US Slaughters Thousands, But Still No WMD

[Chris Alger]

That's one accurate headline you'll never see.

Recall that the reasons that to distinguish our invasion of Iraq from, say, Russia’s invasion of Afghanistan or Hitler's invasin of Poland were to (1) preclude Baghdad's ability to use WMD against the US or the region and (2) preclude Baghdad's inclination to funnel WMD to terrorists, who in turn would then use them against the US or the region. Set aside for a minute the assumption that Iraq could forever circumvent a permanently instrusive inspections regime that already destroyed 90-95% of its former WMD and facilities. Both arguments also rested on the assumption that the inevitable response to such actions, the guaranteed destruction of the Baghdad regime, would not be sufficient to deter. War advocates strenuously argued that nothing short of conquering Iraq from border to border could possibly thwart the propensity of "Baathist ideology" for elective mischief.

So far, the war has proven the following:

1. If Iraq has WMD, it decided not to use them to deter or defend against the imminent destruction of the Baghdad regime.

2. If Iraq has WMD plus an inclination to proliferate them to terrorists, it decided not to do so to deter or defend against the imminent destruction of the Baghdad regime.

If we lived in a country with a free and independent press that was devoted more to useful information than official propaganda, these facts would be viewed as damning or at least revealing about the credibility of official sources. But since we don’t, they are not near the amount of attention devoted to pre-war claims about Iraq's penchant for destruction and terror even when the regime's survival was not at stake.

So far, despite hundreds if not thousands of White House claims about the obvious nature of Iraq’s WMD capability, it turns out that the US has been unable to locate any WMD at all.

From today's NY Times:

"The continued failure of American forces to find any "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq must be worrying some officials, particularly at intelligence agencies that assured the White House that Baghdad had such weapons. If Saddam Hussein authorized his field commanders to use chemical weapons, as Secretary of State Colin Powell suggested to the United Nations in February, presumably some of the weapons should have been overrun by Army and Marine forces as they closed in on Baghdad. Yet so far every report of suspicious items has proved to be a false alarm."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/18/opinion/18FRI1.html?tntemail1

My prediction: The White House will continue to refuse access by UN weapons experts to suspected WMD sites. The CIA will continue to come under pressure to verify the existence of WMD from pro-war organs like the WS Journal, using the implicit threat of Runsfeld's threatened "reorganization" of intelligence services (moving all intelligence under his direct command) to get the CIA to come around.

And then they'll be "found" under circumstances that most observers will find incredible. The general media reaction here will range from mild, quickly forgotten skepticism to angry denunciations of any that could doubt the word of the maximum leader.

And years from now someone will prove it was all a lie, long after the controversy disappeared into Orwell's memory hole.

[Parmenides]

I agree with your entire post. The USA is becoming a fascist society. This war was conducted for the main purpose of generating revenue for corporations loyal to Sick Cheney and W. Bush.

Bushes sadistic enjoyment of killing is probably around 3rd or 4th on the list of reasons.

[MMMMMM]

Chris, if you actually believe Iraq recently had no WMD then you must be a very poor judge of human character. Saddam's entire history with regards to WMD show a clear and burning desire to attain and hold WMD if possible--at any cost. Do you really think Iraq unilaterally destroyed all those WMD it claimed it did, and which were never verified, some years ago?

How anyone could hold such a poor judgment of the character and goals of Saddam, yet still be able to judge opponents accurately at the poker table, is a mystery to me. I suggest that anyone who actually thinks Saddam did not recently have WMD should, when at the poker tables, base their poker judgments entirely on math and throw the human element out the window;-)

[B-Man]

Don't worry Chris, we'll find them eventually. Iraq is roughly the size of California. It takes more than a few weeks to search everywhere, especially if they are buried underground.

Of course, the liberals, skeptics and peaceniks aren't going to believe it even when we do find WMD, as your post makes clear, so why does it matter?

[MMMMMM]

What's most amazing to me is that anyone could actually think that Saddam had no WMD. Is the Pope Catholic?

[Chris Alger]

So far, your assumptions about events that Saddam's "character" will compel have been empirically, spectacularly proven false. If it were true that he was willing to pay "any cost" to obtain WMD, then it follows (1) that he would be willing to use them when the benefit was greatest, being when the destruction of his regime in the absence of thier use was guaranteed; and (2) that he would have been willing to use them when the cost was free, when the destruction of his regime was guaranteed no matter what. There are obvious conclusions that follow from these facts, yet they are given no more currency in the mainstream than statements about the USSR being a dictatorship were tolerated in Pravda.

It is ineluctable that Saddam's failure to use WMD at the direst possible moment undermines the assumption that he was willing to do so during less dire moments.

Your inability ot grasp this simple logic and the inability to entertain any alternative explanation to the official one is an example of the totalitarian mindset of a big portion of the pro-war faction. By "totalitarian" I mean the assignment of a probability of zero to obvious possible alternatives to the official viewpoint coupled with a tendency to emotionalize any forceful rejection of the official line as a form of irrational hatred. This is different and, in my view, much worse than something like an admittedly faith-based acceptance of creationism or Papal infallibility. You don't find many fundamentalist Baptists and Catholics, for example, claiming that the main reasons others don't share their views is that they worship Satan or hate God. Yet you constantly find pro-war types claiming that war opponents secretly sympathize with terrorism, are unpatriotic, "support" Saddam, hate America and similar forms of degeneracy.

What accounts for it? Nothing more complicated than the ubiquitous tendency to assign a degree of righteousness to the collective purpose as defined by the leadership, fed by regular doses of propaganda and indoctrination. The fact that there are so many great things about America makes it easier to invest a lot of emotional energy into an unshakeable assumption of our basic morality, and actually makes it worse.

The nations within earlier imperial powers (and imperialist wannabes) mostly learned the hard way about the downside to this. The scariest thing about the U.S. is that a big chunk of the public has no clue about what this could be, even and perhaps especially now.

[Clarkmeister]

[Chris Alger]

This is a perfect example of what I said above; I couldn't have written it better myself.

Note that the undisputable facts are that the US couldn't point to any Iraqi WMD before the war and haven't found any yet.

Yet you contend that Iraq having WMD is beyond question.

It's not so much that you believe fervently in something that is not certain, its that you cannot entertain the chance of any alternative. This was the purpose of the corruption of "Newspeak" language in 1984: if the words don't exist, the thoughts can't exist. Some of us are already there.

[Chris Alger]

If Iraq actually did destroy its WMD as Karmal testified, then there are two possible alternatives: (1) in between visits to the battlefield wounded Bush stands before the public and says a long version of Emily Litella's "nevermind" or (2) some "Iraqi" WMD are "found." You decide which is more likely.

