OK, someone do an Iraq cost-benefit for me

[Clarkmeister]

Just going to use some round number estimates that are in line with various reports.

The Iraqi invasion will cost about:
$500 Billion
500 US lives


In what way are we receiving comparable benefit for our investment?

[Chris Alger]

After adding up all the pluses, it looks like you're down $500 billion and 500 lives.

[Dynasty]

You won't have your answer until about the year 2053. Maybe 2028 at the earliest.

If we truly do whatever it takes to set up a democratic Iraq, you can look at Japan and western Europe as the ideal models. I'm sure many people asked the same questions in 1945-1950 as we made considerable efforts to rebuild those coutries.

Was the peace in Europe, relative peace in Southeast Asia (at least "small" contained wars), and all the other benefits of strong democracies and free market economies worth the cost in lives and $$$ the U.S. expended in the 1940's? Seeing it from a perspective of 60 years later, it seems so.

If Iraq can become a democratic, free market center for a peacefull Middle East, I think the answer will be yes- in the year 2053.

[adios]

"Just going to use some round number estimates that are in line with various reports."

Which reports are those?

[nicky g]

lol

[nicky g]

"relative peace in Southeast Asia (at least "small" contained wars)"

Are you crazy? D'you know how many people died in those "small" wars? How amy countries became involved (or were carpet bombed regardless) in those "contained" wars? How long the conflict lasted in this "relatively peaceful" era?

Rebuilding Japan was great but giving the US credit for a "relatively peaceful" period in South-East Asia in the second half of the 20th century is absurd.

[Utah]

Maybe going into Iraq was a good decision and maybe it was a terrible one.

However, there is no "plus/minus" quantitative analysis that can be done here as the problem does not lend itself to that kind of analysis given the huge amount of unknowns (e.g, did it prevent terrist attacks or did it cause more??).

Addtionally, you have a huge option pricing equation here: taking Iraq and bringing bringing peace (or more turmoil) changed the US future option. Therefore, if one wanted to try the analysis one would need to break out the ol' Black-Sholes option pricing model (or possibling build some sort of binomial model).

Thinking of this as a plus minus analysis is too simplistic (or too complicated depending on your point of view).

I like this question because it highlights the difficulty with government decisions, especially in the area of foreign policy. The American people demand hard numbers for decisions but unfortunately, not all problems provide them. This makes it extremely easy for both Republicans and Democrats to spin the situation to their favor.

[HDPM]

[ACPlayer]

Sure you can do such an analysis. To create a model for a problem with insufficient information, first step is to make a set of assumptions. Then carefully test the assumptions asking questions about them and analysing them, then build a very large spreadsheet with the numbers and various assumption models built in. They you will get the answer.

Or you can use Chris analysis. He has already done the hard work for you.

[MMMMMM]

We should be fully compensated in oil or oil revenues for the cost of the war and the rebuilding of Iraq. We probably won't be, but if I were President we would be.

Also if I were President, Saudi Arabia would owe us $250 billion for 9/11 (about half the cost of the total initial and repercussive costs of 9/11). They'd have to pay up, too.

[Utah]

Yes, you can do the analysis - but the information is always invalid or useless.

There are too many factors, too mant unknowns about those factors, too little information about the interaction of those factors, too little information as to what would have happened if you did not make the decision (as you need to define a baseline), and too little information about the future events both in the present case and in the case if you had made another decision. Finally, there are too many soft factors that cant be measured by there nature (e.g., feeling of security or fear)

[Ray Zee]

m, saudi wouldnt have to be paying us if we charged them in the first place for saving them from being part of iraq.

[brad]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3158348.stm


Iraq will be poor 'for years'


There are high hopes for Iraqi oil
Iraq will remain impoverished for years to come because oil will not fund public spending, aid will fall short of what is needed and few companies will want to invest there, a report leaked to Reuters news agency has said.

[MMMMMM]

Yes I think they and Kuwait should have reimbursed us the cost of that bill. We help the world and they hate us.

[adios]

It does support the Chris Alger subsidy arguement I would think i.e. that the US uses it's military to subsidize Saudi oil production. I'd be interested if anybody has a different take on that.

[brad]

how do u know they didnt pay leaders? (of US)

[Chris Alger]

In 2053 Saddam Hussein will be 116 years old. It seems to me that you're leaving a few things out.

The test shouldn't be whether Iraq is in a better place in 2053. The test should be whether Iraq and all that it influences are so much worse off after concerted non-violent efforts to improve Iraq during the interim -- the alternative to war -- that one can confidently say that the sacrfice of hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives to install a pro-US government 50 years prior would have been the better course. The impossibiliy of proving or even sensibly speculating about this proposition makes Iraq's status in 2053 irrelevant.

