that hard factual evidence surfaces soon to show that it was certainly a possibility.

 

[jon_forward]

Dk, I also feel that we should have finished it off in 91. not sure but I feel be not finishing it then we lost face with alot of countrys and now we are having to pay a steeper price . I have no intentions of insulting your intelligence now or into the future as we can agree to disagree. I do feel that at the time WMD were stressed as one of the factors to remove saddam that our Pres truly believed the intel he recieved as valid, as did others. I also think had france stayed totally out of the picture[not assuring saddam that the USA would never invade] things would not have went the way they have.

 

[Psychoblues]

First off, I apologise for my interjection. The debate here seems solid and would probably do well without my inclusion. However:

This war was predicated on the quarantee from our CIC that we were under imminent threat from SH and his regime. Further, we were quaranteed that this threat was made more particularly troublesome due to WMD's that were aimed directly at us. In addition, we were warned that the Al Queda and the SH regime conspired to accomplish the disaster of 9-11 and that more would be forthcoming unless we acted immediately.

Not one of these allegations has been collaborated by a single source despite hundreds if not thousands of inspectors now on the ground in Iraq and the release of information that thousands of prisoners that seem quite willing to cooperate with the US have given. Even given the capture of 45 of the 55 most high level Iraqi "terrorists" has given any credence whatsoever for the claims that were made to convince us that WAR was inevitable.

There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the Al Queda means the US irreparable harm. There is also no doubt in my mind that hundreds of thousands of Muslims, some Arab and some not, will follow the teachings and leadership of OBLaden. I supported the "War on Terror", I still support the "War on Terror", but I still don't believe for an instant that the peoples of Iraq have any collective design on any "War of Terror" against us.

That said, please continue. I find this debate informative on a number of levels.