But you allude to an important point. Most of the antiwar folks think this war has more to do with Wolfowitz's first draft of Defense Policy Guidance" than it does with WMD, and has little to do with WMD in any event. So to us it makes little difference of some hidden cache is found. This isn't a contradiction. If the official justification for war has no facts to support it the war is automatically wrong. If it has some facts to support it the war is not automatically right.

[Chris Alger]

[MMMMMM]

Chris, there is lots of evidence of Iraqi WMD's even if as yet there is no conclusive proof.

However it is also idiotic to presume that Saddam didn't recently have some WMD's.

[MMMMMM]

Chris Alger: "If it were true that he was willing to pay "any cost" to obtain WMD, then it follows (1) that he would be willing to use them when the benefit was greatest, being when the destruction of his regime in the absence of thier use was guaranteed; and (2) that he would have been willing to use them when the cost was free, when the destruction of his regime was guaranteed no matter what."

No, it certainly doesn't follow that Saddam would use WMD as a last resort even given his desire to acquire and hold WMD at any cost. His latest actions likely instead centered around secreting some of his WMD in Syria (a good way to try to preserve them) and planning how to escape Iraq himself (a good way to try to ensure his own survival).

Saddam has long proven to be a survivor, even if he may be prone to miscalculation at times. When he saw that he could not hold off US forces much longer nor garner sufficient world opinion to force their retreat, he probably simply acted in his own best interests again: trying to preserve his life and his WMD's.

Your presumption that he would have instead used his WMD in a suicidal fashion as a last act of defiance again speaks to your lack of insight into the character of the man. He has always been a crafty survivor first and foremost, not a suicidal lunatic. If he saw a chance to escape before the last door shut he would have taken it, or planned to take it. And it speaks to your illogic that you would presume that his great lust for WMD would necessarily impel him to use them so foolishly.

[Chris Alger]

"His latest actions likely instead centered around secreting some of his WMD in Syria (a good way to try to preserve them)"

I take it that it's "likely" because some far-right propaganda organ (too embararssing to cite) offered up this speculation. Never mind the absence of any facts or the obvious question of why a country that helped defend Kuwait from Saddam would want to risk destruction by the US for Saddam's benefit in order to gain ... well, to gain what, exactly?

Recap: Saddam "the survivor" risked his life and allowed his regime, army and financial empire to be destroyed in order to live in Syria with some quantity of "weapons of mass destruction" because of his tendency to act "in his own best interests."

That's just silly.

[MMMMMM]

Saddam miscalculated. He did so before Gulf War I, too. That doesn't imply that he's completely suicidal.

Take a look at Bashar Assad's recent actions as compared with those of his father. You'll see that his actions of late have been--well, far from prudent, let's just say. So the tack he takes compared with his father's direction may turn out to be quite different.


Syria's next unless Bashar Assad shapes up pretty fast. He will have to turn over the Iraqi leaders he is sheltering, destroy his chemical weapons, stop supporting terrorists and dismantle Hizbollah. And if Hizbollah decides to shell Israel to interfere with the coming Road Map for Peace, Hizbollah will be wiped out faster than was Saddam's Republican Guard. In fact we might do that anyway as Nasrallah is now saying that their old motto of "Death To America!" remains their current policy, and they have shown themselves to be capable and willing of carrying out attacks on Americans and American interests.

The days of terrorist organizations and their supporters are numbered but they just don't realize it yet. None will be able to withstand the American precision technologies which continue to advance. Soon, terrorist organizations and their leaders will be just like balloons in a dart gallery. Those foolish or fanatical enough to remain terrorist leaders or supporters will be as easily popped. And it will be one of the greatest good riddances the world has ever seen.

[MS Sunshine]

Yeah, but interesting you get a chance in this war to turn people in for being unpatriotic. Enjoy it while you can.

The SC will toss alot of these new laws, then we will be able to say what we think again.

MS Sunshine

[MMMMMM]

You can say what you think right now. Don't think you can't. Lots of people do and I still see them around. Even Parmenides.

[Dynasty]

No only is it not the "post of the year", it is extremely misguided and demonstrates a very poor understanding of the situation in the Middle East.

[Clarkmeister]

LOL, I love the way you throw out things like "misguided and demonstrates a very poor understanding..." without specifying what you are referring to and no cogent counter-argument. People can accuse Alger of a lot of things, but having a "very poor understanding of the... middle east" is certainly not one of them.

He researches issues, he gives reasons, and he gives backup for those reasons. He is hands down the most lucid of the regular political commentators here. M retaliates with "thats stupid" and you retaliate with "thats extremely misguided". But neither of you present any sort of rational counterargument to his well written, well thought out posts.

In fact, its simply the same type of name-calling that proves the point he makes during the last 3/4 of the post I opined was "post of the year".

His description of the "totalitarian" mindset is simply perfect. Exactly what Andy Fox was posting about several days ago, but more clear and concise. Wooga is the best example of it on these forums, but there are certainly others. The unfortunate part is that its not limited to people in this forum and it extends to some press members as well.

[IrishHand]

Not only is it the "post of the year", it is extremely well-reasoned and demonstrates an insightful understanding of the world we live in.

I absolutely love how Chris makes a number of significant factual observations, and the best the pro-war folks can come up with is personal insults, continued speculations and conclusory assertions.

For B-Man - you're right. It wouldn't matter if we found WMD. I think that most everyone agreed beforehand that Hussein was a bad guy and that Iraq had some amount of WMD. At issue was whether the US had the right to invade and occupy another sovereign nation - not whether that nation was led by a bad guy or whether that nation had WMD.

Personally, I was blown away that Iraq never used WMD in self-defense. This leads me to believe that they either, in fact, didn't have them, or that, as Chris noted (and I figure this is the more likely answer), it was indeed ridiculous of anyone to characterize Iraq's possession of such as a threat when they wouldn't even use them as a method of self-preservation.

[B-Man]

But you allude to an important point. Most of the antiwar folks think this war has more to do with Wolfowitz's first draft of Defense Policy Guidance" than it does with WMD, and has little to do with WMD in any event. So to us it makes little difference of some hidden cache is found. This isn't a contradiction. If the official justification for war has no facts to support it the war is automatically wrong. If it has some facts to support it the war is not automatically right.

There are many facts which support the war, and there were some legitimate arguments against it as well. On the eve of the war, I posted that the arguments in favor outweighed the arguments against.... and in hindsight, it wasn't even close. This wasn't "the next Vietnam" as some posters predicted. We liberated an entire country from one of the most ruthless, sadistic dictators of the last 100 years, shut down terrorist camps, and eliminated the threat of the spread of WMD from Iraq (perhaps you don't think there was any threat, but many do not share that view, and contrary to your posts, your view isn't proven simply because we haven't found WMD yet.)... yet the anti-U.S. crowd (led, of course, by you) refuses to acknowledge any good which came out of the war, and continues to bring up the old arguments they lost, and which are now moot.

