Rumsfeld Remarks

[Frowning Budah]

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, speaking in New York on Tuesday, said it was possible the reason Iraqi chemical or biological weapons had not yet been found was that Saddam Hussein's government "decided that they would destroy them prior to a conflict."

So how does this effect your opinion of the war?

[Kadath]

It doesn't affect it at all, which I suspect will be the case for everyone here.

[Peetster]

It doesn't influence my conclusion that we did good and the world is a better place because of our actions one bit.

[gonadman]

Weapons of mass destruction was the excuse to get in there. The actual existance of them, in my opinion is a moot point(and fuel for election year). Hussein seemed intent on developing a nuclear weapons program and sooner or later he would have acheived his goal(most likely with help from Russia, China, and yes, France). As his primary enemy, and target of propaganda, we would suddenly find ourselves in the crosshairs.

So, was it better to deal with him now, or wait for his weapons program to come to fruition?

Any self imposed destruction of his weapons prior to the war would only have been done to stave off war, not as a signal of a sudden change in long term objectives

[Dragonlich]

The problem wasn't only that Saddam has chemical and biological weapons. He also had the capability to create more on a moment's notice.

If someone has build and used WMDs before, it is not unreasonable to assume he will do it again; therefore, if the means to build them aren't destroyed, he will always remain dangerous.

[reconmike]

I would be willing to bet that there is a very dirty and toxic hole somewhere inside that shithole of a country.

He had the means to produce WMD, and he has proven he would use them,

Saddam Hussien no longer has the ability to do either now. Case closed.

[Daval]

The US has lost great face in the world because of the lack of WMD. They paraded around the world heralding the cause to war to eliminate the WMD, they went to the UN, they ridiculed Hans Blix.

What have they found? Nothing.

I am glad that Saddam Hussein is gone, and the world is a better place for that very fact. I just highly dissaprove of the way that the bush administration approached this war. I also think the world will be a much better place when GWB is eventually replaced as president (in another 5 years)

[Charlatan]

I'm surprised Rumsfeld is still trying to make excuses for not finding WMD. Why beat a dead horse? Clearly Iraq was not a threat no WMD have been found.

As for making them on a moments notice... you can't make them on a moments notice that's kind of the reason you stockpile them.

Now that the US is in Iraq I don't see why they don't just drop the charade. They went in to flex their new world order, where if you don't fall into line with US policy you get steam rolled.

Instead of making nations that would oppose the US with WMD tremble in their boots what they have done is urged them to develop their weapons even faster.

Saddam and company were disarming but still got invaded. Do you think North Korea learned something from this?

[4thTimeLucky]

There are two possibilities:

(1) Iraq destroyed its WMD before resolution 1441.

(2) Iraq destroyed its WMD after resolution 1441, when it knew it would be invaded.

If (2) then the US is in no worse position than it was before: It went to war to get rid of the WMD. And the war (or the iminent threat of war) got rid of the WMD.

If (1) then the US and UK are guilty of lying to their people and to the international community (Blair still says with 100% conviction that Iraw could have launched WMD within 48 hours). They are also guilty of illegally invading another country - no threat = no legality.
What makes me a little sad is that even if (1) is found to be true, then none of the pro-invasion people here are likely to see the illegality of what the US has done.

[gonadman]

In response to 4thTimeLucky, if Iraq destroyed its wmd prior to resolution 1441, it would seem the crux of the issue is whether the US and UK were aware of it. They would not be guilty of lying to their people if they still believed the weapons existed and the threat real.

If Iraq had destroyed its weapons before 1441, it would seem logical that they would have shown the weapons inspectors the methods and the site they used so it could be verified, and thus avoid war.

[reconmike]

Great reply gonadman,
I was going to post the same response, it would have been so easy for Hussien to show up the US by showing wonder boy Blix all the destroyed weapons, and documents proving it was done.

[guthmund]

Originally posted by gonadman
Weapons of mass destruction was the excuse to get in there. The actual existance of them, in my opinion is a moot point(and fuel for election year). Hussein seemed intent on developing a nuclear weapons program and sooner or later he would have acheived his goal(most likely with help from Russia, China, and yes, France). As his primary enemy, and target of propaganda, we would suddenly find ourselves in the crosshairs.

Using this sort of logic, we should invade every nation in the world. After all, they will eventually have nuclear weapons so we should blow them up now.

If the Administration wanted to get rid of Hussein because he was a bad guy, then why didn't they just say that instead of the myriad of excuses they flung our general direction.

....he could have ties with terrorists
....he could be friends with Osama
....he could be building massive biological stores
....he could be seeking nuclear weapons
....he could be building a giant fricken' "laser" to carve his likeness on the moon, a place America has already annexed with our cunning use of flags.....


If the Administration had just told us that "Saddam is a bad guy, we're going to try to root him out." I'd have been behind the guys 110%.

Finding weapons of mass destruction is the crux of the war now, for me anyway...

I compare us not finding WMDs to Geraldo searching for Al Capones Vault.

[4thTimeLucky]

To gonadman and reconmike....