It's interesting how war proponents place a premium on urgency, even immediacy, before the war begins (remember how Powell ridiculed France's notion of another 30 days to further verify the absence of WMD that apparently don't exist?). Yet when the dust settles and the mass graves are being dug, insist that others can only reasonably evaluate the results of such efforts every half-century or so.

[Wake up CALL]

Chris there were already many 30 day periods of inspections. What makes yo think that 30 more days would have verified anything? Also what makes you believe that after 30 days went by France would just say "OK, we changed our minds, we join you."? The interim report regarding WMD's states that Iraq was in violation of UN resolutions. Do you really believe France or Germany cared about this? Their economic interests were their motivation not any regard for Iraq or its' people.

[Chris Alger]

1. Iraq was still responding to requests for additional information a week before the invasion, so it's likely that the few alleged "accounting" issues could either have been resolved or sufficiently clarified to discover the same thing we eventually discovered, but without having to kill, cripple and burn so many.

2. Violations of 1441 (which were mostly cured prior to the invasion) neither triggered a right of invasion under the terms of 1441 nor created the imminent threat necessary to justify the mass slaughter that followed. Since nothing in 1441 gives the US a unilateral right to invade, citing 1441 to justify the war are self-contradictory (which is why so many war proponents invoke the stale Gulf War cease-fire agreement).

3. The absurdity of assuming that Bush's gang and the US government generally, unlike selfish Germany and France, are motivated by concern for Iraq and its people instead of economic interests is one reason why US leaders act like they have a license to kill for trivial reasons, and in turn why the US is hated by so many.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Iraq was still responding to requests for additional information a week before the invasion, so it's likely that the few alleged "accounting" issues could either have been resolved or sufficiently clarified to discover the same thing we eventually discovered, but without having to kill, cripple and burn so many.

2. Violations of 1441 (which were mostly cured prior to the invasion) neither triggered a right of invasion under the terms of 1441 nor created the imminent threat necessary to justify the mass slaughter that followed. Since nothing in 1441 gives the US a unilateral right to invade, citing 1441 to justify the war are self-contradictory (which is why so many war proponents invoke the stale Gulf War cease-fire agreement).

3. The absurdity of assuming that Bush's gang and the US government generally, unlike selfish Germany and France, are motivated by concern for Iraq and its people instead of economic interests is one reason why US leaders act like they have a license to kill for trivial reasons, and in turn why the US is hated by so many.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chris posts like this are why I like you so much. I could tell you it is dark outside and you would tell me I'm wrong but must have forgotten to take off my sunglasses. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ACPlayer]

Their economic interests were their motivation not any regard for Iraq or its' people.

And of course we went in there so Bush couild help Iraq and its people. Bush/Powell/Cheney knew all along that they would not get American public support to help the Iraqi people so they used WMD, Al Qaeda, wait 30 days and we will get killed, etc to sell it to the us (we, they know, would never accept going to war just to help another peoples).

Bush et al now sleep happily knowing that they have helped the Iraqi people, and hence the big lie to the American was justified.

Truly, an altruistic bunch.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Their economic interests were their motivation not any regard for Iraq or its' people.

And of course we went in there so Bush couild help Iraq and its people. Bush/Powell/Cheney knew all along that they would not get American public support to help the Iraqi people so they used WMD, Al Qaeda, wait 30 days and we will get killed, etc to sell it to the us (we, they know, would never accept going to war just to help another peoples).

Bush et al now sleep happily knowing that they have helped the Iraqi people, and hence the big lie to the American was justified.

Truly, an altruistic bunch.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said ACPlayer, that is why I prefer a Republic compared to a Democracy.

[adios]

[andyfox]

[brad]

[MMMMMM]

I believe it lessened the chances, andy. But even if it didn't, we still can't take the path of appeasement because that would be sure to get us attacked again. Appeasement in military/world affairs simply NEVER, NEVER works. We tried limited miniature strikes, or doing nothing, in response to the terrorist attacks of the 90's and look what it got us. We hit them hard after 9/11 and we haven't been struck since. Sometimes the best defense is a good offense.

[MMMMMM]

^

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
We hit them hard after 9/11 and we haven't been struck since.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe we haven't been struck since then is because Sun Microsystems is trading at 3 and change.

[brad]

how much did ww2 reconstuction cost US? how much will this cost?

[brad]

im doing my part i havent eaten carrots

[ACPlayer]

[MMMMMM]

Here are your answers brad, adjusted for inflation and as a percentage of GDP. Ypu may feel free to verify them on the Web at your leisure.

how much did ww2 reconstuction cost US?

Much, much more.

how much will this cost?

Way, way less.

[adios]

This is fun Andy /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[MMMMMM]

Some people also think:

1. That it is a bad idea to use a weapon to deter a home invader because he might take it away from you and use it against you

2. That if we disarm unilaterally the world would follow suit

3. That the best way for your child to deal with the schoolyard bully is to plead with him rather than punch him in the nose

4. That fanatics will like us instead of hate us if we don't give them any reason to hate us

5. That resisting violence only creates more violence

In other words, some people hold some extremely mistaken notions. I would also bet that most people who hold the above mistaken notions are "liberals."