Chris, as I said, it doesn't matter to people like you if we find WMD. You will believe the U.S. was, is, and always will be wrong regardless. I certainly hope we find them, but finding them is not necessary to validate this war.

[MMMMMM]

I DID present a well-thought out counter-argument--apparently, you didn't follow it very well? Specifically, I showed why Chris' assertion that Saddam doesn't have WMD because he would have used them if he did have them, doesn't necessarily follow or make sense.

Also, did you (as well as Chris Alger) miss the point in another post in this thread? For Saddam to have no WMD would have been absurdly out-of-character for him...but there are also many pieces of evidence--even if as yet inconclusive--and testimonals by former members of Saddam's inner circles--all of which indicate presence of WMD's. The issue isn't absolute proof, although some lawyer-types would like to make it so. But my point in drawing attention to the absurd match of "no-WMD" with Saddam's character was to point this up, not to offer it as proof in itself. In other words, even without the long-building evidence against Saddam, it would be foolish to think he had no WMD given his history and character. Discovery of thousands of gas masks, testimonials by former Baathists, terrorist training camps in Salman Pak and elsewhere in Iraq, and other discoveries just add to the unlikelihood of the position of "no-WMD." However Alger seized upon the brief remark and thought was the essence of my argument or evidence of a closed mind on my part. No, it's just a realistic appraisal of Saddam based on his history and actions--and which history the "no-WMD" people seem quite happy to dismiss when considering the likelihood that he recently possessed WMD.

And by the way, my argument that Saddam would probably have acted in his own best interests by not using WMD at the last moment is a lot more cogent and believable than Alger's argument that Saddam would surely have used them. Further, Chris makes an illogical leap by saying that if Saddam had an overriding desire to possess WMD at any cost he would therefore have also used them---two completely unrelated matters. My argument makes better sense logically, and I think it also shows greater insight into human nature--the character of Saddam--than Alger's supposition which he puts forth as certainty and as a poor rebuttal to my argument.

I agree that Chris generally presents his arguments well, and with whatever backup he can muster at the time. That, however, doesn't mean that they are good arguments: it just means they're well-presented.

[IrishHand]

First of all, congratulations to Chris on his recent promotion.

Nice "made for TV" claim about one of the most ruthless, sadistic dictators of the last 100 years, but I'm pretty sure the hollowness of that one was pointed out in another thread weeks ago.

Yes, we did a 'good' thing in removing Hussein. The cost of this was billions of US dollars, billions of Iraqi dollars, thousands of Iraqi lives and dozens of American/British lives - and the numbers of all the above will continue to grow as long as we maintain a large military presence in that country. (No nation likes being occupied, no matter how supposedly benevolent the occupier is.) Again...it was never about whether Hussein was a good guy or a bad guy. It was about how he should be dealt with, and by whom. Our conclusion was that we'd take care of it against the wishes of the majority of the world, and while we'll pay for it now, we'll get most of it back in oil. Anyone who thinks we did this because Iraq was a threat or because we're just nice guys who want everyone else in the world to enjoy our standard of living needs to take a good, hard look at the history of the US.

'Good' has come from the war - but it came at a high cost - infinitely high for many Iraqis who would otherwise be living relatively normal lives. If the problem was Hussein, he could have been dealt with without occupying Iraq. The reality is what while we're relatively democratic at home, we have absollutely no faith that other the citizens of other nations will make the appropriate decisions by themselves.

[B-Man]

Anyone who thinks we did this because Iraq was a threat or because we're just nice guys who want everyone else in the world to enjoy our standard of living needs to take a good, hard look at the history of the US.

Anyone who doesn't think we did this because Iraq was a threat or because we're just nice guys who want everyone else in the world to enjoy our standard of living needs to take a good, hard look at the history of the US.

'Good' has come from the war - but it came at a high cost - infinitely high for many Iraqis who would otherwise be living relatively normal lives.

Yup, all those Iraqis who would have gotten their tongues cut out, taken acid baths, been raped in front of their families, watched their children have limbs amputated and suffered other unspeakable tortures would have gone on living "normal" lives. You are right, they are much better off now.

[ACPlayer]

'Good' has come from the war - but it came at a high cost - infinitely high for many Iraqis who would otherwise be living relatively normal lives

Yup, all those Iraqis who would have gotten their tongues cut out, taken acid baths, been raped in front of their families, watched their children have limbs amputated and suffered other unspeakable tortures would have gone on living "normal" lives. You are right, they are much better off now

Give us a break. There are countries in Africa where people suffer far more than the Iraqi's, on average, have suffered. Including murder, rape, civil strife, armed conflit with tens of thousands of dead. There has been no talk of, and there will never be talk of, rescueing these people from the gangsters that rule there.

This has absolutely nothing, zero, zilch, to do with liberating the people. That is propoganda and PR to drum up support at home.

I would say that "Good" may yet come from this war, it has not happened yet.

[Jimbo]

"No only is it not the "post of the year", it is extremely misguided and demonstrates a very poor understanding of the situation in the Middle East."

Dynasty's post gets my vote for post of the year.

[B-Man]

Give us a break. There are countries in Africa where people suffer far more than the Iraqi's, on average, have suffered. Including murder, rape, civil strife, armed conflit with tens of thousands of dead. There has been no talk of, and there will never be talk of, rescueing these people from the gangsters that rule there.

Here we go again, the old "two wrongs make a right" argument. Give it a rest. Please explain to me how the suffering of people in Africa justifies the torture of other people in Iraq... or how it makes their liberation less "good."

Under your twisted logic, unless you help everyone , it is wrong to help anyone. Makes a lot of sense...

[IrishHand]

Your understanding of the "two wrongs make a right" argument is sorely lacking. It applies when you hit someone who's hit you. It does not apply when you say that there are other regimes which are worse (at least as regards blatant human rights violations) than the one we chose to destroy most recently.

Nobody's saying we shouldn't do anything about human rights abusers - the debate is about how the best way to deal with them is. You feel that invading them arbitrarily is fine. I, at least, feel that if you're going to start invading nations for humanitarian reasons (I'll pretend that's a good idea), then you should start with the worst offenders and work your way down.

Under your twisted logic, unless you help everyone , it is wrong to help anyone. Makes a lot of sense...
No...under that logic, you should help those most in need of help.

[Cyrus]

Kindly restrain your urge to post henceforth or else you are requested to adjust to a more comforting level of absurdities, generalities and cliches. Your obnoxious propensity for using logic and deploying facts is quite unnerving and quite out of sync with the accepted norms of debating political issues.

In plain English : We Don't Wanna Know, awraht???

