quote:Originally posted by Veers: "Oh, it was Saddam's job to give the inspectors his WMDs when they came" are just looking for excuses, because he could not have done that because he did not have the weapons.
In that case, it was Saddam's job to give the inspectors enough evidence (paperwork, etc.) for them to verify that. Governments keep records. Dictatorships even moreso. Where are the records?
quote:And, on another note, it seems that there is much speculation about whether those "mobile chemical lab trailers" or whatever were what they are said to be. So, if that is the case and they were not weapons trailers, then our administration has been lying to us AGAIN for the past several days.
Please cite a credible speculator. This does not include pundits or journalists or cousin Fred. It might include weapons specialists and/or inspectors, but I haven't heard much from them about the trailers lately. The pool of potential speculators is not so big.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
I think, too, that David Kay (a former UN inspector) on NBC also questioned the legitimacy of Bush's claims on the trailer's use, but I can't be sure that he did.
No comments about the New York Times, please, because the article this references was not written by Jayson Blair (Bliar), so we can assume the writers did not make it up. However, we probably cannot believe the Iraqi scientists' claims that this truck made hydrogen for weather balloons...
"1980's: We haten the Iranians more. They hated us more, too. The Iraqis hated the Iranians. They also hated the Communists. This made their leadership seem slightly less evil than the rest of the Middle East."
So, really, how "evil" a government is has nothing to do w/ how it treats its citizens or anything like that. It's simply based upon how many points of international contention they agree with us on?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I think it's also safe to assume that it wasn't written by Rick Bragg (that's the other Times writer who got caught - we don't know how many haven't yet) either.
Nevertheless, that's pretty thin, if the one 'critic' they could get a quote from hadn't even seen the trucks.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
"1980's: We haten the Iranians more. They hated us more, too. The Iraqis hated the Iranians. They also hated the Communists. This made their leadership seem slightly less evil than the rest of the Middle East."
So, really, how "evil" a government is has nothing to do w/ how it treats its citizens or anything like that. It's simply based upon how many points of international contention they agree with us on?
Welcome to the ugly world of realpolitik and regional alliances. You have two options: Come out and play ball, or hide under the bed.
I don't believe "This Game Will be Nice and Fair" was in the Global Politics RPG Player's Handbook.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Seems the British my have seen these labs before, possibly when they sold them to Hussain. Interesting parts of the article
quote:Questions over the claimed purpose of trailer for making biological weapons include:
� The lack of any trace of pathogens found in the fermentation tanks. According to experts, when weapons inspectors checked tanks in the mid-Nineties that had been scoured to disguise their real use, traces of pathogens were still detectable.
� The use of canvas sides on vehicles where technicians would be working with dangerous germ cultures.
� A shortage of pumps required to create vacuum conditions required for working with germ cultures and other processes usually associated with making biological weapons.
� The lack of an autoclave for steam sterilisation, normally a prerequisite for any kind of biological production. Its lack of availability between production runs would threaten to let in germ contaminants, resulting in failed weapons.
� The lack of any easy way for technicians to remove germ fluids from the processing tank.
One of those expressing severe doubts about the alleged mobile germ labs is Professor Harry Smith, who chairs the Royal Society's working party on biological weapons.
He told The Observer 'I am concerned about the canvas sides. Ideally, you would want airtight facilities for making something like anthrax. Not only that, it is a very resistant organism and even if the Iraqis cleaned the equipment, I would still expect to find some trace of it.'
His view is shared by the working group of the Federation of American Scientists and by the CIA, which states: 'Senior Iraqi officials of the al-Kindi Research, Testing, Development, and Engineering facility in Mosul were shown pictures of the mobile production trailers, and they claimed that the trailers were used to chemically produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons.'
Artillery balloons are essentially balloons that are sent up into the atmosphere and relay information on wind direction and speed allowing more accurate artillery fire. Crucially, these systems need to be mobile.
The Observer has discovered that not only did the Iraq military have such a system at one time, but that it was actually sold to them by the British. In 1987 Marconi, now known as AMS, sold the Iraqi army an Artillery Meteorological System or Amets for short
-------------------- "and none of your usual boobery." M. Burns
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:On Sunday, Condoleezza Rice admitted that President Bush had used a forged document in his State of the Union speech to prove Iraq represented a nuclear threat: "We did not know at the time � maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency � but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery. Of course it was information that was mistaken."
quote:President Bush said Monday he is "absolutely convinced" that the United States will find proof that Iraq had an illegal weapons program, but he stopped short of saying that actual biological or chemical agents will be uncovered.
