Why you should support what Bush is doing.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Zar

however if a country fights for its independence its most obiviously "unwanted" by that country (thats if we assume the people fighting for the independence are representative of the entire nation)

To an extent; (warning, fairly patronising/racist whatever analogy coming up) however, I lived with my parents for many years. I have chosen to not live with them, but this doesn't mean that me living with my parents was always a bad thing, or it was a zero/negative sum game.

[acropolis]

anyway. When you are a Republican president and you can't get support from Jesse Helms, Bill Buckley, George Will, Antonin Scalia, or basically any other right wing thinker type you've got issues.

[JonnyBGood]

Most guerilla campaigns don't consist of a majority, or anything near that, of the population. Colonialism was clearly going to disappear after WWII because most citizens of western countries didn't a) support the idea and/or b) support the costs.

[Evergreen]

This thread was over when vermillion posted.

[Zar]

qdeath hasnt replied yet. i await some "yeehaaawing"

[JammyJim]

he wont either i suspect.

[JammyJim]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

But wait, there’s more. In the January/February issue of the Atlantic there was an article by James Fallows in which he described how Bush refused to allow any post-war planning for Iraq prior to the invasion, because he felt the conclusions would be anti-war.

“Because detailed thought about the postwar situation meant facing costs and potential problems, and thus weakened the case for launching a "war of choice" (the Washington term for a war not waged in immediate self-defense), it could be seen as an "antiwar" undertaking.”

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/01/fallows.htm

Following the war Bush completely and intentionally ignored the few recommendations he had received from his planners, with devastating consequences. I recommend you read the article, it is quite damning. For his ignorance and bullheadedness, Bush even refused to listen to his own advisors, and the situation in Iraq was much worse, as time after time his advisors were proven correct, and he was proven wrong.

I heard that colin powell was shot down during senior level meetings when the state department put forward comprehensive plans for the future of Iraq post-war. As a result of this 'arguing' amongst the inner circles he played a far lesser role in public relations during the invasion and subsequently after it.

I found the name of the guy.

Professor Robert Gilpin gave the lecture.


"EH Carr Memorial Lecture Series
For 2003 the Department is delighted to announce that Robert Gilpin, Dwight D. Eisenhower Professor of International Affairs (Emeritus) at the Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University, Princeton NJ, will deliver the 18th EH Carr Memorial Lecture.

'A Critique of President Bush's Foreign Policy'
Thursday 16 October 7.00pm Old Hall, Old College

"

dont know if youve heard of him but he seemed well informed.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

3) Saddam Hussein is a very, very bad man.

This one is not arguable, Hussein was a very bad man. We have found mass graves containing an unknown number of people, high estimates go up to 300,000. Though that may be an exaggeration, it still gives a scale to his monstrosity. Well, the US had to put an end to his murdering, right?

Oh, but wait, who is in these mass graves? Political opponents, spies, and Kurds. Almost all Kurds.

"Almost all Kurds" is a bit of an exaggeration. Saddam killed anywhere between 10s and 100s of thousands of Shias--it's doubtful that anyone will ever know for sure--during the Shia uprising in 1991.

In any case, why don't Kurds count?

Hussein waged a massive campaign against Kurdish insurgents and rebels, and killed an awful lot of them.

But when did he do this? Hussein filled most of these graves in the mid 1980s, almost none of these mass graves are less than 15 years old.

Again, the Shia uprising occurred in 1991, as did Saddam's most recent campaign against the Kurds. You may remember them as they prompted the establishment of the northern and southern "no-fly" zones.

You may recall, back in the mid 1980s was when the US was busy selling weapons and supplies to their good buddy Saddam Hussein.

What weapons did we sell to Saddam? Please be specific.

And by weapons I mean actual weapons, not dual-use items (e.g., civilian helicopters which may, or may not, have subsequently been modified by the Iraqis for military use or at least carried military personnel); US weapons that were sold to other countries and then resold to Iraq (unless you also have proof this was done with US knowledge or consent); intelligence information, etc.

Of course, we shouldn't have sold anything to Iraq, but this was still during the cold war and such dealings were common (the Soviets had invaded Afghanistan, Iran had gone from close US ally to loose cannon, and it looked like the entire region was teetering on the brink. Saddam undoubtably looked like the best card in a bad hand.)

