Iraq WMD Logic

[charlietwo]

While in an international relations class, the instructor mentioned the lack of WMD's in Iraq, and another student asked rhetorically, "Wasn't that the only reason we went into Iraq?" Amidst the laughter from the rest of the class, I chimed in to say that Saddam was actively pursuing nuclear, and chemical weapons. The vast majority of the class scoffed at me like I was a fool, and one student confronted me at the end of a break with the standard line of "Bush falsified intelligence for oil." The discussion rapidly became a stalemate, as neither of us had any evidence to support either claim being made. I knew the stories of pre-war smuggling to Syria, yellow cake caches, and an abundance of chemical weapons, but I didn't feel strong enough to argue with the faint knowledge I had.

My question that I would like to pose to you all, what would the conservative leadership gain from keeping new WMD information under wraps? My best assumption is to prevent an overt accusation at Syria to prevent more hostilities.

Thoughts anyone?

[uscav_scout]

You are not alone!

I know how you feel, being a political science major at a liberal university, where most of the students life experiences come from MTV, or daddy's credit card. It is incredibly frustrating to have a serious discussion with most students because they like to tell me "how it really is" based upon what Big Media told them, and when they see the haircut, and no nonsense realist perspective they assume I am a ROTC cadet..... not a good foundation for a successful discussion based classroom environment.

I would comment on your question, but I'll save that for tomorrow, for I need my sleep, I need to be my two year old cousin's superhero tomorrow (on top of studying, working out and prepping for a year in A-stan).

I see you are in Illinois as well, I was attending school in the Orange Republic (as of last semester). Where are you located?

Best of luck, with school and you time in the ILARNG. It is nice to know I am not the only one dealing with this type of shit.

[Moving Target]

I usually just counter with "If all that is true, isn't it our responsibility to stay and make things work, you know, to take responsibility for our actions? You can't change the fact that we've already invaded."

Usually shuts 'em up, or at least makes them think for a moment.

[SF_BHT]

I usually just counter with "If all that is true, isn't it our responsibility to stay and make things work, you know, to take responsibility for our actions? You can't change the fact that we've already invaded."

Usually shuts 'em up, or at least makes them think for a moment.

That is good I will probally use it with some State Department tree huggers today.:eek:

[cornelyj]

Surprisingly I too have had similar bouts with hippies who think the world revolves around them. Personally I would just listen to everything they have to say and retort with "have a nice day", go on your marry way knowing they are a hippy.

Moving target your silly. Hippies don't think!:munchin

[dennisw]

If the liberals are really objective and want to understand the reasons, etc. for us going into Iraq, I would suggest they read War and Decisions by the under secretary of defense, Douglas J. Feith. It's an interesting read, as most of the content has gone unnoticed in the media because there has been no reporting on it. The liberals want to focus on WMD and the fact that Bin Laden has not been captured. This focus has allowed them to ignore all other aspects of Iraq/Afghanistan adventure.

They also ignore the dismantling of the CIA which occured under the Clinton's watch.

Lastly, they completely ignore the efforts to get Saddam to change his policies etc. They cherry pick reality. In mid December 1998 Representative Nancy Pelosi made the following statement: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Also in 1998, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 was passed 360 to 38 by a bipartisan congress and unanimously by the senate. However, this little bit of history is conveniently ignored and forgotten by the media and liberals.

What changed in the World to alter their opinion? Did Saddam become warm and cuddly? Saddam was still the same bad camper. The liberals ignore any part of reality that does not support their narrowly created view.

[HOLLiS]

If it is mentioned constantly, does it become fact? One can easily "Google" the UN resolution to take out Saddam. There was 12 (?) reasons not one.

One can also "Google" the previous administration's and leading Democrats on this topic.

Such as:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998


"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998


"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998


"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998


"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998


"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999


"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001


"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002


"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002


"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002


"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002


"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002


"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002


"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002


"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

[CDRODA396]

Consider this....if there are scientists still out there that we havent rolled up, that were working on the development of various WMD's, and we go broadcasting throughout the press that we found they were 90% along with the development of such-and-such,....are we confirming to that assclown how close he was...and if so, does he go back to work, now knowing for sure where he was and what is left, and turns his new product over to the Insurgents?

Not worth confirming the unknown and letting it go...I dont think you'll ever hear what was or was not actually found.

[HOLLiS]

Consider this....if there are scientists still out there that we havent rolled up, that were working on the development of various WMD's, and we go broadcasting throughout the press that we found they were 90% along with the development of such-and-such,....are we confirming to that assclown how close he was...and if so, does he go back to work, now knowing for sure where he was and what is left, and turns his new product over to the Insurgents?