[adios]

Good points and IMO it's obvious the Clinton policy in dealing with terrorists was a disaster. Apparently others think that the right response is to do absolutely nothing since apparently they think it will lessen the chances the most. Since Clarkmeister pulled some numbers out of his ass apparently as he hasn't provided any sources that we can scrutinize, here's a cost benefit analysis regarding the $87 billion that can be scrutinized. It's a Wall Street Journal editorial from 9/11/03:

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

What $87 Billion Buys

Having demanded for weeks that President Bush send up a complete bill for the war in Iraq, the spending barons in Congress are now reacting with shock and awe at the size of his $87 billion request.

Democrats and even some Republicans are shouting "no blank check" and suddenly morphing into defenders of the Treasury. West Virginia's Robert Byrd, of all people, declared that "Congress is not an ATM," thus contradicting 45 years of Senate service in one sentence. Asked if they'd vote to approve the money, every Democratic Presidential contender at Tuesday night's debate offered a reason for voting no in part or full.

All right, as long as Congress has its calculators out, let's do some comparison anti-terror shopping. We know what $87 billion is intended to buy: Support for American troops who are taking the battle to terrorists on their own turf and trying to build a stable, pluralistic Iraq in the heart of the Middle East. But how about comparing that price tag, large as it is, to what we already know about the cost of a single day of terror in the U.S., two years ago today.

We couldn't find one comprehensive figure for 9/11, but the piecemeal estimates are depressing enough. The 3,000 casualties in New York City that day lost $7.8 billion in prospective income, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The same Fed report estimates $18 billion to clean up, rebuild and replace the contents of Ground Zero, plus another $3.7 billion for the subway and utilities. Congress sent $21 billion to New York for those direct damage costs and will pay another $4 billion for the victims fund. The attack also reduced wages and salaries in New York industries by as much as $6.4 billion, and Congress is paying $700 million to repair the Pentagon.

Then there are all of the downstream economic and security costs. Ross C. DeVol of the Milken Institute estimates that September 11 created a 1.3 million net job loss and decreased GDP by $150 billion. The insurance industry was on the hook for $50 billion. Airlines lost $11 billion as travelers stayed home, and two carriers went bankrupt even after a $15 billion federal bailout.

Meanwhile, the Fed report notes that in Fiscal Year 2003 the Administration budgeted $38 billion on new border security, protection against biological threats and emergency preparedness. States will spend another $1.3 billion for homeland security, while the private sector is spending $33 billion for new "protective services."

Even assuming overlap in these numbers, that one day of terror cost America hundreds of billions of dollars. And most of this was a deadweight loss. It has been spent merely to replace what was destroyed or to finance security that simply allows Americans to go about their normal business. This is the cost that needs to be considered next to Mr. Bush's $87 billion preventive investment in the war on terror.

Another apt comparison is the Marshall Plan to rebuild our defeated enemies after World War II. Most estimates are that the U.S. spent 2% of gross national product, or some $90 billion in today's dollars, during its years reconstructing Europe. From the vantage point of 50 years, that investment looks like a bargain.

Or consider the payoff from Ronald Reagan's huge defense buildup of the early 1980s. That spending was also attacked as wasteful or for diverting scarce resources from domestic needs, but after the fall of the Soviet Union we learned that the buildup convinced the Russians they could never win the Cold War. After the Berlin Wall fell, Americans realized one of the greatest peace dividends in history.

In one sense, we've already realized one dividend from the Iraq war. The U.S. spent close to $30 billion over 12 years to "contain" Saddam. Enforcing the no-fly zones also required a U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia, which was unpopular in that country and was cited in Osama bin Laden's fatwa against America. With Saddam gone, the U.S. is removing its combat forces from the Kingdom by year-end. And last week the USS Nimitz steamed out of the Gulf -- the first time in six years the U.S. dared to leave the region without an aircraft carrier.

Looking for a political line of attack, some Democrats are saying they'll agree to money for "the troops" but not for rebuilding Iraq -- as if the two can be separated. They've been attacking President Bush for misjudging the burden of stabilizing Iraq, but now they insist that they'll only pay for Kevlar vests and ammunition but not to build the electricity and water services that will help win the support of the Iraqi allies our troops need to prevail.

We certainly agree that the rest of the world is also at risk from terror and should help foot part of this bill. The Bush Administration will soon ask it to do so. But if this second anniversary of September 11 does nothing else, it should remind Americans that an $87 billion investment to prevent a terrible repeat is cheap at the price.

