Following Iraq's bioweapons trail

[Matt308]

"It appears we have appointed our worst generals to command forces, and our most gifted and brilliant to edit newspapers. In fact, I discovered by reading newspapers that these journalists/geniuses plainly saw all my strategic defects from the start, yet failed to inform me until it was too late. Accordingly, I'm readily willing to yield my command to these obviously superior intellects and I'll in turn, do my best for the cause by writing editorials....after the fact."




Robert E. Lee, 1863

[mkloby]

This ranting is not directed at anybody, and is slightly off topic. One of the big things that absolutely shocks me is that many act as if Saddam Hussein was a decent leader, out there trying to improve the lot of his people in this world. They talk about how we violated Iraq's national sovereignty and international law - what about the right of human beings to live without being exterminated??? You can disagree with the whole NBC reasoning for the war, and that's fine. I don't see how you can oppose the war on moral grounds. How can you say it is moral to leave a regime in power that exterminates, rapes, etc their own people??? That is a question that I never receive an answer from those that oppose the war. Many of the former fiece European nations lack the testosterone to stand and fight for anything, this pacifist attitude is insidiously infecting America. I'm not saying the US had purely altruistic motives in this - that was a major reason, though. And the increased casualties that have occured since the invasion is not a valid argument in my opinion - if the Iraqi gov't gassed, raped, and terrorized the population like the baathists did, the situation may be different. We may not have the power to stop all evil regimes, but that doesn't mean you don't try to do what you can, so I don't want to hear why American troops aren't clamping down on Darfur. Call me crazy, but I have been raised to believe that if you see evil being done, it is YOUR responsibility to stop it...

[Matt308]

Wonder who will respond to that? Hmmm

[Civettone]

UN sent in inspectors and he kicked them out or refused them access to certain areas. That strongly suggests that he did have them, again whether he did or not does not matter, he acted like he did have them.

That's a good remark Hunter and I'm glad you mentioned it.
Saddam and Iraqi authorities tried to cover up as much as they could. It's a dictatorship and that bastard had a whole lot more to cover up than his WMDs. I also suspect he felt it was necessary to take a stand against the West, not making it too easy on them.
Be that as it may, the UN reports back in 1998 were quite clear. Saddam did not have a WMD capability. The US and UK chose to disregard this and demanded a new UNSCOM team. This didn't give them what they wanted either. The US/UK said they would go through the UN Security Council. When this didn't give them the authorisation they still went at it alone. That suggests that no matter what, they would have gone to war. It was simply impossible for the Iraqis to account for everything: like I said, much was destroyed without them telling the UN, or was dumped once it was degraded.

Now that link Njaco posted makes a lot of sense: nearly one of every 25 weapons the U.S. military bought for Iraqi security forces is missing. Njaco, if you read this, it took a while but now I get your point.

But let's take a look at those weapon inspections. UNSCOM was doing a good job but when it wasn't delivering the results the US was hoping for, the team was changed. This started with that row about the presidential palaces where the US believed the Iraqis were producing WMDs. Remember that? Saddam refused - like I said, because he didn't want to show anything more than needed - and this almost lead to new attacks. Saddam gave in and when UNSCOM tested for nuclear and chemical weapons, they found nothing. Dick Spertzel, head of the biological inspection team, declared that they never expected to find those weapons but that he didn't want to give the Iraqis the "benefit of a negative result". Can you imagine that? That's deliberately looking for framing the Iraqis instead of giving a objective analysis. Spertzel was a protegee of ... Richard Butler who took over UNSCOM in 1998. Butler was chosen by the US do protect their interests. The history and viewpoints of Butler were well known so it's a bit strange to have him head UNSCOM. He replaced Elkeus who had an arrangement with the Iraqis to have full clearance in exchange for a limited number of inspectors. But Butler one day simply showed up at the Ba'ath headquarters and demanded full clearance. The Iraqis allowed 4 inspectors to enter, then gave in to allow 6, but Butler wanted complete access to all archives of the Ba'ath party. So he called the US ambassadar at the UN! who gave him clearance to pull back the UN inspectors.
You simply don't change rules without warning. So Butler deliberately provoked the Iraqis knowing very very well that they would not allow the full team as this was a part of the agreement with UNSCOM. Two days later Iraq was bombed which ended any chance of bringing the inspectors back.

I'm not trying to turn things around and making the Americans the bad guys and the Iraqis the good ones, but I hope my story gives a bit of a different insight in pulling back those inspection teams.