[THIS SPACE FOR COMMERCIAL BREAK] (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393322963/qid=1050722820/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-7692607-6401407?v=glance&s=books)

[Cyrus]

<ul type="square">Reminder : Iraq's regime was undoubtedly a dictatorship. However, this was NOT the reason it was invaded/liberated, at least not the reason officially proclaimed by the White House, the State Dept, the Pentagon, Downing Street or the Security Council's Resolution 1441. The reason given was that Iraq was a "threat" because it probably possessed "Weapons of Mass Destruction" or WMDs for short. Now watch:[/list]

B-Man &gt; "perhaps you don't think there was any threat, but your view isn't proven simply because we haven't found WMD..."

Which is of course one piece of impeccably Orwellian logic! When we are looking for an Ace in the deck and are informed that all Aces are aleady out, this doesn't mean that one more Ace can't come up still. Reality becomes a matter of belief rather than facts.

"...yet!"

Phew. Saved.

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus,

Chris' argument in the post you responded to is almost anything but logical. I mean, really, you are far smarter than this, aren't you? Try rereading his first two paragraphs and see if you observe anything of good logic. Then see if in those paragraphs you can find anything derived from poor logic.

Quite simply, Chris' argument here is one of the worst he's ever proposed. He tries to counter my claim that Saddam possessed an overwhelming desire to attain and retain WMD. He does this by asserting that if Saddam really had such a desire, he would surely have used his WMD when all else appeared lost. That in itself is a suspect claim, but it's made even worse because Chris fails to consider the possibility of Saddam instead planning ways to escape with his hide (in keeping with his survivor-mentality and history). Chris then compounds the error by considering this a refutation of my argument.

He then goes on to point to this as evidence of my totalitarian thinking, when actually all I am doing is being realistic about the chances that Saddam recently had WMD: IMO it is near 100%, based on his past history, his character, and various evidences from thousands of gas masks to testimonies by former members of his inner circle, which all point in that direction, although the "smoking gun" itself may not yet have been uncovered. And based merely on Saddam's past history and character, it would be extremely foolish for anyone to presume that Saddam did not have WMD. Presuming this even when faced with various evidences all pointing in the same direction is yet more foolish. And arguing Saddam's case, as if in a court of law where the burden of proof is on the other party, is ludicrous. Saddam's history is that of striving at all costs to acquire and retain WMD; deceit, denial, stalling, etc...and he wouldn't even take the simple good faith step of turning over to to UNSCOM documents related to the undestroyed WMD from the past which have long been in question. The burden of proof, or at least some good faith evidence, should rightly be on Saddam.

To argue Saddam's side in this matter takes either a very tenuous grasp on reality, or a vested interest of some sort.

[MMMMMM]

Anyone who would trust Saddam to not be a threat would be better off in an environment where the walls are padded, and gardens and pools are lush.

Proven mass murderers and tyrants ARE threats...always.

It takes an enormous leap of faith to presume that: a) Saddam had no WMD, and b) even if he had them, he could be trusted to not use them, notwithstanding his previous aggressions on his neighbors, and his hatred of the USA and Israel.

Sorry Cyrus but I just don't have that much faith in tyrants like Saddam. And I respectfully suggest that anyone who does, doesn't have a very clear grasp on reality.

[Chris Alger]

"We liberated an entire country from one of the most ruthless, sadistic dictators of the last 100 years"

This is half-truth and you know it. The "liberators" empowered and supported Saddam, helped him acquire weapons of mass destruction, continued to support him after he used those weapons to murder thousands of civilians, and then abruptly shifted to relentless hostility toward his regime and nation only after he refused to comply with our demands to withdraw from Kuwait. For his continued refusal to follow orders we ruined his country, killed over hundred thousand by sanctions and several thousand others with military force, and have now replaced him with a military dictatorship of our own. Throughout this relationship, the US never based its degree of support or hostility on any benchmark or record of Iraq's domestic human rights, rendering that topic irrelevant to the discussion of US involvement with Iraq. Except, of course, for the purposes of creating misleading propaganda.

That's the big picture. Your half-truth "spin" is remiscent of communist apologists for the treatment meted out to Eastern Europe by pointing out that the USSR liberated the region from another of "the most ruthless, sadistic dictators of the last 100 years" as if that expalined Soviet motives or excused the regimes they installed. In fact, it's a meaningless all-purpose argument for excusing any war of aggression to replace one dictator with another by showing that the new one is currently less bad than the former, or at least isn't presently committing the same atrocities that the former did during its worst years.

"shut down terrorist camps"

No, it shut down one government training facility at Salman Pak.

Also irrelevant to US policy. The UN inspected the camps in 1995. The CIA debriefed defectors claiming to have been trained there years ago with no fanfare because nothing they reported was of any concern. As reported on Frontline two years ago, from one defector: "This is a Boeing 707, where they trained how to hijack it. And also they were trained how to resist or stop hijacking operation." In other words, a facility for teaching the same kind of unconventional tactics that the Deltas and other elite forces get. http://216.239.37.100/custom?q=cache:5usxivHp0M4C:www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html+salman+pak&amp;hl=en&amp;start=7&amp;ie=UTF-8 The US didn't care about Salman Pak before it needed it as a post-hoc justification for the war. That's why you're reading old history as "new evidence" of a "terrorist training camp." To measure just how much the US cares about "terrorist training camps," why don't you investigate how many incidents of terrorism can be traced to Salman Pak graduates and how many can be traced to the US School of the Americas graduates and get back to us?

"eliminated the threat of the spread of WMD from Iraq"

Because, with any luck, we'll create a regime that's as good as the WMD proliferation threat that Pakistan is now? Or the WMD powerhouse that Israel is now? It doesn't follow. Your argument is like this: "the White House says it intends to permanently disarm Iraq and the media isn't doubting it, therefore it must be true. Obvious examples to the contrary can be dismissed as if they didn't even exist."

[Cyrus]

"Anyone who doesn't think we did this because Iraq was a threat or because we're just nice guys who want everyone else in the world to enjoy our standard of living needs to take a good, hard look at the history of the US."

That argument suffers on two fronts:

1. The historical record : True, the United States has indeed been involved in wars of liberation, such as World War II, it has done so only when allied with other countries. And we are talking true alliances now, and not a conjecture like this non-existent "coalition of the able and the willing". But the United States has been mainly invading other countries on the sole basis of protecting its interests in the world, as it perceives them. Cases in point : Cuba when the island was "liberated" from the Spaniards and the US took control of Cuba, US newspapers openly abused the population as "ignorant niggers, half breeds, and dagoes". They were "degenerates, ... savages", according to the blunt US military command; the Philippines, where all Spanish-speaking people were removed from power or jailed or simply shot; Guatemala, whereby a dictator was placed in power; Nicaragua; ditto; etc etc. In every single case, the level of the standard of living dropped after the Yanqi imperialistas invaded. That Cuba, for instance, has been enjoying a higher standard of living in the last four decades or so than in its entire history, and this despite the senseless American embargo, is beyond dispute. (Never mind that the country was pushed into the communist camp. This was but another short-sighted American foreign policy, which always sees red danger in national liberation.)