Updated September 11, 2003

[scalf]

/images/graemlins/mad.gifthe price of freedom

is

eternal vigilance....

gl /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[ACPlayer]

There were atleast two essential difference between WW2 and Iraq.

In WW2 we resisted going to war until we had no choice; in Iraq we charged in for no good reason (which was obvious to anyone with a brain then and is slowly being proven correct). There was no clear and imminent threat to us in Iraq. Going into Iraq has made it a threat. Either Bush was incompetent in getting info and making decision; or kept his real reasons hidden.

Second reason, the world was united.

There is no reason to be spending a dime here. Whethet it costs more or less than the Marshall plan is irrelevant. It costs more than 0.

[Wake up CALL]

"(which was obvious to anyone with a brain then and is slowly being proven correct)"

It appears I've misplaced my brain. Would you please outline some of this "proof" of yours. BTW, liberals whining does not constitute proof so something a little more solid will be much appreciated.

[andyfox]

[andyfox]

Some people also think:

1) That there should be no restrictions on possession of weapons because to do so would make us less safe.

2) That there are no ramifications of us possessing whatever weapons we want or selling them to others.

3) That diplomacy is for weaklings and liberals; the manly thing to do is to punch someone in the nose when they are treating you badly.

4) That we don't have to worry about our behavior because to do so is to leave us open to criticism; better to assume all our enemies are simply backward or fanatics or otherwise wrong and relieve us of all responsibility.

5) That we can use euphemisms such as "resisting violence" or "defending democracy" when we wage an aggressive war and this will not lead to more violence. After all, we know best all the time.

In other words, some people hold some extremely mistaken notions. I would bet that most people who hold the above mistaken notions call themselves "conservatives."

[adios]

"1) That there should be no restrictions on possession of weapons because to do so would make us less safe."

So one aspect of a proper response to 9/11 was to have the US divest itself of some weapons.

"2) That there are no ramifications of us possessing whatever weapons we want or selling them to others."

So one of the ramifications of the US possessing whatever weapons we want or selling them to others was 9/11.

"3) That diplomacy is for weaklings and liberals; the manly thing to do is to punch someone in the nose when they are treating you badly."

So the proper response to 9/11 was to have the US enter diplomatic negotiations with al qaeda.

"4) That we don't have to worry about our behavior because to do so is to leave us open to criticism; better to assume all our enemies are simply backward or fanatics or otherwise wrong and relieve us of all responsibility."

So assuming that the leadership along with the rank and file of al qaeda are fanatical, muderous savages is wrong and the US should take more responsibility for 9/11.

"5) That we can use euphemisms such as "resisting violence" or "defending democracy" when we wage an aggressive war and this will not lead to more violence. After all, we know best all the time."

So the attacks of 9/11 weren't attacks on the US and it's system of government. Since an aggressive war against al qaeda and their ilk would lead to more violence the US should have sat down at the negotiating table with al qaeda and their ilk to reach an appropriate compromise.

"In other words, some people hold some extremely mistaken notions. I would bet that most people who hold the above mistaken notions call themselves "conservatives."

I see.

[ACPlayer]

It is really upto the war-lovers to prove that there was an imminent threat rather than the other way around, they are the ones doing the selling.

But, I will try to point you in some directions, see if you can follow this:

1. WMD - Nada, oops one vial of botulism (non-weaponized in a home fridge and maybe someday he would want to build more weapons).
2. Al Qaeda connection - Zilch

Where was the imminent threat to the United States of America? The only thing he was guilty of apparently was a boastfulness and the willingness to pay 25K to suicide bombers families -- wait dont jump on this and say well there you have it -- where is the imminenet threat to us?

The only way that Iraq has harmed the US directly is because we went in there to "liberate" them, which has left Bush with the blood of thousands on his hands.

OK. If you have anything contradictory to show there was a threat to the US lets see it, other than the whinings of the war mongers, who like nothing better than to see a good war game on TV.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Some people also think:

1) That there should be no restrictions on possession of weapons because to do so would make us less safe.

2) That there are no ramifications of us possessing whatever weapons we want or selling them to others.

3) That diplomacy is for weaklings and liberals; the manly thing to do is to punch someone in the nose when they are treating you badly.

4) That we don't have to worry about our behavior because to do so is to leave us open to criticism; better to assume all our enemies are simply backward or fanatics or otherwise wrong and relieve us of all responsibility.

5) That we can use euphemisms such as "resisting violence" or "defending democracy" when we wage an aggressive war and this will not lead to more violence. After all, we know best all the time.

In other words, some people hold some extremely mistaken notions. I would bet that most people who hold the above mistaken notions call themselves "conservatives."

[/ QUOTE ]

Very good post Mr. Fox, the only thing I see wrong with it is that most of your pounts are too broad and/or completely incorrect. This makes you (and other liberals with similar feelings) the ones who are incorrect.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
It is really upto the war-lovers to prove that there was an imminent threat rather than the other way around, they are the ones doing the selling.