Your are right to point out that I missed a step in the logic there. The missing step is that it is not enough to simply "believe" they still had WMD. The US and the UK invest hundreds of millions in their intelligence gathering operations and, I am sure, are pretty much aware of what goes on and went on in Iraq (even down to when and in which restaurant Hussein was eating his dinner, a piece of information known only by his inner circle.)

So IF Iraq destroyed its WMDs pre-1441 THEN either:
1) The US and UK intelligence gathering service was so flawed that they managed to interpret no WMDs as "a WMD capability that is a threat to the West and can be launched within 48 hours" (which was their reason for going to war).
....or....
2) The US and UK intelligence service is good at its job and was aware of the absence of WMDs.

The conclusions of which are:
1) The US and UK intelligence service is really quite pathetic and our two countries are guilty of gross negligence.
2) The US and UK intelligence service is quite good, the politicians lied (and are still lying), and the war was utterly illegal.

Which is it to be: gross negligence or illegal invasion?

Your second point was about Hussein showing all the evidence for destroyed weapons. The answer is that Hussein is a proud man, who likes to run rings around the West. He wasn't going to roll over and give us what we wanted on a plate. Does that mean we have the right to invade and kill thousands of civilans? No. It gives us the right to take action, certainly. But we had other responses open to us and it was these that the rest of the world was trying to get us to adopt.

guthmund

Being a "bad guy" is not an acceptable excuse for state intervention in domestic law and it sure as hell isn't in international law.
Al Qaida thought that Bush was a "bad man" and did something about it. Was that an acceptable justification for their actions? Not in the slightest, and neither would it have been for the US.

[Frowning Budah]

gonadman and reconmike have voiced my concerns. The American people and the World community were told that the US had proof that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, not that they were suspected of having WMD, and that we were in imminent danger from them. That was the reason we had to act quickly and that no additional time could be spent on inspections and diplomacy.

[Kadath]

I submit to you the question of North Korea.
Okay, that's not really a question, per se. Why haven't we invaded NK if all it takes is imminent danger? Especially given that Iraq's weapons couldn't reach us and NK's can...sigh. Been over this before.

[guthmund]

Originally posted by 4thtimelucky
Being a "bad guy" is not an acceptable excuse for state intervention in domestic law and it sure as hell isn't in international law. Al Qaida thought that Bush was a "bad man" and did something about it. Was that an acceptable justification for their actions? Not in the slightest, and neither would it have been for the US.

I'm just saying if that the intention all along was to remove an international ass clown, it would have been a little easier to swallow the War on Iraq pt II.

As for comparing Al Qaida to the United States military; you're comparing apples to oranges. While I don't agree with military intervention in Iraq, the military tried to reduce the number of innocent civilians dying on the battlefield. On the other hand, Al Qaida did the exact opposite and targeted the civilian population selectively.

[gonadman]

Using this sort of logic, we should invade every nation in the world. After all, they will eventually have nuclear weapons so we should blow them up now.
[/QUOTE]

We were in the unenviable position of having one of the worlds most irrational and bloodthirsty killers out to settle a vendetta against us. His lunacy and revenge seeking behavior was evidenced by his failed assasination attempt on George Bush after the first gulf war.

Other nations will develop nuclear weapons, but it is the stability and intentions of their government that will guide our response.

What if Hitler had the bomb???

[reconmike]

Originally posted by 4thTimeLucky
To gonadman and reconmike...

The conclusions of which are:
1) The US and UK intelligence service is really quite pathetic and our two countries are guilty of gross negligence.
2) The US and UK intelligence service is quite good, the politicians lied (and are still lying), and the war was utterly illegal.

Which is it to be: gross negligence or illegal invasion?

4th Timelucky, you still left one possiblity out and that is there ARE WMD still there and will be found and Bush is a world hero for stopping a madman.
Or is that just unthinkable for the anti-war people?

[4thTimeLucky]

reconmike

The thread was started about Rumsfeld's remarks that the WMDs may have been detsroyed pre-war.

I noted in my first post that this could fall into one of two scenarios:
1) Weapons detroyed pre-1441
2) Weapons destroyed after 1441

Then gonadman said that IF scenario (1) was true (the only scenario I have a real problem with) THEN the issues are (a) were the US aware and (b) why Hussein didn't reveal the lack of weapons.
You supported his post.

I then replied (using capital letters as here) that IF the weapons were destroyed pre-1441 THEN the US is guilty of either gross negligence due to criminally poor information or of lying to us about what they knew and illegally invading on the back of those lies.

If there are WMD or they were proven to be destroyed post-1441 then my points are moot*. I would still think the use of force was utterly disproprotionate to the threat, but that would be a seperate objection.

I hope that clears things up. I do not find it unthinkable that there ARE WMD, I just find it very revealing that the US is beginning to prepare us for the fact that there may not be.

*thanks to seretogis for spotting that my arguments would be redundant rather than silent.

[james t kirk]

Originally posted by 4thTimeLucky
There are two possibilities:

(1) Iraq destroyed its WMD before resolution 1441.

(2) Iraq destroyed its WMD after resolution 1441, when it knew it would be invaded.