2. Arithmetic : This "American standard of living" is not quite ready for duplication everywhere, I mean not just yet. Gotta think it over some. If one billion Chinese adopt the model and rev up their car engines, our environment's capacity for carbon dioxide will be tested to its limits. (Shell's CEO, who should know, stated as much in his recent visit to the U.S.)

[Cyrus]

"Quite simply, Chris' argument here is one of the worst he's ever proposed."

I know! The fact that Clarkmeister, that dufus, fell for it head over heels should be warning enough for me, but I'm hopeless.

Let's see, Chris argues in a nutshell the following:

1. Saddam is a [expletive deleted] dictator and the world is better off without his sorry .

2. The reason for invading Iraq and removing said dictator was its alleged possession of WMDs. (And not that Saddam was a dictator, etc.)

3. Iraq did not use WMDs in the recent war.

4. The U.S. hasn't discovered yet any WMDs whatsoever in Iraq.

5. Regimes, no matter if they're democratic or dictatoristic, will defend themselves at times of ultimate peril with every means necessary.

6. It would have been impossible to tranfer any WMDs across the border to Syria or Iran, especially after the war started, without the transfer not being detected. (This would also contradict the war supporters' logic. If Iraq has WMDs and expects to be invaded, Iraq will hold on to them to defend itself with them, if need be.)

7. Iraq was never formally (or at least informally but convincingly) accused of aiding terrorist acts against Americans or American interests, including the 9/11 attack.

....Can we agree on the above [b]facts so far? If not, there's no use continuing to debate, thanks. If yes, please go on.

The resulting, and undoubtedly logical, conclusions from all the above are that :

-- Iraq probably did not possess WMDs.

-- The reason behind the war, as officially proclaimed, will turn out to be erroneous, if WMDs are indeed eventually not found.

And here's where Chris Alger leaves his line of thought hanging, but where I, fearless liberal devil, dare tread so I say to you "...Worry not! Them WMDs will be found sooner or later." (Apparently, said dufus also thinks so. Go figure.)

[adios]

If the USA does not find the "smoking gun" it's a major embarassment to the Bush administration. FWIW my understanding is that the USA is attempting to establish a chain of evidence that can be used in a court of law (presumably for trying war criminals) which is one reason that they don't want to hand over control to UN Inspectors. Methinks you're being a little impatient at this point.

[brad]

US is between a rock and a hard place here.

to expose wmd found in small amounts will not really justify the invasion.

add to that the fact that the stuff (say vx gas) will be labelled 'made in USA', and you see the problem.

what will have to be done is to round up the head scientists and have them confess to working on programs of weapons of mass destruction.

the iraqi biological weapons program looks like a really good candidate. but US will have to keep everything under tight control as US shipped iraq lots of bio material too.

so propaganda will have to focus on how iraqi scientists were trying to come up with *new* biological agents.

a real bonus to this is that US can claim that iraqi bio weapons scientists escaped to syria and are helping syria with bio weapons. the sheer lack of volume of materials necessary for bio manufacture will make it impossible for syria to disprove this.

a lot of the problems US is having with press reports and stuff (rumsfeld said US not looking for wmd, etc.) is that lots of stuff is compartmentalized and everybody is on a slightly different page.

[Chris Alger]

How will it be embarrassed? It wasn't embarassed to have Cheney claim the week before the invasion on Meet the Press that Iraq probably had "nuclear weapons," even though this is ridiculous. It wasn't embarrassed to have the public believe in large numbers that Saddam was responsible for 9/11, that the hijackers came from Iraq, that Iraq has nuclear missiles and all sorts of WMD. The average FOX watcher probably believes that Iraq is honeycombed with "terrorist training camps," that all sorts of documents tie Saddam to bin Laden, and that WMD factories and stockpiles have already been found. If nobody's setting them straight on these matters, whose going to blow the whistle when if no WMD are discovered? If any are found, however, they will be trumpted as positive proof that the war was necessary, that world opinion was misled by anti-American media (some "antiwar" guy that my side has ever heard of will appear on Lehrer and recant, etc.). It's a no-lose situation for Bush.

The evidence increasing indicates that nobody has a clue. Tommy Franks already said this week that it could take a year for the search to be complete, demonstrating that the best military intelligence is that the US has no idea whether or where Iraq has any WMD. And this is after the US has captured and interrogated (since last weekend) General Amir al-Saadi, the head of Iraq's weapons program. Another high-ranking Iraqi general has declared, after surrendering, that Iraq in fact destroyed its WMD years ago. Harvard bioweapons expert Matthew Meselson also recently went on record as saying that it was unlikely that Iraq had any remaining biological agents, echoing the skepticism of former UNSCOM inspector Scott Ritter, who claims that the shelf life alone would have destroyed the weapons from the 1980's that Iraq allegedly cannot "account for." http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/18/international/worldspecial/18SKEP.html?tntemail1

When Robin Cook resigned from Blair's cabinet last month, he did so stating that "Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term." This from a cabinet insider. The Guardian Unlimited, 4/1/3, "Prove Iraqi Guilt, MP's Tell Blair, http://www.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,2763,939535,00.html

I still haven't seen evidence contradicting the statements of Iraqi defector Hussein Kamal, who told UN debriefers that he had all Iraqi WMD secretly destroyed years ago. Perhaps he had them buried and when they dig them up they'll be "found" and the debate can than quietly trickle out with quibbles over their purpose and usefulness. This might be what Rumsfeld was alluding to when he said this week that "it is not like a treasure hunt where you just run around looking everywhere hoping you find something," mentioning Iraq's use of "tunnels." Maybe it's excatly like that until they find someone who knows where some were buried. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/18/international/worldspecial/18PENT.html?tntemail1

Regardless, if you look at the prewar statements about WMD from the White House, they overwhelmingly emphasized Iraq's allged failures to cooperate and procedural breaches of 1441 -- the "commitment to disarm" as Powell constantly said, not the actual existence of WMD. Further, you'll note that it was Powell who took the laboring oar in "selling" the justification for the war and that his statements about Iraqi WMD were far more equivocal than Rumsfeld's. It will be Powell's statements that the White House will point to as the official diplomatic position if anyone accuses the White House of misleading the public.