But, I will try to point you in some directions, see if you can follow this:

1. WMD - Nada, oops one vial of botulism (non-weaponized in a home fridge and maybe someday he would want to build more weapons).
2. Al Qaeda connection - Zilch

Where was the imminent threat to the United States of America? The only thing he was guilty of apparently was a boastfulness and the willingness to pay 25K to suicide bombers families -- wait dont jump on this and say well there you have it -- where is the imminenet threat to us?

The only way that Iraq has harmed the US directly is because we went in there to "liberate" them, which has left Bush with the blood of thousands on his hands.

OK. If you have anything contradictory to show there was a threat to the US lets see it, other than the whinings of the war mongers, who like nothing better than to see a good war game on TV.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a cool answer, unfortunately that is not relevant to the question upon which I was seeking clarification. I was seeking your proof that "in Iraq we charged in for no good reason ". Now we may have had other reasons which certain groups of people (Bush bashers) prefer to ignore but I fail to see any proof that we invaded Iraq for no good reason. Are you sure you aren't a politician?

[Clarkmeister]

We were lied to about the primary reasons for invading. WMD and Hussein ties to Al Quaeda were nonexistant.

So since our "best" and most discussed reasons for invading were bogus, its not a stretch to think that we "invaded for no good reason".

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
We were lied to about the primary reasons for invading. WMD and Hussein ties to Al Quaeda were nonexistant.

So since our "best" and most discussed reasons for invading were bogus, its not a stretch to think that we "invaded for no good reason".

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a better answer than AC provided even though the data used to form your opinion have not yet been proven to be entirely accurate. In fact it is pretty much innacurate but I suppose that is the same reason people form incorrect opinions at the poker table.

[Ray Zee]

it is pretty evident we were lied to. so going into iraq was based on lies. we were lied to and believed it and now to admit it makes you have to wonder about bush or our country and how it acts. lets get over arguing about that fact. if anyone cant see that this happened maybe they need to think about their own reasoning.

but and the big but is-- should we have gone in to prevent a future problem. that is a resonable reason for invading although a distastful one.
we and the world tends to dis israel for attcking doing the same things we defend doing. so maybe we need to publically put out a policy so the world can see what they face. or maybe the haphazard approach of attacking whoever is the current bad guy is better.

its not a liberal versus conservative thing, its all of us trying to figure out how to handle complex situations in simple ways.

most liberals think a person should be allowed to defend his home with a gun. and most will punch the bully in the nose. most conservatives will vote for a school bond issue and are willing to pay for help for others.

[ACPlayer]

As usual, in your hurry to give a flip answer you have missed the point entirely on a matter that is far from "cool".

It is not up to the "liberals" to provide the proof that Iraq was not a threat. It is up to the people pushing the war to prove that our money was well spent. They offered WMD, AlQaeda connection to sell the, what is now proving to be, well snake oil.

After "Aission Accomplished" we have had a number of months of intesive searching for this "grave, imminent, gathering threat" that is only weeks from destroying our city, we are at -- what is it I said: Zilch, nada, zippo, zero. All we have is what Chris said 500 Billion (give or take) spent and 500 (give or take) dead in the next 5 years. Even the first casualty was too much.

[ACPlayer]

I should correct myself a little. I should have said we have invaded Iraq for apparently no good reason that has been explained to us.

There may have been other reasons that have not seen the light of day, but we are not to be trusted with them. Which would you prefer a govt that is incompetent in leading us to battle or a govt that has secret agendas for which it willing to risk lives?

If it turns out that there really was a threat, I would be delighted to "eat crow".

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
As usual, in your hurry to give a flip answer you have missed the point entirely on a matter that is far from "cool".

It is not up to the "liberals" to provide the proof that Iraq was not a threat. It is up to the people pushing the war to prove that our money was well spent. They offered WMD, AlQaeda connection to sell the, what is now proving to be, well snake oil.

After "Aission Accomplished" we have had a number of months of intesive searching for this "grave, imminent, gathering threat" that is only weeks from destroying our city, we are at -- what is it I said: Zilch, nada, zippo, zero. All we have is what Chris said 500 Billion (give or take) spent and 500 (give or take) dead in the next 5 years. Even the first casualty was too much.

[/ QUOTE ]

AC it is not up to the administration to "prove" anthing, particularly to you. We are already there and the US Congress sanctioned the invasion. No I don't mind the public not being informed of any other reasons as to why we invaded Iraq in fact any reasonable person would assume there were other reasons. As I said before we live in a Republic not in a Democracy and that is the way it should work. I nor you do not need to be informed of "why" the government makes certain decisions. The way it works is you organize and vote for someone else next time. Whining and showing a lack of support serves no useful purpose for anyone not running for a political office.