So in fact, most of these massacres happened under the watch of the US of A. And its not like we didn’t know about it, his use of Mustard gas against the Kurds was very well publicised, we knew all along how bad he was, and the US sold him weapons during the worst excesses of his regime.

Again, what weapons?

And the US being friendly with Iraq does not excuse Saddam's atrocities one iota. And if you think the US should share some of the blame because we sold him some dual-use equipment, then what of the countries what sold him actual military (single-use) hardware? What of the countries that sold him MiG and Mirage fighter planes, T-72 tanks, Exocet missiles, and Kalashnikov rifles? Why do they get a free pass?

Not only that, but in 1991, following the Gulf war, the US made the conscious decision to LEAVE Hussein in power, so apparently they did not think he was such a ‘very, very bad man’ then.

You may recall that the UN Security Council resolution, under which the coalition forces were operating, only authorized removing Iraqi troops from Kuwait--not deposing Saddam. I wish we had deposed Saddam in 1991 (as, no doubt, do the remaining relatives of the of Shia and Kurdish Iraqis who were subsequently killed--even if you don't want to count them), but this is yet another example of the damned if you do/damned if you don't mindset. We get criticized when we follow UN resolutions to the letter and criticized when we don't. :/

So what happened since? What is the history of Iraq since the Gulf war ver 1.0?

Hussein normalised relations with his neighbours and built trade.

Trade? What trade? Iraq was subject to increasingly strict UN embargos since 1990. Unless by "built trade" you mean "established smuggling routes to bypass UN sanctions and bribed UN officials with oil-for-food money."

He apologised to Kuwait, who opened their embassy again. He normalised relations with Iran for the first time in 20 years.

Iraq's apology to Kuwait came rather late in the game--in 2002, when the noose was already tightening. As for Iran, relations have hardly been normalized. They have still not signed a peace treaty nor opened embassies.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

but this was still during the cold war and such dealings were common

Oh, that's OK then.

And if you think the US should share some of the blame because we sold him some dual-use equipment, then what of the countries what sold him actual military (single-use) hardware? What of the countries that sold him MiG and Mirage fighter planes, T-72 tanks, Exocet missiles, and Kalashnikov rifles? Why do they get a free pass?

What "free pass"? What are you talking about? This is a thread about why we should support the US invasion of Iraq (and related actions). Condemning the French in the middle of it would be rather off-topic, no?

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Oh, that's OK then.

Well, understandable anyway. :/

As I said, I wouldn't have sold him anything.

What "free pass"? What are you talking about? This is a thread about why we should support the US invasion of Iraq (and related actions). Condemning the French in the middle of it would be rather off-topic, no?

Condemning the French is never off-topic!

But to answer your question, I was responding to Vermillion's point, which seemed to be that Saddam was only bad when/because the US was supporting him. My response was that Saddam was always bad, and in any case, we weren't the only ones supporting him (and not the major supporter).

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

And away we go...

As a precursor to my -ambitious - reply,

Please stop treating others like an annoying crust of dirt that clings to your rather superior shoe. It is hard to respect an obviously intelligent and informed post when it's author appears to be downright disrepectful of any other view but his own.

#1 - On links to terrorism:

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/artic...?articleid=446

Yes, it's seems to be a government sponsered initiative - but read it anyway. It contradicts some of your points.

#2 -On WMD

To clarify - I realise that no WMD have been found, and admit that one must assume a mistake has been made somwhere.

However, I must take a moment to question your infaliiblity:

Will you concede that there is intelligence that is availiable to leaders of nations, and not to the general public, and that this is necessary? If so, why do you insist so emphatically that foul-play is somehow intrinsically involved in the Iraq affair?

If a mistake has been made, why should it not have been an honest mistake? Is it more likely that Iraq was attacked on the whim of a slighly maniacal, wholly foolish, power-grabbing Texan who fancied risking many lives because of an inferiority complex? Is it?

I do not pretend to address all the concerns you raised (mostly because they seem quite valid), but, frankly, your post reeks of Michael Moore. I refuse to believe that Bush has replaced money as the root of all evil - and I refuse to bow bandy-legged to popular opinion, and snobbishly poke fun at him.
Bush must be the most audacious 'simpleton' in all of history. He's managed to dupe an awful lot of people into following him into this war. There aren't many people that argue Tony Blair is a simpleton, for intstance, because he isn't.