Great Britain was much more specific about WMD and Blair has the real problem if they can't be found. Unlike the US, there was a fair amount of discussion in the UK about the actual legality of the war. The claim that Iraq has "thousands of tons" of WMD originated from MI6. There apparently were more specific and damning claims made to Parliament in order to garner support for the war. According to Lindsay Hoyle, a Labor MP who voted for war on the basis of government representations about WMD, "We were led to believe that the Iraqis could fire them within 45 minutes. If that was the case where have they vanished to? We were told there was hard evidence." (Same Guardian article as above)

[ACPlayer]

I'll try to make it really simple.

If liberating people was of interest to the present admin there would at least be acknowledgement and discussion of these other problem areas. "Liberating Iraq" is of interest to the administration only for its propoganda value to make a horrible war feel better for our populace.

It is stretching credulity, of some here, and others around the world, if one was to assert that the US waged war to make life better for Iraqis. This may end up being a by product of the war. But, only in the long run.

[adios]

"How will it be embarrassed? It wasn't embarassed ..."

One does not necessarily need to feel embarrased to suffer an embarassment (the word I used in my post). IrishHand is a perfect example of this.

[MMMMMM]

We disagree on #5 and #6.

On #5 because Iraqi leadership, as we sliced through the Republican Guards and entered Baghdad, could easily have determined that resistance was futile, and that they had better hightail it---which of course they did.

#6 because the Syria/Iraq border is long, porous, and only the few main roads were guarded. By the way, actions prior to the war also contradict your position: Intelligence believes Saddam transferred at least some WMD's to Syria prior to the war. Apparently Saddam was too cagey to leave all his eggs in one basket which was in imminent danger.

In particular I urge you (and others) to take a closer look at #5. Saddam's regime has been brutal and has exhibited poor judgment in the past, but that doesn't imply that they're crazy or suicidal. They chose to flee as the net closed rather than to commit suicide by using WMDs (if indeed at that time they still had the command/control capability to issue orders for their use, which is not clear). And since Chris' argument hinges on this point it here unravels. We know Iraqi leadership fled. To presume they would have suicidally used WMD instead of fleeing is quite bizarre. If they determined to fight suicidally to the last they could have done so even without WMD.

[MMMMMM]

I've long said that the primary reasons for the war were strategic in nature, with security as a consideration as well. The benefits to the Iraqis are largely incidental, but that doesn't mean it's not a great thing for them;-)

So we made a good strategic move which just happens to be a great humanitarian move as well! Hurrah for the USA! Down with dictators!

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus, the Chinese are avid bicyclists as you well know so I don't think we will have to worry about #2 just yet.

[MMMMMM]

^

[Parmenides]

Every anti-War poster here gets their instructions from you.
Alger favors killing all the Jews in Israel just like you do.

[John Cole]

Furthermore, Powell and others claimed that "intelligence" sources clearly revealed Iraq's possession of WMD and showed specifically how these were being moved from spot to spot in an effort to frustrate UN inspectors. When pressed for specific details, Powell et al. cited the need to keep intelligence sources secure and uncompromised and refused to provide more explicit detail. Now that we no longer must worry (or must we?) about the putative threat to our intelligence gathering sources, it should be rather easy to find these WMD.

[Cyrus]

"Saddam's regime has been brutal and has exhibited poor judgment in the past, but that doesn't imply that they're crazy or suicidal."

We agree. (Note that some folks who favored the war against Iraq have been arguing one day that Saddam is suicidal and crazy and therefore dangerous with WMDs, and one day that he's a sly devil, so he must've hidden them WMDs pretty sneakily. I can't win.)

"And since Chris' argument hinges on this point it here unravels."

Well, let's see.

"We know Iraqi leadership fled."

We assume it did, but it's a fair guess.

"To presume [that the Iraqi leaders] would have suicidally used WMD instead of fleeing is quite bizarre."

By your logic, the Iraqis (a) had WMDS, (b) knew from day one that they could not win the war, and (c) they still acceped the war but from the beginning were planning to flee at the first opportunity. This however would be preposterous! I mean why would they start a war knowing they would lose it for sure?? Any other option, epecially a political one, would be preferable to them. They could not just provoke a war they believe they'd lose, because we just agreed that the Iraqi leaders were not crazy!

However, if (a) they were not crazy, and (b) they believed they could win the war, then they'd have used WMDs for sure, if that's what it'd take to win it. After all, it was their survival at stake -- Chris Alger's argument.

"If they [were] determined to fight suicidally to the last they could have done so even without WMD."

I don't follow your logic. An enemy that doesn't care about his life and is gonna fight "suicidally" to the end, that enemy doesn't give a rat's arsenal about what happens afterwards. That enemy is gonna go down in flames, in apocalypse! If he got WMDs, them's incoming!

[Cyrus]

"The primary reasons for the war were strategic in nature, with security as a consideration as well. The benefits to the Iraqis are largely incidental.

We made a good strategic move which just happens to be a great humanitarian move as well! Hurrah for the USA! Down with dictators!"

..Terrific summation!

All arguments end here. (I surrender.)

[Cyrus]

Mondays they let you guys play poker?

[John Cole]

Cigarettes broken in two are not worth a nickel.

[Chris Alger]

That's true, although at his Feb. 5 presentation to the Security Council Powell was careful to attribute those claims to third parties. Rereading Powell's Feb. 5 presentation to the UN, I was again struck by the constant emphasis on 1441 compliance rather than actual possession of WMD. The only unequivocal statement he made asserting that he personally knew that Iraq had WMD was: "There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more." Well, if one considers bacterial growth media as a "biological weapon" -- Blair liked to call it "anthrax precursor" -- this is undoubtedly true. Iraq made large quantities of the stuff and allegedly failed to account for all of it. Of course, it's a "weapon" only in the sense that it can be used to grow cultures. A harmless mixture of water, minerals, salt and proteins, growth media can be found in every hospital, university, water treatment facility, chocolate factory, etc.

[John Cole]

M,

I doubt anyone is arguing "Saddam's side," as you mention, but, rather, questioning the official story. Certainly you would argree that gaping flaws in logic exist there, and if you do, why then do those flaws exist? Don't you believe you have the right to know?

As far a Saddam's survivor mentality, I believe he was offered refuge after Bush informed the world that Saddam had the option of simply choosing self-imposed exile. I can't tell you how his mind works any better than anybody else--although some people seem to attempt to do so with a fair amount of certainty--but I believe a survivor might have chosen this option.

John

[Chris Alger]

This is absolutely true. The interests of the people of Iraq are as irrelevant to US policy as the goats of the people of Iraq -- incidental beneficiaries, collateral victims -- a force to be managed to prevent the from interferring with US strategic goals and to be exploited for propaganda purposes. The coincidence of interests can change on a dime, in which case the interests of the people of Iraq will be consigned to the same historical trashcan that contains the interests of the billions of others about which US planners don't give a damn. All of this talk about liberation, democracy and human rights by those prosecuting elite foreign interests is a sales pitch to a decent public of idealistic Americans that otherwise wouldn't much care which world faction holds sway over the mineral resources of the Middle East, their own lives being largely unaffected by it.