There is a third possibility.....

3) All the chemical and biological weapons that Iraq was given by the USA were used by Saddam in murdering innocent Iraqis.

That's why Powell was so vague when he testified before the UN. He knew EXACTLY how many chemical and biological weapons the US gov't gave the Iraqis pre 1991 when Saddam was an american bitch.

There were no shipments after that.

I am not an expert, but producing biological weapons is not something than you can do by trotting over to the local Shoppers Drug Mart. You need quite the lab facilities, and THIS would not be something that the Iraqis could hide.

Truth is, the Iraqis did not have the capability of manufacturing biological weapons of any magnitude.

One could make the arguement that they have not yet found the chemical and biological weapons, which would be possible. However, they would have found the labs a long time ago and trotted them out on CNN, and said, "see, these are the facilities used to manufacture biological weapons".

The fact that they have not done so would indicate that the Iraqis did not have the capbability to manufacture their own biological weapons, instead relying on the imported ones.

Getting rid of Saddam is a good thing because he was a murdering prick. But while you are at it, half of the world are countries ruled by similar types.

It is interesting to note that Tony Blair never got on the Weapons of Mass Destruction bandwagon because he knew it was bullshit. Instead, he chose to argue the moralily of not doing something to remove the madman of Baghdad. It was only Bush and company who brayed on endlessly about weapons of mass destruction to sell the idea of invading Iraq to Joe Q Public.

[4thTimeLucky]

Oh, Tony Blair was on the bandwagon:

"The policy of containment is not working. The WMD programme is not shut down. It is up and running." Jan 14, 2003.

Questioned during that speech...

"Mr Blair was questioned consistently about regime change and he kept on answering, 'no, our focus is on disarmament.'
(Blair) said regime change would be nice but that was not a specific objective of the policy as far as he is concerned. And that creates a difference between him and (U.S. President) George Bush."
- from CNN

Blair knows full well the importance of legality as he is a firm supporter of the UN and likes to play by the rules. That is why he had to follow the WMD line. Unfortunately he may have been so keen to convince himself that there was a WMD threat (45 minutes to hit Britain - from the same speech) that he put pressure on the intelligence services to give him the answer he wanted/needed to hear.

[Kows]

Everyone says that Saddam was a bad guy - which he was - but they take that as a case for war. Yeah, worlds a better place without him, but it's not like we always have the best intentions either, or that we've always been the heroes...
...Just ask the natives.

Either way, we've destroyed the symptom, not the cause... but such is the way with causes like 'imminent danger'. The only danger was the Bush vote - Korea isn't a danger to that now that we've suceeded against Saddam.

[Sun Tzu]

Doesnt change it at all. The Baath party is keeping the Taliban company

[Charlatan]

The Taliban are on the rise again in Afganistan...

[Grothendieck]

To answer Frowning Budah's original question: It does not change my opinion. My feelings before the war were that

1. It was probable that the Saddam regime had some sort of hidden weapons.

2. There was absolutely NO PROOF of the existence of biological or chemical weapons.

We all know that the reasons the US administration gave for leading the war changed a couple of times during the war and the time leading up to it (except if you dig the "war on terrorism" slogan, which seems to like an "all-in-one" reason which includes everything and nothing). If the existence of these weapons was THE reason to lead the war, the US should better have had proof. What convinces me of the fact that no such proof was available, is that neither the UN nor the world public was presented such proof.

Enough said, the war is over, hopefully all parties involved will learn from it...

[guthmund]

Originally posted by gonadman
We were in the unenviable position of having one of the worlds most irrational and bloodthirsty killers out to settle a vendetta against us. His lunacy and revenge seeking behavior was evidenced by his failed assasination attempt on George Bush after the first gulf war.

So....he's a lunatic....and he hates us.....

I find it no big jump in logic that Iraq, a country who recently had it's ass handed back to them, would hatch some scheme to kill the President of the country that did the "ass handling."

Following that logic....we tried to kill Castro, so it would be alright for Cuba to come in and blow shit up and then set up camp?

Other nations will develop nuclear weapons, but it is the stability and intentions of their government that will guide our response.

What if Hitler had the bomb???

So, there were no other unstable governments in the world at the time who were closer to nuclear armament?

I mean, we pissed off France. They've got nuclear weapons, no? North Korea is developing Nuclear weapons; they've told us, but there no bigger threat than "Crazy pants" Hussein and his crack republican guard?

Just because Hitler was crazy doesn't mean he was particularly stupid. Using something like that would've certainly involved the United States a lot sooner, which in turn would've squashed his already slim chances of winning to nothing.

Are you seriously comparing Hitler , a truly evil man who spawned a World War that lasted years and killed millions of Jewish folk....to Hussein , a semi-crazy desert despot who was completely decimated in 4 weeks of ground fighting?

I think you're giving Saddam too much credit and Hitler not enough.

[KillerYoda]

Whenever Rumsfeld addresses the nation, I always imagine him in the backseat of a car trying to con a cheerleader into giving him a handjob. He has this real creepy tone and look when he gives speeches that I haven't seen since Clinton left office.