[Vermillion]

[quote=Tactitus]"Almost all Kurds" is a bit of an exaggeration. Saddam killed anywhere between 10s and 100s of thousands of Shias--it's doubtful that anyone will ever know for sure--during the Shia uprising in 1991.

In any case, why don't Kurds count?
[quote]

Indeed, though hundreds of thousands of thousand is higher than I have ever heard, none the less he certainly did kill many of these insurgents. However of the Mass graves that hve been found so far the vast majority have been old Kurdish mass graves.

I have absolutely no idea where you inferred from any of my statements that Kurds somehow do not count.

What weapons did we sell to Saddam? Please be specific.

How's this for specific? The following are 24 US companies identified by the UN Iraq weapons dossier report as having done military business with Iraq between 1980 and 1991. The report also lists companies from several other countries, but these are from the US in particular:

A = nuclear program,
B = bioweapons program,
C = chemical weapons program,
R = rocket program,
K = conventional weapons, military logistics, supplies at the Iraqi Defense Ministry and the building of military plants.

U.S. CORPORATIONS:

1 Honeywell (R, K)
2 Spectra Physics (K)
3 Semetex (R)
4 TI Coating (A, K)
5 Unisys (A, K)
6 Sperry Corp. (R, K)
7 Tektronix (R, A)
8 Rockwell (K)
9 Leybold Vacuum Systems (A)
10 Finnigan-MAT-US (A)
11 Hewlett-Packard (A, R, K)
12 Dupont (A) 13 Eastman Kodak (R)
14 American Type Culture Collection (B)
15 Alcolac International (C)
16 Consarc (A)
17 Carl Zeiss - U.S (K)
18 Cerberus (LTD) (A)
19 Electronic Associates (R)
20 International Computer Systems (A, R, K)
21 Bechtel (K)
22 EZ Logic Data Systems, Inc. (R)
23 Canberra Industries Inc. (A)
24 Axel Electronics Inc. (A)

And the US being friendly with Iraq does not excuse Saddam's atrocities one iota.

Nor should it. In fact, that was my WHOLE POINT. Saddam was being an evil bastard back then, I just find it odd that when he was at is worst the US was trading with him and supporting him. Yet 15 years later, when his behaviour is (comparatively) far better, suddenly the Us 'realises' he is a bad man and invades. My point was in direct rebuttal to those who justify the Iraq invasion because Hussein was a bad man.

What of the countries that sold him MiG and Mirage fighter planes, T-72 tanks, Exocet missiles, and Kalashnikov rifles? Why do they get a free pass?

Please go back and read my post. I know its long, but if you read it it would make yur responses more intelligible. I know full well other nations supplied Iraq, more than the US did in fact. That also has no bearing whatsoever on the argument. For what its worth however, I quite agree with you, those natons primarily France and Russia also deserve condemnation for their supplying of weapons to Iraq.

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by Boogster

Please stop treating others like an annoying crust of dirt that clings to your rather superior shoe. It is hard to respect an obviously intelligent and informed post when it's author appears to be downright disrepectful of any other view but his own.

Hardly. I am disrespectful of QDeathStar's view because his view deserves no respect. As it was only to him I was referring you are quite baseless in extrapolating that to presume to know my opinions of anyone else here. I may be assuming, and if so I apologise, but as I do not know your name I would assume you are relatively new, or at least have not encountered my posts before. Trust me, I am a brimming fountain of respect to all those who deserve it.

However, I must take a moment to question your infaliiblity:

Will you concede that there is intelligence that is availiable to leaders of nations, and not to the general public, and that this is necessary? If so, why do you insist so emphatically that foul-play is somehow intrinsically involved in the Iraq affair?

If a mistake has been made, why should it not have been an honest mistake? Is it more likely that Iraq was attacked on the whim of a slighly maniacal, wholly foolish, power-grabbing Texan who fancied risking many lives because of an inferiority complex? Is it?

I do not pretend to address all the concerns you raised (mostly because they seem quite valid), but, frankly, your post reeks of Michael Moore. I refuse to believe that Bush has replaced money as the root of all evil - and I refuse to bow bandy-legged to popular opinion, and snobbishly poke fun at him.
Bush must be the most audacious 'simpleton' in all of history. He's managed to dupe an awful lot of people into following him into this war. There aren't many people that argue Tony Blair is a simpleton, for intstance, because he isn't.