[ACPlayer]

Are you prepared to state THE ONE primary strategic objective of the war as you see it? Preferably in one or two short sentences.

In your view has the government clearly stated this as their primary objective?

The problem with war promoters has been a plethora of reasons d'jour for the conflict.

[Johnny Ace]

I've read this entire thread and so far, you have spent a lot of time typing words that say nothing.

Fact: This administration's #1 stated purpose for launching this war was to eliminate the threat of WMD.

Fact: No WMD have been found.

Fact: The stated purpose of this administration's #1 reason to wage war was wrong. Period.

These are facts so far, and until proven otherwise, everything you are spending so much time trying to convince us of is heresay.

[Jimbo]

Unless all you guys fancy yourself as historians, what does it matter? The war was waged, the outcome is clear. What you gonna do? Call Bush names like liar, liar pants on fire?

Plus you can have this conversation over again when we invade the next country. Just cut and paste and save the time required to type.

[Johnny Ace]

That Saddam was not an evil dictator. And you are probably right, that he would've used WMD eventually (if he in fact had them). I am only saying that the stated purpose for launching this war, so far has proved to be a wrong reason.

[adios]

You're right but let's remember that this justification was arguably to gain UN approval for the most part. Now remember I've stated in another part of this thread that it will be a major embarassment for the Bush administration if WMD's of the nature Bush complained about are not found. If Bush had it to do over again I think he would bypass the UN which in my mind is a good thing since it has been demonstrated now that the Security Council is corrupt as some voting members votes are apparently for sale.

[John Cole]

First, Olympic skating judges; now, the Security Council. Go figure.

[IrishHand]

Unless all you guys fancy yourself as historians, what does it matter?
Does it matter that OJ was guilty?

The war was waged, the outcome is clear.
I can list a lot of other wars that were waged and had a clear outcome. This hardly means they were justified or correct from a political, economic, humanitarian, diplomatic or other perspective - unless of course you're prescribing to Hitler's "it doesn't matter why, the victors write the histories" approach to foreign policy.

[Parmenides]

irishhand is Chris Alger. He's not in the navy. irishhand is a figment of his imagination.

[Cyrus]

. . . how their mother is going to take this!

"IrishHand is Chris Alger. IrishHand is a figment of his imagination."

You think I don't have to tell her?? Their mother and I are old friends. You know that!

[Parmenides]

You've just indicated that irishhand is in fact Alger's brother. That's great. Thanks for the information. The problem is that the traffic originates from the same location.

Did you know that one of Alger's "peace" activist friends in Denver (a major figure in Colorado) used to work for the UN in Gaza. The Israelis won't permit Thomas back in the country because he openly advocates assasinations of Israeli officials. This is the type of "peace activist" that posts here.

[brad]

the israelis openly stated they will execute american citizens in the US and the FBI said hey its not our problem.

[MMMMMM]

"This however would be preposterous! I mean why would they start a war knowing they would lose it for sure??"

They made the same STUPID mistake not backing down in time prior to Gulf War I, didn't they? After all, what did they have...6 months(?)...to withdraw while we built up forces for our attack in Gulf War I? And yet they--or he--STUPIDLY miscalculated. And, as I predicted well over a year before the recent war, Saddam would again miscalculate--which of course he did (thinking political pressure and world opinion had a good chance of saving him if he could stall us out long enough).

"However, if (a) they were not crazy, and (b) they believed they could win the war, then they'd have used WMDs for sure, if that's what it'd take to win it. After all, it was their survival at stake -- Chris Alger's argument."

They didn't believe they could win the war, even if they were to use WMD's. They knew from Gulf War I that they couldn't. They were just trying to stall us out and bog us down as long as possible in the hopes that we would eventually lose our resolve in the face of increasing difficulties and world pressure.


"I don't follow your logic. An enemy that doesn't care about his life and is gonna fight "suicidally" to the end, that enemy doesn't give a rat's arsenal about what happens afterwards."


These guys (top brass) did care about their own lives, as should be evidenced by the fact that most of the leadership magically "disappeared" shortly before the end of the war.

[MMMMMM]

I'm not sure what gaping holes you are referring to. I question some official stories too, but Saddam's long history of deceiving and delaying U.N. inspectors speaks for itself.

As for the phrase "Saddam's side", I'm just using that here as a shortcut in writing so I don't have to define the whole argument again. Probably a much better shortcut phrase could be used, but one didn't occur to me.

Saddam might have wisely chosen better and taken foreign refuge before the war, it is true. However I believe that he gambled that we would not have the resolve to see things through, especially as he was planning to turn Baghdad into a Stalingrad, and world and domestic opinion kept rising in opposition to our plans and actions. He also might have thought that he could be far more easily assassinated were he to take asylum somewhere (which is probably true). As long as he had escape routes and contingency plans while in Iraq, he may well have felt the gamble worth it.

[MMMMMM]

Your 3rd "fact" doesn't necessarily follow from the first two. Give it time...give it time...;-)

By the way, it might actually be much better if we don't find Saddam's WMD in Iraq, but instead find them in Syria. Now figure out why.

[MMMMMM]

There is something to be said for the fact that democracies tend to do well overall and to be our allies or at least friends. So if the people of Iraq do manage to attain a working democracy (which isn't ruined and overcome by Shariah law), the Iraqis may eventually emerge as partners on the world stage. As our Western and Far Eastern allies have found, while we may be somewhat hegemonistic, they're also doing a lot better now too. So Iraq has a chance to to get itself into a more prosperous position, and one in which it won't really have to worry about being consigned to dustbins in the future.

[MMMMMM]

brad, my impression was that they said they would assassinate only terrorists, not American citizens. Please correct me if my impression is wrong and if you're sure it's wrong. As long as they are nailing foreign terrorists, not Americans, on our soil, I don't see that as much of a problem. Rather I think it would be a nice free benefit.

[MMMMMM]

Why should it necessarily then be rather easy to find these WMD?

You may be certain that you are watching a shell game, but does that mean you know precisely where the pea is? And how about a shell game with thousands of potential shells, some hidden or camouflaged, over an enormous area?

Is there any reason to think that Saddam would ever have turned from sinner to saint in matters of WMD?

[Cyrus]

"Is there any reason to think that Saddam would ever have turned from sinner to saint in matters of WMD?"

Not a saint. Just your standard, ruthless (etc) dictator, albeit someone who is able of behaving, exactly as we both agreed, quite rationally. Such a person would do the cautious thing and do away with his WMDs ---- especially since most of that material could be easily re-purchased at a future date.

And before you say, "Aha! there's the real danger!", let me point out yet again that future or potential danger was NOT what this war was all about. At least not what the U.S. told the world.