Bush's comments were among the most forceful he has made on the subject since the postwar search for banned weapons began to emerge as a troubling political issue for the White House.
But his remarks were also carefully calibrated, in contrast to categorical statements he and other senior administration officials made before the war asserting Iraq had illegal weapons.
"Iraq had a weapons program," Bush said Monday in a brief exchange with reporters at the White House. "Intelligence throughout the decade showed they had a weapons program. I am absolutely convinced, with time, we'll find out that they did have a weapons program."
The emphasis on the word "program" marks a subtle shift by the president, whose administration made Iraq's alleged stocks of banned weapons the centerpiece of its case for going to war against Saddam Hussein.
The shift, or the new justifications for the war, is actually not that subtle.
quote:Before the war, Bush was often unequivocal in alleging that Iraq possessed banned weapons.
In a key speech in Cincinnati on October 7, Bush said that Iraq "possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons" and suggested it was perilous for the United States to delay disarming Baghdad.
"If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today � and we do � does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?" the president had said.
So, Mr. Bush has gone from saying that without a doubt, Saddam had WMDs aimed at us and was prepared to use them to saying that we think he just had some sort of undefined program.
In other words, we now just need to find evidence of the program, two trailers of varied use, a car with bad exhaust fumes, a copy of the Bonanza episode about the cows with anthrax, and the use of lies and scare tatics will be wholly justified.
And yet, evidence of either a program, or worse yet for Mr. Bush, actual weapons, is still lacking. Even those "chemical munitions" Saddam as supposed to had sent to his troops "in preparation for an anticipated U.S. attack." One would figure that they would pretty much have to find those when they captured the Iraqi troops since they clearly didn't use them.
It will be interesting to see how far he can take this before it crumbles down around him.
[ June 10, 2003, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
What I find most worrying is the polls saying that the majority of the US public don't care whether he had WMD or not.
I do think that getting rid of Saddam was a Good Thing. I don't think anyone is really arguing that it wasn't. But if the government lied to us and the US govt also lied than that is wrong. I am certainly inclined towards the view that they did lie or at least 'sex it up'. That's based on the complete lack of any persuasive evidence and the past records of the governments in question.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Out of actual historical curiosity, not out to prove any kind of point, but...
Has the US ever entered into a war without deception of some kind?
The Luisitania The Maine The Gulf of Tonkin The Ethnic cleansing of Kosovo How about the Bay of Pigs?
Some folks believe that Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor, that the "Founding Fathers" forced the Revolution, that 1812 didn't need to be fought...
That leaves the Civil War, and Korea (MAYBE)
Sheesh, we need to retroactively impeach a lot of presidents...
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
First of Two: I'll give you "The Maine," the "Bay of Pigs" (actually did not lead to war) and "The Gulf of Tonkin" from your little deception list, but "The Lusitania" and the "Ethnic Cleansing in Kosovo" reasons seem like legitimate reasons for a war. And if you can stop saying "Other Preisdents Did It Too" for a few seconds, you can realize that because our current president got us into a war on false pretenses, all the more reason to get him out before he does it again.
quote:Originally posted by Veers: "The Lusitania" and the "Ethnic Cleansing in Kosovo" reasons seem like legitimate reasons for a war.
How much of the facts concerning the above two events are you aware of?
The Lusitania: the Germans had specifically said that no ships were permitted within the "exclusionary zone." For a neutral ship to violate that zone is, in a legal sense, to risk war.
Kosovo: During the conflict, NATO claimed 500,000 Albanian Kosovars had been killed by the Serbs.
By the end of the war, that number had been reduced to 10,000.
Now, postwar surveys estimate the number of deaths attributable to Serb forces as 2,500 or less.
They also estimate the number of Albanian Kosovar deaths caused by NATO bombing at about 1,500.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
And yet Mr. Bush is still responsible for his own deceit.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
You just go on insisting that I'm talking about Bush, in that little masturbatory fantasy world you live in.
As I stated,clearly, in the preface to my post, I am not trying to make a political point here. I am not talking about justifying any deceit, real or imagined. I'm asking a simple question about how trustworthy our motives have been for entering ANY war.
I can only assume that you NEED this to be about Bush so badly that you ignored that fact.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Now. Back on topic. (yes, I admit that my posts above dragged the thread off topic. I make up for it by returning you to your regularly scheduled debate.)
Apparently, The Iranian government has joined the Vast Bush Conspiracy (TM), and is now lying for him.
The US and Iranian governments agreeing on something. This would be like me and Jay having tea and crumpets.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged