New Documents Reveal Saddam Hid WMD, Was Tied to Al Qaida

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Thrawn
It would be a more complete analogy, but it would be outside the scope of this discussion.  I mean, I could go on about how some of the cops sold you illegal weapons, and condoned your behaviour...but I won't because it would be outside the scope of this discussion.

are you referring to the 500 tons of Uranium or WMDs in general.  Because the POST itself, aside from yours and Nukes little love fest, is about WMDs.   SO I think it's relevent.  In addition there was more than just 500 tons of uranium in the justification for the invasion.  So in general your analogy sucks sack sweat....mine doesn't.  Either way stop trying to re-write history or use silly toned down analogies because they don't work.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
are you referring to the 500 tons of Uranium or WMDs in general.  Because the POST itself, aside from yours and Nukes little love fest, is about WMDs.   SO I think it's relevent.

Sure, but you were talking about how Saddam was a ****tard.  Not WMD.

In addition there was more than just 500 tons of uranium in the justification for the invasion.

The only valid reaons (vis a vis the UN Charter) for invading another country is to defend yourself, for mutual defense (a la NATO) or with Secutity Council approval.  And to forstall you possibly arguing about the Charter, it was written by Americans, and ratified by the US.

Now, was the US in immient danger of being attacked by Iraq?  In hindsight, obviously not.  I have yet to see any evidence put for at the time, to indicate that it was a reasonable assumption that Iraq was going to attack the US.  Furthermore, any evidence would have to be pretty darn conclusive for it to be justifiable, we are talking about going to war here.

The same applies to any of the US allies being immiently attacked.


Did the US have Security Council approval to invade Iraq?

No, 1441 gives one last chance for Iraq to comply.  The inspectors where supposed to inspect and report to the SC.  If the SC determined that Iraq was in violation then it would decide what action to take.  If you look at past resolutions where the SC gave approval for military action to enforce a resolution, the language is very clear.  Nowhere does it say, that UN members can use military power to force Iraqi compliance.


So, what justification was there?  Heck, what justification was their to invade at that point in time?  Why not let the inspectors finish thier job?  (I have a theory on that if you are interested)

[Gunslinger]

Well it's kinda hard to get something accomplished with a weak spineless UN when the countrys that have veto power have their hand in the cookie jar.

Then there's this:



Iraq Liberation Act

either way I'm not trying to justify the war, I think it's completly nescesary, I'm countering the "Bush lied" revisionists.

[Thrawn]

"Well it's kinda hard to get something accomplished with a weak spineless UN when the countrys that have veto power have their hand in the cookie jar."


No arguements here.  I think the current SC system is broken.


"Iraq Liberation Act"

Yeah, Bill's a war criminal and should be thrown in jail...seriously.  But then so is the Canadian government that ordered the Canadian soldiers to invade Yugoslavia.

Consitiutional question, can your Congress pass a bill that over-rides a treaty?  I thought that treaties were the perview of the Executive.

[Hangtime]

Backwards. Congress ratifes treaties.. the executive can only propose and offer them for Congressional aprroval/ ratification.

[Gunslinger]

And ratifies them with a 2/3rd majority IIRC.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Thrawn
So?

Cops come to your house with a search warrent looking for illegal firearms.  They know that you bought some in the past.  You tell you destroyed them.  They start searching your house, they report that they aren't finding any weapons.  The Chief of Police says stop the search and arrest him for having illegal weapons anyways.


Gunslinger,

Cops come to your house with a search warrent looking for illegal firearms.  They know that you bought some in the past.  They start searching your house, they report that they aren't finding any weapons.  The Chief of Police says stop the search and arrest him for having illegal weapons anyways.

You're on trial and your lawyer says, "WTF, he didn't have any illegal firearms.".

Cop on the stand says, "Yeah, but we found charcoal and metal.  Which those items, machining equipment and some other things he could make them.".

Your lawyer, "Did he have the proper equipment, and other things he needed to make them."

Cop, "Well, no.".

Your lawyer, "...WTF?".

Only problem with the arguement is you would then be in trouble for not keeping records of what you did with the firearms you were known to have had.

they too would want to know "where they are now?"

[Gunslinger]

Dred this is a fascinating interview.  I can't speak for the validity of the source as it's late and I'm tired, but this guy seems to know his stuff.

Where the WMDs Went

Thrawn this is just for you.

This reminds me of the police chief who announced on television plans to raid a secret drug factor on the outskirts of town.  At the time appointed, the police, all twelve of them, lined up behind each other at the front door, knocked and waiting for the druggies to answer, as protocol required.  After ten minute of toilet flushing and back-door slamming, somebody came to the front door in a bathrobe and explained he had been in the shower.  The police took his story at face value, even though his was dry as a bone, then police proceeded to inspect the premises ensuring that the legal, moral , ethnic, human, and animal rights, and also the national dignity, of the druggies was preserved.   After a search, the police chief announced THERE WERE NO STOCKPILES of drugs at the inspected site.  Anyone care to move to this city?  

[Momus--]

Guys, why are you arguing with a troll who is argumentum ad nauseum personified? Please, stop feeding him, he doesn't care about the facts, he just wants the attention.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Momus--
.... he just wants the attention.

No he doesn't.