"You may be certain that you are watching a shell game, but does that mean you know precisely where the pea is? And how about a shell game with thousands of potential shells, some hidden or camouflaged, over an enormous area?"

I am sure there are some substantial differences between peas under a shell and WMDs hidden in Iraq ! The point being made was that if Powell had such a mountain of evidence from intelligence or sat photography and before Americans could inspect for themselves (in situ!) what the hell was going on down there, then now, when there're tens of thousands of soldiers and experts all over Iraq and the country is ruled by the U.S., the evidence should be even more ...well, evident ! Only it ain't.

If you still like the street-games analogies, try playing me three-card monte when there are five high-resolution cameras trained on your arsenal, a "no-fly", no-moves zone to the left and to the right of your hands, policemen breathing down your neck, a dozen guns pointed at your head, and a couple of fellows searching through your pockets. You think we can play some three-card, man?? Come on. (I didn't think so!)

[MMMMMM]

"Such a person would do the cautious thing and do away with his WMDs ---- especially since most of that material could be easily re-purchased at a future date."

Why would he act in this manner now, since his entire history is of doing everything to develop and hold WMD's, and to resist as far as possible giving them up?

And as for Saddam being "cautious": refusing to withdraw from Kuwait while faced with our huge buildup prior to the Gulf War cannot be described as "cautious."

There are over a thousand sites yet to be inspected in Iraq. Saddam created such things as convertible dual-use factories, and may have mixed handfuls of WMD shells in with regular shell stockpiles, and his regime developed mini-labs on wheels.

Did Powell say we had mountains of photos of Iraqis moving this stuff around, or just a few key photos? Just what were decontamination trucks doing leaving certain suspect sites anyway? What of the intercepted Iraqi communcations talking about hiding or moving such things? And why did the intelligence services of Australia, Great Britain, and Israel all come to similar conclusions?

We also gave Saddam ample time to hide or move these WMD's to Syria since we took so long building up, and courting U.N. approval, prior to the war. I suggest Saddam would have been quite incompetent if he coudn't have used those months to make our task of finding WMD's more than a little difficult--especially since for years the WMD programs were built and operated in such a manner as to facilitate hiding, moving and deception.

I really suspect most of the WMD's have been moved to Syria anyway. So...let's go find them;-)

[John Cole]

M,

Perhaps, as Chris says above, the "intelligence" which told of location and movement was simply third-hand information and no more reliable than the "friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend" story. For me, though, this is one of the gaping holes that I mentioned above. It's silly to believe that intelligence sources could only reveal movements and not locations; however, it's certainly sane to think intelligence sources revealed neither.

Of course, I don't think WMD was the motivation for invading Iraq, nor can we point to one reason above others. The best we might do is simply chalk this one up to an unfortunate (or fortunate, depending on your outlook) alignment of the planets, precipitated by 9/11, and dependent on any number of variables, among these religious fundamentalism, both Islamic and Christian, and how the force of 9/11 and other variables affected the pysche of a president who had already seen 3,000 people killed on US soil. Remember that when terrorists struck in Lebanon when Reagan was in charge that he simply withdrew from the region. I don't believe Bush could countenance inaction, but, hell, it's only a guess.

John

[MMMMMM]

I think you may be too quick to surmise what intelligence can reveal, or should be able to reveal.

Much depends on the intelligence source. For instance, what if the primary sources for knowledge of a shell game were intercepted Iraqi communications containing orders to clear out and decontaminate certain spots? Or what if the primary sources were a couple of Iraqi officials clandestinely and selectively revealing information? There are many other sources of intelligence as well...I don't see how an outsider can, with any degree of assurance, presume that knowledge of the existence of something must necessarily also include intimate working knowledge. If the only sources of intelligence information were spy photos, I'd say you might be right, but it's very unlikely that is the case; intelligence generally gathers information via many methods.

And what's this brand new development about the very high-ranking Iraqi who just said Saddam had WMD up until 4 days before Bush's ultimatum was to be delivered? Was this guy the Queen of Clubs? I'm going to turn on the news at my friend's house now.

[MMMMMM]

It seems the high-ranking Iraqi official now in custody and the Iraqi scientist who pointed the U.S. to sites where Saddam buried "building blocks" of WMD are two different persons. Anyway, it will be interesting to see what comes of this.

[Cyrus]

"I really suspect most of the WMD's have been moved to Syria anyway. So...let's go find them."

I believe so too.

...Maybe we're been a bit too hasty : Maybe we should encourage the President to invade as many countries in the Middle East as possible before sending the troops back home ! How many countries can be invaded and occupied with the current force in Iraq withour sending in any reinforcements?

I'd say, the United States Army could easily knock over Syria and Lebanon, in one go, then turn right, to Iran, what, two weeks, tops? then Pakistan, straight to Karachi, say hello to our friend Musharaf just in case! then back to Jordan for a quickie, Egypt will take another coupla weeks, with a slight one-day detour to crush Sudan, and then of course, the mother of all prices, Libya! Oh, God!..

For desert, Palestine, to get that towel-head, Arafat. Oh, God. Oh, God.

...I think this is where I came in.

[MMMMMM]

As long as we have military presence there, I think you're largely right, but you might be going a bit too far. Let's force the Road Map for Peace down both parties' throats and take out any terrorist groups that rear their ugly heads along the way. And since Hezbollah has threatened us recently, as well as attacked us before, we may as well take care of them too while we're in the neighborhood. The countries themselves can either begin reforming and cooperating PDQ or else.

We would be foolish to vacate Iraq without at least having the 4 military bases locked up for the near-term. Why give fanatics and totalitarians any extra chances to wreak their mischiefs? The Middle East needs a strong presence that will stand up for human rights and democracy. It's high time their backwardness gets dragged into the daylight of the 21st century, because things are getting too dangerous to be allowed to continue unchecked over there.

Fanatical know-nothings armed with WMD: that's the perfect recipe for the end of the world, and that's precisely where we're headed if we adopt a laissez-faire attitude towards the Middle East today. They'll just continue teaching Wahabbism and spreading anti-Western hatred and arming for jihad if left to their own devices. Kim Jong-il will do the same or worse in his own way. And I would say leave them all to their own devices--if the threats of terrorism and bio-chem WMD weren't so terribly real. And there's no way in hell that we can allow North Korea or Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

Well it sounds pretty much like a rant or a parody doesn't it? I think I did a half-decent job of trying to sound like a reactionary. Yet how much is sadly true--most of it? As you said, Cyrus: Oh God. Oh God.

[Cyrus]

"Fanatical know-nothings armed with WMDs"

This is no way to talk about Ariel Sharon !

[nicky g]

""Fanatical know-nothings armed with WMDs"

This is no way to talk about Ariel Sharon !"

Huh? He meant George Bush, surely.