U.S. Weapons Inspector: Iraq Had No WMD

Remove all ads!

Wait, how come it was bad for Iraq if they had not let the inspectors come and look for WMD because they signed a treaty but it is good when the US can attack and ignore the treaties they signed on when joining the UN?

 

@ Tal and others (like Ragusa)

I made it clear in my second post that I was not referring to anything regarding nuclear weapons. I further clarified when Takara called me on it, that my level of expertise was not with nuclear weapons, and AFAIK, no one is dismantaling anything with nukes. So I never claimed the U.S. wasn't developing further nuclear capabilities, and they most certainly are making new advances in conventional weaponry.

My level of expertise concerns biological and chemical weapons, which are 2/3 of the trinity of WMD. The U.S. is destroying tons of this stuff every year, much more than European countries (although they also had the most to begin with, so they still have a lot left).

Yes, there has been unaccounted for anthrax, this I won't deny. But to say 99% of everything the U.S. has done concerning their biological and chemical weapons programs is kept secret, and that 99% of the U.S. public couldn't find out anything they ever wanted to about biological and chemical weapons and what's happening to them now is complete rubbish.

 

As we talk about making subtle differences - I sort of disagree with the classification of the subject "WMD", and like to point out where and why: Chemical weapons IMO are definitely not WMD, despite their toxicity they are relatively harmless and of local effect compared to the real thing - the nuke.

Biological weapons are an entirely different thing - and I view the US efforts to use "agent green", as well as their research into other organisms for warefare, with considerable concern. Controllability is the key word.

But summing it all up as the renowned WMD has a certain scare factor some politicos don't seem to want to miss.

Besides, the stuff the US destroys is their old **** shipped back from their forward depots - like here in Germany. Not usable anymore, mind chemical weapons do have a shelve live, the stuff is still highly unhealthy and very hard to store - the US have produced massive quantities and some of the old 1950s and 1960s warheads are beginning to leak. That is, they pose a grave security risk and have to be destroyed to prevent silly accidents.

That is to say, their destruction is not so much a question of goodwill but of necessity.

Thinking about that I don't even want to think how it looks in Russia.

What we in Germany still destroy in our facility in Munster is our old WW-I and WW-II stuff - not usable as a weapon anymore but definitely to dangerous to lie around. Germany hasn't produced chemical weapons since WW-II, except for research quantities.

[ September 20, 2004, 16:46: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

I agree with what Tal and Ragusa are saying. It is true, that nuclear weapons are far more destructive than chemical weapons. Also, sorry for not responding earlier, but I'm in Indiana this week, researching a project of how best to destroy 4300 one ton containers of VX that have been lying around since the 1960s. They aren't leaking though - the steel is over 1 inch thick - but to keep with the treaty we signed.

Anyway, my point is that the U.S. has never signed a treaty stating it would get rid of it nuclear weapons. Neither has Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, France, Israel, and anyone else I may have inadvertently forgotten (although I'm pretty sure that's it - I think France is the only Eurpoean country with nukes). However, the U.S. and 200 or so other countries have signed a treaty to get rid of biological and chemical weapons, which are WMD, despite how they compare to nuclear weapons. And in this regard, the U.S. is keeping its promise, and doing so at a greater rate than all the other countries of the world.

Speaking of chemical weapons not being overly destructive, do you guys know what VX is? It's a nerve agent, and less than a drop is capable of killing a human being. A rocket filled with that stuff exploded over a major city would tens of thousands of casualties. Granted, a nuclear warhead exploded over that city would cause millions of casualties, and thus "worse", but the way you are seemingly trivializing chemical weapons is disturbing. By the way, the last ton container filled with VX was completed in 1969, and is just as deadly today as the day it was made. So much for a short shelf life.

 

Ooooh, I'm a bit late here.

In retrospect, if I was Iraq, I wouldn't have trusted the UN inspectors either. Last time I checked, the Iraqis kicked UN out of Iraq because the US was using the inspections to spy on Iraqi facilities.

 

The Brits have some lying around too.

 

Also, one more thing - I shouldn't have stated 99% in my previous post. I was under the impression that Tal thought that the U.S. was opposed to any foreign access to any of their WMD programs. As it turns out, I was talking more about chemical and biological agents, while he was talking more about nuclear weapons. So, we were both right from our different perspectives. I was right in saying that the U.S. is very open to allowing anyone to see what they're doing with their chemical and biological weapons, while Tal was correct in saying that no one really knows what the U.S. is developing in the arena of nuclear weapons.