Its hardly an issue of my infallability.

Firstly, for what its worth, yes there is a great deal of information the general citizen does not have access to. I DO have access to a significant proportion of that myself, but certainly not all.

You ask: could it have been an honest mistake? I answer, does that make it any better?

An honest mistake is when you err dispite your best intentions. When you are going to war, the standard of proof should be almost impossibly high. There should be no question at all before you commit the forces of your country to fight and die while killing the forces and civilians of another country. It is true that other leaders ALSO thought Iraq had WMD, such as Clinton, but dispite his suspicions, Clinton never invaded Iraq based on them.

If it ws an 'honest mistake', then why did Bush insist upon unfettered inspections, then invade before they could do their job, dispite please from the chief inspector for more time? If it was an honest mistake, then why does Bush still stick to the story of WMD? Why was the majority of the rest of the world NOT duped by this 'honest mistake'?

Saying my post 'reeks of Michael Moore' is pure rhetoric, in particular when you also state openly that you think my points are valid. Is Bush the root of all evil? No, nor did I infer such. But has Bush acted in what can classically be called an evil manner? The evidence would suggest yes. I do not think Iraq was attacked on a whim, another assumption, I'm sure he had a solid plan. I just think his plan, and the justifications he gave to the people of his country and the world, are completely different.

Lastly, I can only assume you are not English, because before you say 'nobody think Blair is a simpleton' you should read some English nespapers. There he is referred to by many as not only a simpleton, but a puppet, and his popularity has suffered even more than Bush's has.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

How's this for specific? The following are 24 US companies identified by the UN Iraq weapons dossier report as having done military business with Iraq between 1980 and 1991. The report also lists companies from several other countries, but these are from the US in particular:

A = nuclear program,
B = bioweapons program,
C = chemical weapons program,
R = rocket program,
K = conventional weapons, military logistics, supplies at the Iraqi Defense Ministry and the building of military plants.

U.S. CORPORATIONS:

1 Honeywell (R, K)
2 Spectra Physics (K)
3 Semetex (R)
4 TI Coating (A, K)
5 Unisys (A, K)
6 Sperry Corp. (R, K)
7 Tektronix (R, A)
8 Rockwell (K)
9 Leybold Vacuum Systems (A)
10 Finnigan-MAT-US (A)
11 Hewlett-Packard (A, R, K)
12 Dupont (A) 13 Eastman Kodak (R)
14 American Type Culture Collection (B)
15 Alcolac International (C)
16 Consarc (A)
17 Carl Zeiss - U.S (K)
18 Cerberus (LTD) (A)
19 Electronic Associates (R)
20 International Computer Systems (A, R, K)
21 Bechtel (K)
22 EZ Logic Data Systems, Inc. (R)
23 Canberra Industries Inc. (A)
24 Axel Electronics Inc. (A)

No, this is not specific; it's just a list of companies and programs. It doesn't identify any weapons at all. Carl Zeiss, for example, makes optical equipment, primarily microscopes. They allegedly sold about $100K worth of microcomputers to Iraq for use with a Zeiss planicomp system in map work, measurements and calculations of photographic data (apparently a system to digitize aerial photographs). I'm sorry, but that's not a weapon. It might have some military application, but this is just another example of dual use equipment.

Also, for what it's worth, Carl Zeiss says they only sold microscopes and medical products to Iraq:

http://www.zeiss.com/41256AFB004A4E2...F?OpenDocument



So I ask again: what weapons did the US sell to Iraq?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Boogster

Will you concede that there is intelligence that is availiable to leaders of nations, and not to the general public, and that this is necessary? If so, why do you insist so emphatically that foul-play is somehow intrinsically involved in the Iraq affair?

I'm sorry, but this is an awful argument. It was one that was used at the time by our leaders ("We've seen evidence, you haven't, trust us!"). Show us the evidence now then. Prior to the war there was always the possibility that the UK & US had people on the inside (of the Iraqi regime) who might have been in danger if we had made information public. No such justification for secrecy exists anymore.

I'd be a lot more willing to accept an "honest mistake" had taken place if the government had not been challenged prior to the invasion. Even people on this forum were saying "You are not going to find any serious amount of WMD in Iraq" for Christ's sake.