Not worth confirming the unknown and letting it go...I dont think you'll ever hear what was or was not actually found.

I think the other aspect of this that gets ignore, what was Saddam doing/saying? Something to keep in mind, pre-invasions some Iraqi generals were later reportedly working out a deal with the US/providing information.

From what I read, Saddam wanted to US to believe he had them. He anticipated a campaign similar to A-stan. There would be at least a 30 day air campaign to soften targets and during that time, Saddam would make it look like a slaughter of the Iraqi people and use his allies to broker a cease fire. The global out cry about the slaughter would probably cause the UN to cease any action against Iraq.

If we go back to the invasion, one of the interesting aspects was the Iraqi Army was not set up to fight. We were over outrunning our supply lines. That seems to support the notion that Saddam had other plans.

[jw74]

"While in an international relations class..."

I'm in my last semester in an International Security program and this thread just made me sigh because I relate to it all too well. We look at the fall of the Berlin Wall as evidence of our victory in the Cold War yet our entire state-run education system is overwhelmingly controlled by open socialist/communist professors. They are the gate keepers that re-educate any kids that may have not been properly indoctrinated in high school. Stay Strong in your beliefs Charlie Two. if your Prof's are anything like mine, they will not appreciate voices of dissent but f@#k em do your own research (as you are) and speak out anyway. Just don't expect the grade you merit.

[afchic]

As some of the rest of you, I am in a program right now with a heavy emphasis on IR. Fortunately for me, it is at the Naval Postgraduate School and we have some awesome professors.

In my Information in the Warfare age class with Prof John Arquilla he posed this question, which is the same he posed to the administration prior to the buildup for OIF, and was quietly asked to stop attending planning meetings because of it. What if we leave WMD off the table? Why not convince the American and International Community that we are doing this for the myriad of other reasons stated above?

His further question to us, was would it have changed the course of the war, and would we have had more leverage within the international community?

My answer to him was I believe it would have been a very tough sell to the American people, but I believe it could have been done. HIs thoughts back were he agreed and we could have done it without having to worry about the media beating us about the head and shoulders about not finding the WMDs. If we found some while we were there, great, it would only strengthen our reasons. If not, it isn't an albatross hanging around our neck.

If you want an interesting perspective on the lead up to the war, I urge you to read "Rumsfeld's War" I can't remember the name of the author right off the top of my head, but he is a registered republican and a self proclaimed right wing conservative. He pretty much pulverizes Rumsfeld, Wolofowitz and Feith.

[Richard]

Here are a few items which may help your arguments:

What Does Disarmament Look Like?
The White House
Washington, DC
January 23, 2003

http://www.state.gov/t/isn/rls/other/16820.htm

A Decade of Deception and Defiance

White House Background Paper on Iraq
September 12, 2002

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/13456.htm

2001-2003 FAQ Sheets on Iraq

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/ci/c8787.htm

Gutes lesen!

Richard :munchin

[Surf n Turf]

Not worth confirming the unknown and letting it go...I dont think you'll ever hear what was or was not actually found.

CDRODA396,
I think that about says it all
SnT

[Ambush Master]

Try 550 Metric Tons of Concentrated Yellow Cake Uranium removed just this past July!!! The MSM sure kept this quietly tucked away!!!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/

[Richard]

Try 550 Metric Tons of Concentrated Yellow Cake Uranium removed just this past July!!! The MSM sure kept this quietly tucked away!!!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/

GOOD ONE! But I prefer a pineapple upside down cake myself...which is probably why I would never make a good tin pot dictator. :p

Richard :munchin

[Sigaba]

As someone with a modest knowledge of American history, I find the arguments against America's invasion of Iraq curious.

The argument that President Bush is a maverick who threw out all the rules in his rush to invade Iraq overlooks that his approach to Iraq was in line with his predecessors. First, as Hollis's post amply illustrates, the Bush administration's policy towards Iraq and its WMD program was a continuation of Clinton's--a point that is conveniently forgotten in the on-going debate over OIF.

Second, Bush's national security policy is a continuation of the Clinton administration's determination to maintain a preponderance of power. In turn, the desire to keep America more powerful than anyone else finds its roots in the post-World War II policy of the Truman administration.

