The Case For War Is Blown Apart

Independent UK ^ | 05-29-03

[dirtboy]

Then let the U.N. deal with Iraq, since it was their inspectors who were dealing with "Iraqi intransigence."

Any of the involved parties at the close of the Gulf War had the perogative to re-start hostilities if Saddam was in non-compliance of the cease-fire terms, which he was.

[Chi-townChief]

"The Case For War Is Blown Apart"

Blair should just respond to Ben Russell and Andy McSmith in Kuwait City with Slick Willie's line: "Blow This!"

[chudogg]

we had supplied them with a bunch of biological weapons

Anybody who told you this or any source you can find is wrong. The U.S. did not supply Iraq with biological weapons. The U.S., along with many other nations, did supply them with biolical materials for research on medical purposes. These sales were aproved by the Center of Disease and Control in Atlanta, not the DOD,CIA etc. In the 1980s, any college profesor had access to the same materials that the nation of Iraq could get.

However, Hussein had no intention of research for medical purposes, and built a weaponizing program instead.

[Alberta's Child]

What does "neighboring Arab countries" have anything to do with what I posted?

Read post #2. That's exactly what I was responding to.

[zip]

. But we knew that already since we had supplied them with a bunch of biological weapons when they were fighting Iran.

This proves the point that real Americans are making - You say we gave them bio weapons and then you say they don't have them. Which is it?

[Dr. Frank fan]

The U.S. and the U.K. claimed that the Iraqi government possessed weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein and the neighboring Arab countries claimed that they did not. Hence, the burden of proof is on the U.S. and the U.K.

This reasoning would be absolutely correct if Iraq were a defendant in a criminal trial (for the crime of: possessing weapons of mass destruction) and the U.S. and the U.K. were its prosecutors. That is not the situation, however. The situation is almost nothing like that, in any way.

I remember a time when anyone who thumbed his nose at the United Nations was seen as a champion of some of the principles that conservatives hold dear.

Me too. And, isn't that what we did, thumb our noses at the UN for disingenuously failing to enforce their own phony rules? At least, that's what leftists always tell me when they say we did it "unilaterally" etc.

Anyone who truly believes that the United States government would have placed thousands of U.S. military personnal in close proximity to Iraq if there was any chance in hell that Iraq possessed "weapons of mass destruction" is naive.

Then you must not believe the '91 Gulf War occurred. After all: we placed thousands of U.S. military personnel in Kuwait (at least), and: we knew that Iraq had various WMDs - at least, that's what leftists always tell me; in fact according to leftists we're the ones who supplied the WMDs to some extent. Right? Well, I believe the '91 Gulf War occurred in spite of all that. I guess that makes me "naive" and you know better.

[Stone Mountain]

Sorry - my bad - you are correct, we supplied them with the precursors for biological weapons with the knowledge that they would develop those weapons. It's not the same as supplying them with the actual weapons, but it's close...

[GETMAIN]

Then let the U.N. deal with Iraq, since it was their inspectors who were dealing with "Iraqi intransigence."
---
Because it would be US citizens and allies dying at the hands of the alleged weapons. Example -- You overhear your neighbor talking about how he likes to molest children. You tell the police about it but they say there is nothing they can do about because they can't find the proof. Do you continue to let your children play at the neighbor's house?

[hirn_man]

Other than some anthrax(non military) that we gave to the Iraqi department of agriculture what WMD are you referring to?
VX gas? Sarin? Mustard gas?
I don't think so.

[lasereye]

Well, Iraq said that they had destroyed all their WMD. IF they hadn't, then we should be able to show that.

Our best intelligence was that they had WMD's. If they destroyed them right before the start of the war, how does that disprove our intelligence? The mobile bio-labs were known to our intelligence and were subsequently proven to exist. So our intelligence was correct.

[Alberta's Child]

WMD are just one of many reasons they were attacked.

WMD was nothing more than the main point of the public relations sales pitch behind the war. The irony of this is that so many rational, intelligent folks here on FR bought into a propaganda campaign that was aimed at the same soccer moms that had been watching Oprah and salivating over Bill Clinton for most of the last ten years.

[Billthedrill]

Better get used to it, because this game is going to go on for some time. We find something, the bar gets raised, we find something else, the bar gets raised again. Were we to dig up (and I do think there's quite a bit buried) an entire arsenal the ground would shift to "but it was buried and therefore not dangerous." Were we to find it on the launcher it would be "but it wasn't fired, therefore there's no proof it was intended to be." This game goes on ad infinitum - what it boils down to is the opposition party saying "you have to provide proof I'll accept, and nothing you provide will be acceptable." It isn't ever stated quite that bluntly, but it's a fact, and the logical conclusion, that no acknowledgment is either forthcoming or even possible, is the correct one.

[colorado tanker]

Iraq would not have spent a bunch of money on atropine injectors and chemical suits if they didn't have nerve gas. They knew the coalition would never use nerve gas.

Two scenarios seem most likely to me. One, the stuff was well hidden to keep it away from Blix. Then one of two things happened; either our advance was so fast there was no time to take it out of storage and distribute it, or it was destroyed by someone who didn't want to be tried for war crimes. Second, the stuff was moved to Syria or Iran.

IMHO we are unlikely to find anything through our own inspectors, but will have to find the truth through interrogation of senior officials.

[Alberta's Child]

Those weapons are most effective nowadays against civilian populations, such as the Tokyo sarin attacks or the gassing of the Kurds.

These kinds of weapons don't have to produced by a rogue nation with a "weapons program." For civilians in the U.S., Iraq was never the biggest threat from such an attack.

[chudogg]

we supplied them with the precursors for biological weapons with the knowledge that they would develop those weapons. It's not the same as supplying them with the actual weapons, but it's close...

No its not. The rules for purchasing these agents were extremely lax in years past. Any professor at a community college could buy vials of anthrax, botulinum, etc. All they needed was aproval from some desk jockey at the Center of Disease and Control. The FBI, CIA, NSA, DOD, State Deparment, Congress, or even the president did give any form of aproval to these sales or even demonstrate knowledge that such sales were taken place. Such was the naivety of the laws regulating the sale of these biogical agents. It was assumed that since they were not weaponized that they posed no threat.

[Alberta's Child]

Anyone who thinks that those mobile labs were perfectly legitimate items ("baby milk factories") or that Saddam Hussein should have been left alone is TERMINALLY naive, if you want my opinion.

All I'm asking is for the truth here. The U.S. sure as hell didn't go to war over a "weapons program" that consisted of a few modified hot dog trucks.

[hchutch]

Hence the use of songs by "Barney the Dinosaur."

To me, the mobile labs are a smoking gun. Why have them mobile, if not to hide them from inspectors? And if they are innocent, why hide them from the inspectors?

[dirtboy]

These kinds of weapons don't have to produced by a rogue nation with a "weapons program." For civilians in the U.S., Iraq was never the biggest threat from such an attack.

Saddam had a long history of supporting terrorism. Just because he wasn't the biggest threat, it doesn't mean we should have therefore ignored him.

The world community had played patty-cake with Saddam for 12 years. We finally ended that game, and showed that we will no longer accept UN games and words as a substitute for action against rogue states. And other rogue nations are now on notice as a result.

[colorado tanker]

To me, the mobile labs are a smoking gun.

Agreed. Didn't Blixman basically call Powell a liar when Powell said the mobile labs existed?

It's unsettling, to say the least, that there is probably a bunch of really bad stuff out there loose.