Kris

[Civettone]

This ranting is not directed at anybody, and is slightly off topic. One of the big things that absolutely shocks me is that many act as if Saddam Hussein was a decent leader, out there trying to improve the lot of his people in this world. They talk about how we violated Iraq's national sovereignty and international law - what about the right of human beings to live without being exterminated??? You can disagree with the whole NBC reasoning for the war, and that's fine. I don't see how you can oppose the war on moral grounds. How can you say it is moral to leave a regime in power that exterminates, rapes, etc their own people??? That is a question that I never receive an answer from those that oppose the war.

It is indeed slightly off-topic as I'm only approaching this war from a legal point of view.

I suppose those who oppose the war believe that war is not the answer, and that Iraq should free itself. That invading Iraq would probably lead to more problems and that one cannot force a regime change upon a people. Perhaps some were already seeing a civil war happening with the Iraqis fighting each other. Some also saw muslim fundamentalism rising in other muslim countries as a result of American interference.

I don't naturally agree with this but I do wonder this: Why Saddam? There are dozens of cruel dicators around? Why Iraq? Why Saddam? Why isn't the US doing anything in Sudan? Why not North Korea?
Kris

[Hunter368]

Civ,

Let me ask you this, had Saddam let UN inspectors in without restricting their access and they found nothing....day after day.....month after month.

What grounds would have there been to invade Iraq by USA/UK? None

You think USA/UK would of invaded b/c Saddam was a brutal leader that treated his people like crap? Nope

There are many countries like that, you don't see USA/UK taking down all those goverments do you? nope

Had Saddam listened and followed 100% UN's orders then Iraq war would of not happened. It could not of b/c UK/USA would of had no grounds to stand on. Saddam must be held responsible more than anyone.

I am not saying there was WMD or not, I am not saying USA did not like the idea of having a reason to take out Saddam........but Saddam gave them that reason on a silver platter.

[Matt308]

The much vaunted Iraq Study Group from 2003...
__________________________________________________

telegraph.co.uk

By David Rennie and George Jones
Last Updated: 10:49am BST 01/08/2003



The United States has found evidence of an active programme to make weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, including "truly amazing" testimony from Iraqis ordered to dupe United Nations inspectors before the war, the man leading the hunt said yesterday.

David Kay, a former UN inspector and now the CIA's leading consultant who is joint head of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), offered an unprecedentedly bullish assessment of the hunt for weapons of mass destruction.

Although he called for patience, he predicted that doubters were in for a "surprise" by the time his work was done.

His 1,400-strong team of American, British and Australian experts scouring Iraq has not yet found actual biological or chemical weapons, Mr Kay told private Senate hearings in Washington. But there was mounting evidence of an active WMD programme, he said.

That evidence included documents detailing how to conceal arms plants as commercial facilities, and for restarting weapons production once the coast was clear, officials told reporters.

Leading Democratic congressmen, like many Labour MPs, have questioned pre-war claims made by President George W Bush and Tony Blair that Saddam Hussein had large arsenals of banned weapons, ready for use. Such critics have said they will not be satisfied by anything short of physical proof.

[Matt308]

I don't naturally agree with this but I do wonder this: Why Saddam? There are dozens of cruel dicators around? Why Iraq? Why Saddam? Why isn't the US doing anything in Sudan? Why not North Korea?
Kris

Man. How many times have we heard that one.

[FLYBOYJ]

Civ,

Let me ask you this, had Saddam let UN inspectors in without restricting their access and they found nothing....day after day.....month after month.

What grounds would have there been to invade Iraq by USA/UK? None

You think USA/UK would of invaded b/c Saddam was a brutal leader that treated his people like crap? Nope

There are many countries like that, you don't see USA/UK taking down all those goverments do you? nope

Had Saddam listened and followed 100% UN's orders then Iraq war would of not happened. It could not of b/c UK/USA would of had no grounds to stand on. Saddam must be held responsible more than anyone.

I am not saying there was WMD or not, I am not saying USA did not like the idea of having a reason to take out Saddam........but Saddam gave them that reason on a silver platter.

Hunter, you're batting a 1000!

[mkloby]

It is indeed slightly off-topic as I'm only approaching this war from a legal point of view.

I understand where you're coming from, but that's a major fault of the UN - trying to put a legality on int'l affairs. That's just not going to happen.