As for being flip it is pretty obvious your opinions are biased against the current administration and any factual representations you make are skewed to the point or nearly being unreconnizable when compared to the actual circumstances. These offenses are likely more serious than any flippancy you might think I display. It seems in your opinion anyone who disagrees with you must not be serious, I assure you I am.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We were lied to about the primary reasons for invading. WMD and Hussein ties to Al Quaeda were nonexistant.

So since our "best" and most discussed reasons for invading were bogus, its not a stretch to think that we "invaded for no good reason".

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a better answer than AC provided even though the data used to form your opinion have not yet been proven to be entirely accurate. In fact it is pretty much innacurate but I suppose that is the same reason people form incorrect opinions at the poker table.


[/ QUOTE ]

It is inaccurate?

1. We have found zero WMD.
2. Bush has admitted recently that we have "no evidence" that Hussein had anything to do with 9/11.

Perhaps you know something that the administration doesn't? If you do, they could sure use your help as finding of even a scrap of WMD would be a big help to them right now.

[MMMMMM]

Ray I really don't think we were lied to generally speaking. I believe Iraq had WMD programs; whether they recently had actual WMD remains to be seen. Everyone seems to think the WMD should have been found already without considering the gargantuan area that must be searched. Also, convoys left Iraq for Syria just prior to the war...carrying what, one must wonder. The flap about the Nigerian yellowcake is minimal when compared to the fact that Iraq had in the past sought uranium from that country even if Iraq did not do so most recently. The intelligence services of USA, Israel, Australia, Germany and U.K. all arrived at similar conclusions about Iraq's WMD programs over the last 6 years or so, well before 9/11. There was also a Boeing 747(?)727? (?) (don't recall model) fuselage said to be used in Iraq for training for hijacking in a terror training camp. Lo and behold that fuselage was actually found there. Iraq harbored and gave succor to that injured or crippled al-Qaeda kingpin (forget which guy at the moment). David Kay keeps finding more evidence of Iraqi programs of WMD even if not the actual WMD themselves. Two scientists who were very recently cooperating with interviews were just gunned down, one killed, within hours of his most recent interview.

Preventing future problems is important especially with proliferation of WMD being such a serious cause for concern. You raise an interrsting question too, and I am not sure which would be better: an announced policy, or just hitting the bad guys.

[ACPlayer]

Of course I am biased. The govt has provided no reason for me to support it.

And Yes, the govt should provide answers to questions and those include MY questions.

[adios]

From todays WSJ. I think it shows your arguement is rather shallow and inaccurate:

The WMD Evidence

"We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002."

As we read David Kay's report last week on the weapons search in Iraq, the paragraph above is the real news. It concludes, even in this interim report, that Saddam Hussein was systematically attempting to evade inspections in blatant violation of United Nations Resolution 1441.

We bring this up because five days after his presentation to Congress we haven't seen it reported anywhere else. Instead the headlines have been that Mr. Kay hasn't found any WMD weapons "stockpiles." But the Stockpile Standard wasn't anyone's measure in agreeing to 1441, which was supposed to be Saddam's last chance to comply with U.N. demands. And what Mr. Kay has already found is more than enough proof that Saddam was attempting to deceive the world one more time about his dangerous intentions.

The unclassified portion of Mr. Kay's report contains 10 single-spaced typed pages of revelations about Saddam's WMD programs. It is worth the time to read through them at http://www.cia.gov/.

Mr. Kay's team found a prison laboratory complex "possibly used in human testing of BW agents" -- and not declared to the U.N. The home of an Iraqi scientist brought the discovery of strains of biological organisms, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons. The team found new research on "BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin," none of which were made known to the U.N.

The team also found programs for unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, that could possibly be used to disperse WMD agents. We know from other sources that Iraq also had route-mapping software that covered U.S. territory. As to Saddam's nuclear program, the report says that "the testimony we have obtained from Iraqi scientists and senior government officials" makes clear that "Saddam Hussein remained firmly committed to acquiring nuclear weapons. These officials assert that Saddam would have resumed nuclear weapons development at some future point."

Saddam's program of mass deception has made the Kay team's job especially difficult. It arrived at some sites, such as the Revolutionary Command Council Headquarters in Baghdad, to find documents burnt to ashes, computer hard drives destroyed and equipment cleaned of all traces of use. The assumption that Saddam is still alive and in the country also creates a sense of fear among those in the know. Mr. Kay reports that two Iraqi scientists working with the weapons team after the war were shot -- and one was killed -- apparently as a signal to anyone else who would cooperate.

None of these facts have been allowed to get in the way of those who posit the Imminence Test and the Stockpile Standard as the new goalposts for clearing President Bush and Prime Minister Blair from the charges of waging unjust war. Both are postwar inventions, and transparently political devices to portray the war in Iraq in the worst possible light.