Third, as documented by the Iraqi Perspectives Project here (http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2006/ipp.pdf), Saddam's WMD program was a pillar of his domestic political power. If one considers the fact that Saddam feared rebellion from within above all else, it stands to reason that he could not let his supporters know that his big stick was a sham--had he done so, many would have had second thoughts of the sacrifices they'd made on his behalf.

Many of his own supporters believed Saddam had WMDs as late as December 2002, and some, even beyond that date. Is it not possible that the only way that his programs could have been proved to be shadows of their former selves was through the type of inspections that Saddam could never have allowed?

Fourth, and a point that I wish the president had done more to communicate, is the fact that Saddam drew inspiration from both Hitler and Stalin: surely the two greatest enemies America has ever had. In my view, such an affinity for tyranny goes beyond differing value systems and political beliefs. To me, a leader of a sovereign state who holds these views, has repeatedly demonstrated a capacity for aggression, and is in defiant breach of agreements he signed with his own hand should not be taken lightly.

Finally, and this point is more rhetorical point than historical, one could make an argument that America has rarely entered a war for the 'right' reasons. But it would be even harder to argue that America has entered the wrong side of a conflict. Aristotle argued that doing the right thing required the right motivation. However, I wonder if a president's decision to fight the right war for the so-called 'wrong' reasons is sometimes better than deciding not to fight at all?

[Surf n Turf]

one could make an argument that America has rarely entered a war for the 'right' reasons.

Sigaba,

WHAT ?????

SnT

[Sigaba]

SnT,

I'm referring to debates among historians over the reasons why America went to war. These debates focus on the configuration of ideological, political, diplomatic, economic, and cultural issues. In some cases, such as the causes of the War of 1812, the debate is interesting only to academics. In others, such as Vietnam and OIF, the debate is more of a political brawl.

Please let me state clearly that I am merely reporting that there are long running conversations among scholars. Some choose to make political arguments unsupported by archival evidence and impervious to different interpretations while others use archival evidence to support their points of view and to advance the discussion.

Sigaba,

WHAT ?????

SnT

[anythingrandom]

Hello -

Try the book "Demon in the Freezer" by Richard Preston. He details the weapons inspectors' trials in Iraq, where they discovered Soviet bioreactors. The serial numbers on the chambers matched those seen by earlier inspectors of the Soviet era. The bioreactors were used by the Soviets to engineer and manufacture smallpox, Saddam's scientists could have used them for the same purpose. (Doubtless, IMO)

If I remember correctly, they claimed to be working on camelpox, for research only. I'd give page numbers, but my copy is loaned to a coworker who made the mistake of wearing a "No More Blood For Oil" shirt while I was present.

Hope this helps.

ATR

[The antihero]

However, I wonder if a president's decision to fight the right war for the so-called 'wrong' reasons is sometimes better than deciding not to fight at all?

The French philosopher André Glucksmann made a similar point in a private encounter with french Prime Minister DeVillepin trying to convince him to stand next to G.W. Bush in the incoming war. He quoted Pascal saying "if we cannot make strong what is right, we must make right what is strong". DeVillepin chose not to listen and actually in an interview a few weeks later mentioned Pascal's quote like what NOT to do.

The episode is quoted in Glucksmann's pamphlet "West Against West".

[charlietwo]

Thanks for the input everyone. Very strong thread going here. Also, thanks for all the ammunition :D Looking forward to getting back to my firefight.

"Not worth confirming the unknown and letting it go...I dont think you'll ever hear what was or was not actually found." - Very strong point. I was considering going back and conceding that neither of us could prove that WMD's were or were not present, which would allow us to argue the true merits of the invasion. Unfortunately, this is only a once a week class which lasts for 3 hours.

Not for a moment had I considered backing down from this fight, or future fights. This is exactly why I took International Relations :) The professor managed to lose all sense of objectivity about 15 minutes into his lecture, which he refers to as a discussion. Our discussions are the verbal equivalent of a fill in the blank questionaire. Professor asks leading questions to which the sheep can usually reply to quite easily. I think there's only one person in the class who has an idea of what's going on in the world, and he's quite liberal. I look forward to mixing it up with him.

Again, thanks for all the help!

[charlietwo]

Try 550 Metric Tons of Concentrated Yellow Cake Uranium removed just this past July!!! The MSM sure kept this quietly tucked away!!!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/

This was actually the first argument I made, and it was naturally dismissed by my opponent. When I got home and researched it a bit more I found this part of the article, "Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said." While to conservatives and others with a fraction of intelligence, this should be irrelevant. The fact that someone like Hussein had a large abundance of raw uranium should be of concern, but I doubt I could win any argument using this as my centerpiece.