I suppose those who oppose the war believe that war is not the answer, and that Iraq should free itself. That invading Iraq would probably lead to more problems and that one cannot force a regime change upon a people. Perhaps some were already seeing a civil war happening with the Iraqis fighting each other. Some also saw muslim fundamentalism rising in other muslim countries as a result of American interference.

I don't naturally agree with this but I do wonder this: Why Saddam? There are dozens of cruel dicators around? Why Iraq? Why Saddam? Why isn't the US doing anything in Sudan? Why not North Korea?
Kris

I always get that from people, which is why I mentioned that in the post above. The fact we are not actively involved in Darfur does not mean that we should not stop any evil. Is that a "if you can't stop all evil, why bother stopping any" type of attitude? Bush wants sanctions against Sudan for not stopping the mayhem. If it continues, who knows what will happen, or if it will escalate. God knows that the Europeans won't make a serious contribution to stopping the catastrophe. I hope I'm wrong about that, and it gets thrown in my face, but i don't think it will. They just won't fight for much of anything anymore, and will keep pinning their hopes on futile diplomacy.

[Hunter368]

Hunter, you're batting a 1000!

Thanks

[Civettone]

I understand where you're coming from, but that's a major fault of the UN - trying to put a legality on int'l affairs. That's just not going to happen.

That's not true Matt. You know as well as I do that the US has signed the UN Charter which requires the UN to give its consent to such a war. Also, Powell and Bush declared they would go through the UN Security Council so they definitely wanted that consent as it gives them legality like in 1991.

I always get that from people, which is why I mentioned that in the post above. The fact we are not actively involved in Darfur does not mean that we should not stop any evil. Is that a "if you can't stop all evil, why bother stopping any" type of attitude?

Sure Matt, I'm with you on this one. But why on earth all that bull on WMDs? That is the reason given by the US/UK. The humanitarian concept is all very well but you know as well as I do, that that's not what it's about. With all due respect for the US, they never cared that much for human tragedy as shown in Latin America, Africa or even Iraq when Saddam was still a good friend.
But like you said, it's slightly off-topic.

Kris

[Civettone]

Such critics have said they will not be satisfied by anything short of physical proof.

And right they are. You cannot go to war on unsubstantiated evidence. And in the end they were.

Let me ask you this, had Saddam let UN inspectors in without restricting their access and they found nothing....day after day.....month after month.

Hunter, full cooperation by Saddam would not have mattered much as it was impossible for them to account for all WMDs. I already gave the example of Richard Butler. He was looking for a conflict and took direct orders from the US instead of from the UN.

What grounds would have there been to invade Iraq by USA/UK? None

Of course. UN had to give its consent like it did in 1991. Those countries didn't believe Iraq had a WMD capability and refused to give its consent. They were proven right.

You think USA/UK would of invaded b/c Saddam was a brutal leader that treated his people like crap? Nope

I agree but MKloby brought that up.

There are many countries like that, you don't see USA/UK taking down all those goverments do you? nope

Like any other country, the US only think of their own national interests. They have nothing to gain in Sudan, but they do want control over Iraq.

Had Saddam listened and followed 100% UN's orders then Iraq war would of not happened.

See, that's where your conclusion goes wrong. You claim the UN's orders are the norm, yet you make the US and UK the judge of that. That's a clear contradiction.

Kris

[Gnomey]

If they have found WMD in Iraq the WMD theory wasn't wrong. Sure there weren't the numbers we were led to believe but there were still there (I believe the rest are under the sand or in Syria but hey what do I know). As Hunter said earlier on Sadaam gave the US/UK the reasons they needed by blocking the UN inspectors rights of access (just like Iran is doing with the IAEA inspectors). If you have nothing to hide then were prevent access it just shows you with a guilty conscious and the Iraq war was the result...

Now on another note I read that North Korea was going to shut down its nuclear reactor (although the US - and me - doubt it --> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6562311.stm).

And on another tangent Iran has purportedly started enriching Uranium gas (only 1300 centrifuges though) so whether Iraq had WMD (which I believe it did) or not it not really the question anymore it is pretty much done and dusted. The big thing now is Iran and what are you going to do (or more accurately what will the Israeli's do) when Iran goes nuclear in the not to distant future...

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iran nuclear operations confirmed

[FLYBOYJ]

I guess the next time we should just allow Iran or North Korea to just go and nuke a neighboring country, then its legitimate to do something.

Reminds me of a line from an old punk rock song "Funky Western Civilization."

"They hung Jesus on a cross; they put a hole in JFK,

They put Hitler in the driver's seat and looked the other way.”