[Lazerus]

I don't have the motivation to find the reports, but there were barrels of chemicals along with surface to surface rockets found in Iraq, along with equipment designed to protect people from chemical exposure. In the barrels were two different chemicals that when combined created nerve gas. In and of themselves they were nothing but pesticides and could not be classified as chemical weapons. But they were stored together with the military equipment to disperse them as a military weapon and with the equipment to protect those that might be deploying them. "Barrels". But they weren't intended as military weapons. They were part of a government fumigation process founded by the benevolent Saddam, liberator of the people of Iraq, in an attempt to revitalize the agricultural success historic to the Kurdish territories in the north of his beloved country. Anyone that doesn't see this is an idiot. Look at his mass mulching projects to fertilize the soil. Saddam was an agricultural genious taken down by the two digit IQ'd leader of the free world.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Thrawn
So?

Cops come to your house with a search warrent looking for illegal firearms.  They know that you bought some in the past.  You tell you destroyed them.  They start searching your house, they report that they aren't finding any weapons.  The Chief of Police says stop the search and arrest him for having illegal weapons anyways.


Gunslinger,

Cops come to your house with a search warrent looking for illegal firearms.  They know that you bought some in the past.  They start searching your house, they report that they aren't finding any weapons.  The Chief of Police says stop the search and arrest him for having illegal weapons anyways.

You're on trial and your lawyer says, "WTF, he didn't have any illegal firearms.".

Cop on the stand says, "Yeah, but we found charcoal and metal.  Which those items, machining equipment and some other things he could make them.".

Your lawyer, "Did he have the proper equipment, and other things he needed to make them."

Cop, "Well, no.".

Your lawyer, "...WTF?".

It's more like:

Country A loses a war and agrees to a specific set of cease-fire agreements, never fully complies with the agreements and also:
  1. tries to assinate a former US President
  2. never accounts for TONS of WMD that they produced. And by accounting, they did not provide ANY evidence that they had been destroyed, which was part of the DEAL with the UN.
  3. failed the "last chance" resolution to comply
 
Reason number one is reason enough to go to war. All the other reasons, combined with #1, plus Saddam's past history are ample reasons for going to war.

So other than a cease-fire agreement, a war, international sanctions and national security implications of doing nothing, your analogy of a citizen a cop and a laywer is dead on.

[cpxxx]

I don't think Bush or Blair or whoever lied about WMD's. We all believed in them. Any suggestion that either did is as much about domestic politics as anything.
The trouble was that few if any WMD's were found. They still haven't been found. Now we have people saying they all went to Syria and it's all part of a brilliant plan by Saddam Hussein  and his Baathists to invite invasion and the destruction of his regime so that they could infiltrate the new government and take over again later.  Very clever indeed
This from the Front Page interview.

Tierney: While working counter-infiltration in Baghdad, I noticed a pattern among infiltrators that their cover stories would start around Summer or Fall of 2002.  From this and other observations, I believe Saddam planned for a U.S. invasion after President Bush’s speech at West Point in 2002.   One of the steps taken was to prepare the younger generation of the security services with English so they could infiltrate our ranks, another was either to destroy or move WMDs to other countries, principally Syria.  Starting in the Summer of 2002, the Iraqis had months to purge their files and create cover stories, such as the letter from Hossam Amin, head of the Iraqi outfit that monitored the weapons inspectors, stating after Hussein Kamal’s defection that the weapons were all destroyed in 1991

Now that is the conspiracy theory to beat all conspiracy theories.  
So now we know why things haven't worked out so well in Iraq. It's all thanks to Saddam and his strategic genius.  I wonder when he plans to hold his victory march.

I really don't know why some people find it so neccessary to constantly justify the war. We all believed in the WMD's even it seems Saddam.  But none were found and there isn't a shred of evidence that any are in Syria.

This is as much to do  with the current situation in Iraq. It hasn't worked out that well. It's a mess. So reasons must be found. This is just the latest theory. A poor one at that.

[Krusher]

Originally posted by Thrawn


The only valid reaons (vis a vis the UN Charter) for invading another country is to defend yourself, for mutual defense (a la NATO) or with Secutity Council approval.  And to forstall you possibly arguing about the Charter, it was written by Americans, and ratified by the US.

Now, was the US in immient danger of being attacked by Iraq?  In hindsight, obviously not.  I have yet to see any evidence put for at the time, to indicate that it was a reasonable assumption that Iraq was going to attack the US.  Furthermore, any evidence would have to be pretty darn conclusive for it to be justifiable, we are talking about going to war here.

The same applies to any of the US allies being immiently attacked.

doesn't shooting at the aircraft in the no-fly zone daily constitute an attack?

[AWMac]

Ali Ibrahim Al-Tikriti, the “Butcher of Basra.”

Ibrahim: I can personally vouch for Saddam's WMD programs. I helped protect his scientists and their documents while I was there. His nuclear program was at the top of his list and Saddam was very interested and sent out his security forces to hunt down a nuclear weapon when the Soviet Union fell. There were rumors amongst the inner circles that he had a crude nuclear weapon but I never saw it. I did handle as well as my units VX, Sarin and mustard gas. We were supplied with Russian NBC protective suits and they were always updated. Vast networks of bunkers were built to protect the military when such weapons were to be used. There were chutes built from the bunkers to the surface to launch these weapons in mortar shells in a surprise attack upon enemy forces approaching.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam had these weapons when the United States invaded. Saddam never did anything that he believed showed weakness. His weapons programs were also always a top priority for research and development because he knew he could always purchase conventional weapons abroad. The relationship between the Ba'ath Party in Baghdad and Damascus were one in the same. There is no doubt in my mind that if Saddam wanted to he could have sent such weapons and documents to Syria with ease. Assad and especially his generals would have welcomed such an idea or proposal from Saddam.  

 


Here it be.


Good read also.

Mac