 

Oh what does it matter that each and every reason for this war was in fact a blunt lie?! Does it matter that those who spread these lies now say they never have? Not really.
There is, after all, one absolutely failsafe justification - Hussein is gone, Iraq and the world are now better off. Makes me wonder how the long rows of dead in Iraq feel about these rhetorics. How will all the future victims of spurred terrorism around the world feel... I wonder.

What has been accomplished here is just too good for words.

 

But then, what is when the arguments are valid?

 

Hehe.

Well, you cannot deny that no WMD have been found in Iraq and that it is now US certified that Saddam was WMD-free when Bush believed in a grave and gathering threat from him.

And it should by now also be clear that it wasn't so much the US intelligence agencies who failed but that it was Cheney and his warmonger crew who fed the faulty intel to the Whitehouse because they had an agenda to promote.

The US has a problem with a group of ruthless and very ideological people (to the degree they engage in groupthink and ignore dissent because they alone have seen the light) around Cheney they won't get rid of under Bush Jr. in their current administration and administration-to-be when he is re-elected (heaven forbid).
They think the US has the trouble in Iraq now because it has been too soft on the Iraqis - and spared Syria and Iran - nevermind the troop levels, dissolving of the Iraqi Army, Ahmed Chalabi and the we-will-be-greeted-with-flowers stuff. Just wait for Mr. Rubin's OP-EDs in which he will focus on smearing Bremer.

In attacking Iraq when he should have dealt with OBL Bush Jr. hasn't shown good judgement, to the contrary.

 

With all due respect, BTA ~ what you think you have refuted and what is actual nonsense are, like, totally different matters.

And accusing me of distorting facts and false assumptions when we all have the words of the administration fresh in our minds - connections to terrorists, wmds ready to be launched in 45 minutes - well, that is rich.
I dont give Bush any credit but even he and his Bushies cannot have had less intelligence reports concerning the situation than the german gov. Our government doesnt accuse Bush of lies, no, they are more diplomatic about it and say: We have had no reports on wmds and involvment with terrorists.
So please.
Make Bush look like an utterly incompetent fool if you wish, I wont have any of it. He lied in full intend.

 

Then I guess it all boils down to perception, BTA. Cheney claimed there was "no doubt" Saddam had WMD. Bush and Rumsfeld and Condi all said similar things on several occasions (I can quote them, if you want). All of them were "we know" or "we are certain" or "there is no doubt." Never a "we believe" or "we think" or "there's a good chance." According to them, their case was bulletproof.

Yet, the main arguement everyone else seems to have is "well, everyone THOUGHT he had them. His neighbors thought so, our allies thought so, we thought so. It's not a lie." That's pretty much what you're saying, right?

The problem is, they weren't certain. They couldn't have been. If they were certain, they would have been right. They would have done everything they could to erase all doubt. That's what certainty is. I won't go around saying I KNOW that Tyra Banks wants my hot man bod, unless I know it for a fact. Otherwise, I just BELIEVE that she does. There's no way the administration could have been certain, and they routinely said they were. To me, sorry, that's a lie.

They mistated their case. They knew they didn't have proper evidence to make their case, but they told the world that they did. They insisted certainty when there was none, and they actively derailed any attempts to achieve such certainty. And before anyone could prove them wrong, statements like "we don't want the next mistake to be a mushroom cloud" rushed the country to war, scared to death that they MIGHT be right.

They weren't certain. And they knew it. And for that, they're liars, period.

 

Which is exactly why the idea was brought before the Senate to authorize the President to threaten war, to finally force Saddam to fully comply with the inspections and put an end to it once and for all. And Saddam, if you'll remember, agreed to unconditional weapons inspections finally. But the administration went to war anyway. We could have found out the truth. We could have put the threat of Saddam's weapons capability to rest. But we chose to attack anyway.

Why you seem so unwilling to hold them accountable for this is beyond me, BTA. That they got it so wrong is undeniable. That they were so determined to do it their way, facts be damned, is unforgiveable. Every government is allowed to make mistakes. Every government gets it wrong once in a while. But when you're the most powerful nation on earth, waging a pre-emptive war and setting the most dangerous of precedents, you don't get to be that wrong. Even if you believe they were sincere, they were still wrong. And the consequences of their being so wrong have been catastrophic, for all of us. Why are you letting them off the hook? Ignorance doesn't unmake a mistake.