West Virginia Democrat Jay Rockefeller walked out of the Kay briefing to assert his dismay that nothing he'd heard proved Saddam's threat was "imminent" and thus pre-emption is wrong in all cases. In fact, the Bush Administration never subscribed to the "imminence" test when making its case for deposing Saddam. Mr. Bush flatly rejected it in this year's State of the Union address as too risky. The argument was that Saddam was continuing to hide the WMD capabilities he was known to possess in the 1990s and had used against Iran and his own Kurdish population -- with the clear intention of resuming these programs once the political heat was off. The Kay report proves this is precisely what Saddam intended.

What happened to the stockpiles he was known to have in the 1990s is of course an important question, not least to reassure us they weren't spirited away to another country where they can pose a new threat. By all means the CIA and White House should be honest about any intelligence mistakes, and explore and then explain the reasons. But even if no stockpiles are ever found, the Kay report provides ample proof of Saddam's WMD threat and how much safer the world is with him out of power.

[Wake up CALL]

[Ray Zee]

m, just as you do i believe he had some kind of wmd program. and probably some weapons somewhere. and invading iraq will be better for the world overall long term.

but i still remember our president saying he had proof of them. and all his cronies repeated this. this was a lie. and they knew it and hoped to find wmd after the invasion to prove their point. and probably believed they would. so based on this the war was based on a lie. and some think the president should be able to do what is nesscessary to defend our interests. i dont believe lying to the people to get public support is one of them.

[Clarkmeister]

That's funny, I read that article and think it proves my point.

We still have nothing more than "possibly"'s.

And we still have an astonishing zero WMD, when our whole claim prior to the invasion was that Saddam not only had actual WMD he never destroyed, but we had confidential information that proved it existed.

Of course, we couldn't reveal that information at the time, so we resulted to using a 10 year old PHD thesis as "proof". Colin Powell has since admitted that much of his "evidence", even ignoring the PHD fiasco, was outdated pre-gulf war information. Presumably this was to protect our "true" information. Apparently this information wasn't very good, eh?

We haven't found the WMD, and our information was either wrong (evidence reliable enough to go to war should be reliable enough to find the *some* actual WMD in a 5 month timeframe) or we were lied to by the administration.

Now we are being told..."no no no no, he only needed to be a potential WMD threat down the line". Not a potential nuclear threat down the line, a potential WMD threat down the line. While the administration was honest that he likely did not have nukes now, they very clearly told us they thought he had WMD right here, right now, and those WMD were an immediate threat to Israel and other US interests.

So we are left with this about Saddam:

1. His military incapable of defending itself (leaving the question of how in the world was it a threat to others)

2. He had no WMD, which your article seems to concede with its fallback position that "well, WMD isn't a requirement, mere research by Iraq is sufficient".

How am I more safe today? Why spend half a trillion dollars now when we could have safely given another DECADE of negotiations and sanctions to work without risk?

It was a farce, and our handling of North Korea is revealing it as such.

[nicky g]

"evidence reliable enough to go to war should be reliable enough to find the *some* actual WMD in a 5 month timeframe"

Nicely put.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
"evidence reliable enough to go to war should be reliable enough to find the *some* actual WMD in a 5 month timeframe"

Nicely put.

[/ QUOTE ]

A simple question; Why five months? Why not 30 days? Or six months? Seems a bit arbitrary.

[nicky g]

I don't think Clark meant it as a fixed deadline - just that five months is stretching it a bit to not be able to find something you said you were sure was there, in large quantities, and sure enough to start a war on the assumption. Obviously the longer it goes on the less credible the pre-war claims become.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think Clark meant it as a fixed deadline - just that five months is stretching it a bit to not be able to find something you said you were sure was there, in large quantities, and sure enough to start a war on the assumption. Obviously the longer it goes on the less credible the pre-war claims become.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks Nicky, I see it as a judgement call, personally I think it make take much longer to complete the investigation. Additionally I do not remember any claims that large quantaties of WMD's were said to still be in Iraq, just that massive quantaties were unaccounted for by the regime. At any rate how much is too much? Methinks any is too much and that the UN violations coupled with potential future risks easily warranted the invasion.

[ACPlayer]

We haven't found the WMD, and our information was either wrong (evidence reliable enough to go to war should be reliable enough to find the *some* actual WMD in a 5 month timeframe) or we were lied to by the administration.

Perfectly said.

[ACPlayer]

Just as the David Kay report, these things can be interpreted to suit your views. Here is my basis for my views:

1. Saddam Hussein et al were nasty human being and the world is better off without them.
2. Saddam Hussein probably stretched broke the spirit if not the letter of the agreements on the cease fire and subsequent UN resolutions.
3. Saddam probably would like to build WMD.
4. He may have used them


All of the above are probably true.