If we're going to accept that they were working off secret evidence, which they can't show anyone ever then they can justify anything. Do you not that sort of bizarrely misplaced trust in the government is a bit dangerous?

Anyway; they are either liars and murderers or they are so grossly incompetent to the point of massive criminal negligence. Either way, if this was anything but the state they'd be facing some very serious charges.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I'm sorry, but this is an awful argument. It was one that was used at the time by our leaders ("We've seen evidence, you haven't, trust us!"). Show us the evidence now then. Prior to the war there was always the possibility that the UK & US had people on the inside (of the Iraqi regime) who might have been in danger if we had made information public. No such justification for secrecy exists anymore.

No, probably not. Of course there could be people inside other governments who provided information about secret WMD deals with Iraq, but that doesn't seem all that likely at this point.

I'd be a lot more willing to accept an "honest mistake" had taken place if the government had not been challenged prior to the invasion. Even people on this forum were saying "You are not going to find any serious amount of WMD in Iraq" for Christ's sake.

But you can always find "experts" who will challenge anything that the government wants to do. Whether that says more about the experts or the government I'll leave as an exercise for the reader.

I tend to lean towards the (honest) mistake theory myself. If it was a lie, then it was perpetrated at so many levels. For example, my neighbor is an officer in the 704th Chemical Company (Recon) reserve unit and they deployed to Iraq fully expecting to be living in the middle of their worst chemical/biological nightmare. Of course, it's possible the government lied to the military too, but that's getting just a bit too Machiavellian for my tastes. And of course, one of my favorite adages:

Never attribute to malice what can be explained through simple incompetence.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

I tend to lean towards the (honest) mistake theory myself.

Perhaps. As I say, if so there is a serious consideration on issues of criminal negligence with regards to their actions (if nothing else).

If it was a lie, then it was perpetrated at so many levels.

Hmmm, I'm not sure "lying" is the correct term here. Lying seems rather rare, and generally unintentional in a lot of cases. Of course, the intelligence services do explicitly lie at times, that's in their remit, but I'm not sure if they do so on a regular basis to other government agencies.

But even if it was an explicit lie it wouldn't require a lie on a lot of levels. No-one has the time or resources to verify every report they receive. If someone in my work advises me that x or y incident has happened on one of our estates, I generally will believe them, especially if it confirms my own ideological beliefs. I'll then repeat it to someone else. Even if the original information was incorrect I am not lying, I am working on good faith. Eventually it get's repeated so many times it's part of the scenery. The origin of the story is unclear and when it's eventually debunked it's seen as an honest mistake. It would only take a relatively small number of people (in an organisation like the military where you need to have faith in certain resources) to consciously lie, everyone else would just need to go along with it.

In this case, I think it's more a case of ideological "filtering". There's always some scope for interpretation on any set of evidence, and people tend to interpret things to fulfill their world view. The world-view of most people in the defence department (and co) is that America needs to be strong, that their enemies are stronger than we think, that most people who are anti-war are unamerican, etc, etc (obviously I'm generalising here). They are going to over-state most external threats, just as they did with the Soviet Union.

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by Tactitus
No, this is not specific; it's just a list of companies and programs. It doesn't identify any weapons at all. Carl Zeiss, for example, makes optical equipment, primarily microscopes. They allegedly sold about $100K worth of microcomputers to Iraq for use with a Zeiss planicomp system in map work, measurements and calculations of photographic data (apparently a system to digitize aerial photographs). I'm sorry, but that's not a weapon. It might have some military application, but this is just another example of dual use equipment.

Perhaps you missed the part where this UN report was an analysis of Companies which had done military business with Iraq between 1980 and 1991. Clearly these companies sold weapons, weapons components or military technology to Iraq, or they would not have been listed here. If you wish to challenge the veracity of the report, you can of course feel free to do so, but in my mind that would take more than one of the named companies shouting "No we didn't!"

I have no idea what specific products these companies sold, I know in the most cases it was military electronics such as communications, security and privacy and navigation equipment. I know in 1984 a series of small arms, mostly pistols and revolvers were sold to Iraq. 60 Defender helicopters sold in 1982 is also well known. Then of course the US Department of Commerce licensed 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax, and in 1986 the US Department of Commerce approved shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. Then there is all the 'dual use' technology you dismiss, such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application, and chemicals which can be used to produce chemical weapons.