Reasons for unilateral action against another country:

1. Imminent physical threat that cannot wait
2. Violation of physical security.

So, the representation made to us that warrant war:

1. He has actual WMD and an intent and desire and willingness to use them, and not just use them, but that there is gathering, present danger. This was presented as fact not fear.
2. He was part of the Al Qaeda 9/11 conspiracy. This was presented as a supposition with strong indications of accuracy.
3. A bunch of tertiary reasons that do not meet the test of a case for war (World would be a better place, he rapes women, ...).

I agree he may well have had the desire and willingness to use WMD against his people (though this has been much debated, whether it it was Iraq or Iran that used the weapons in Halapja, even in the US intelligence from what I gather).

I see no evidence that he would want to us use them against USA if he had them. I have no doubt he would be willing to use it against Israel if provoked enough and possibly without provocation. He may use them to expand his oil fields etc.

So, going back to enough reason to go to war:

I did not see any gathering, immediate threat to us at the time and, in retrospect, I dont see it now. The Kay evidence does not even come close to rising to the case that the words from Washington were true. It does say that the Saddam's words were possibly false.

Either we were lied to for reasons that have not been disclosed or the administration made an incompetent decision on a grave matter.

If it was just bad intelligence, I hope that someday the nuclear button is not pushed on that type of intelligence.


JMO.

[MMMMMM]

I agree with what you say here except I am not sure at this point of exactly what the administration said. Also I am not sure of how much of the administration's view was influenced by the erroneous British report or by the fact that sometimes intelligence gathering is less than perfect (especially when it depends on the human element) and that it may contain some errors or incomplete information. Thus at this point I am not fully convinced the administration deliberately lied. Nor am I fully convinced that they didn't.

[andyfox]

"So one aspect of a proper response to 9/11 was to have the US divest itself of some weapons."

I thought M was talking about personal weapon, i.e., the right to bear arms. Some conservatives feel there should be no restrictions on this right (HDPM, for example) because the more weapons the safer we are.

"So one of the ramifications of the US possessing whatever weapons we want or selling them to others was 9/11."

One of the ramifications is a much unsafer world. Bin Laden's group has some of our weapons which we gave to him.

"So the proper response to 9/11 was to have the US enter diplomatic negotiations with al qaeda."

One of the proper responses should have ben diplomacy. I was in favor of the attack on Afghanistan and the Taliban because they gave safe harbor to the people responsible for 9/11. Hussein was not responsible for 9/11 and was not a threat to us.

"So assuming that the leadership along with the rank and file of al qaeda are fanatical, muderous savages is wrong and the US should take more responsibility for 9/11."

The U.S. should take no responsibility for 9/11? We have just been minding our business all along and these guys just decided to hijack some planes and kill people? It wasn't me who invented the word "blowback," it was the CIA because they know it's real.

"So the attacks of 9/11 weren't attacks on the US and it's system of government. Since an aggressive war against al qaeda and their ilk would lead to more violence the US should have sat down at the negotiating table with al qaeda and their ilk to reach an appropriate compromise."

The invasion and occupation of Iraq was not a war on Al Qaeda.

I don't understand why conservatives have such faith in our government to do the right thing vis-a-vis foreign affairs and other nations. Conservatives are convinced the government is a bureaucratic nightmare that wastes tons of money domestically. How is it that the bureaucrats become miracle workers when they turn to foreign policy?

[jokerswild]

Considering that the Bush Administration did everythiing it could to permit 9-11, your argument doesn't hold water.

If the election in 2004 tilts towards a Bush defeat, then I predict the Bush regime will allow another attack to take place.

[ACPlayer]

That is way out of line.

IMO.

[adios]

You imply that Bush originated the idea of Iraq having WMD's when in truth it has been US policy since the Gulf War. I've posted more than once Clinton's statement after the December 1998 bombing of Baghdad claiming exactly that. Here are two more links regarding that bombing in 1998:

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT (http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/New/html/19981216-3611.html)


REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT (http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/New/html/19981217-6938.html)

Here's a review book written by a terrorism expert published in 2000:

Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War Against America (http://www.meib.org/articles/0101_irbr.htm)

The point is that the ideas espoused by the Bush administration had been around for a long time and had been part of US policy. He didn't invent the reasons he gave for invading Iraq. As I've pointed out before Clinton stated that any mistakes in evaluating Hussein's capabilities were understandable. Clinton should know he was privvy to the same information and intelligence. So your contention that Bush fabricated a bunch of reasons to invade Iraq is ludicrous. If Bush was fabricating the reasons why didn't he just fabricate some evidence?

[brad]

'If Bush was fabricating the reasons why didn't he just fabricate some evidence?'

ive heard one theory bush didnt want to trot out the found wmd stamped 'made in USA'.

because its true US shipped all sorts of chemical/bio weapons to iraq.

but who knows.

[jokerswild]

The truth hurts.