Is the specific enough?


Oh, and by the way, while we are on the issue of the justification of invasion based on Iraq being a supporter of terror and a generally bad man, consider this.

In 1982, despite objections from congress, President Reagan removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries. Furthermore, in March 1986, the UN security council tried to pass a resolution condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iraqn. Guess which nation blocked the resolution, and then later that same year was the only country refusing to sign a Security Council to the same effect?

Thats right, the US. back then, when Hussein was using WMD and murdering his own people wholesale, apparently the US was not quite as concerned, going so far as to actively BLOCK condemnation of these acts by the UN.

[Nodrog]

I'm not convinced that US based companies trading with Iraq even counts as the "US supplying Iraq with weapons". The quoted claim seems to imply that the government was involved on some level.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

Perhaps you missed the part where this UN report was an analysis of Companies which had done military business with Iraq between 1980 and 1991. Clearly these companies sold weapons, weapons components or military technology to Iraq, or they would not have been listed here. If you wish to challenge the veracity of the report, you can of course feel free to do so, but in my mind that would take more than one of the named companies shouting "No we didn't!"

It's not simply that Carl Zeiss claims they didn't sell weapons to Iraq, but what they are commonly accused of selling isn't a weapon by any stretch of the imagination.

I have no idea what specific products these companies sold,

So you have no idea of any of these products are weapons or not?

I know in the most cases it was military electronics such as communications, security and privacy and navigation equipment. I know in 1984 a series of small arms, mostly pistols and revolvers were sold to Iraq. 60 Defender helicopters sold in 1982 is also well known.

These were the civilian version of the Defender. This must be even more well know since the manufacturer of those helicopters (Hughes--before they were bought out by McDonnel-Douglas) doesn't appear on your "UN Iraq weapons dossier report" of US companies doing "military business" with Iraq.

Then of course the US Department of Commerce licensed 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax, and in 1986 the US Department of Commerce approved shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. Then there is all the 'dual use' technology you dismiss,

I'm not dismissing it; I just think it's intellectually dishonest to call something a weapon if it isn't. I don't approve of the sale of dual use items to Iraq either; but I don't see any point in calling them weapons (unless maybe you're Michael Moore).

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I'm not convinced that US based companies trading with Iraq even counts as the "US supplying Iraq with weapons". The quoted claim seems to imply that the government was involved on some level.

Almost all weapons and some high technology items require a US government issued license for export. If US companies did sell any weapons to Iraq then the US government would had to have approved them (unless they were sold--or re-sold--illegally).

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

It's not simply that Carl Zeiss claims they didn't sell weapons to Iraq, but what they are commonly accused of selling isn't a weapon by any stretch of the imagination.

Again, according to Carl Zeiss. The UN report seems to have a different opinion.

I'm not dismissing it; I just think it's intellectually dishonest to call something a weapon if it isn't.

That argument works the other way as well of course, they are called Dual use for a reason, and one of those uses is military. Perhaps there should be a seperate category for them, but you cannot exactly say they are NOT weapons either...

And the botulin and anthrax? How exactly are they justified away? How can the US use chemical weapons as a justification for invasion when the US sold them those biological materiels?

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

I like the fact that Verm and Tactitus have turned it round so that the US side are arguing that it's intellectually dishonest to call something a weapon if it isn't, and Verm is insisting that 'there were bloody well weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and here's the documentary evidence.'

Thats somewhat disingenuous.

I have always argued there were at one point WMD in Iraq. At ONE point.

We know at one point he used first generation chemical weapons on Kurds and on Iran (the US opposed a security council motion condemning this)

We know at one point he had an active biological weapons program. (The US sold him the necessary biological specemins)

We know at one point he had an active nuclear program, before 1981 when Israeli jets destroyed their French built reactor, which was never rebuilt. Efforts to use the limited reactor fuel as a potential weaponnwere halted in 1991 when these facilities were destroyed by intense coalition bombing, bombing which according to the DIA destroyed all nuclear research facility in Iraq.

The question is did Iraq have a WMD program active SINCE the Iraq war Ver 1.0 in 1991. The answer to that is fairly clearly no.

[JonnyBGood]

I think it was a joke you humourless old man.

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I think it was a joke you humourless old man.

(sobbing)

It's true, It's true...