Iraq WMD thread

[Phi for All]

You are stuck in an anti-occam's razor mentality that you want to over complicate the follow through on a "lie" that you already think they managed successfully for over a year leading up to the war. By your estimation, all they would have had to do if they were lying in continue the lie after the invasion with all that dummied up evidence you think they were showing to the American people and the UN.

Firstly, you're mixing quotes from my responses to different people. Secondly, you are reaching with both hands into the assumption bag about my mentality, based on what I've said so far about this matter. It shows you have a rabid response to any kind of inquiry that is at odds with your opinions. And thirdly, despite attempts and entreaties to avoid going off-topic in this thread, you persist in doing so. Let's start another thread or resurrect one of the old WMD threads.

 

I don't even know what you are saying. Since when is Sarin not considered a WMD?

Didn't I say that I was arguing against that very point. Oh, yes I did, just a bit earlier, in the first sentence of the last paragraph in post #30.

 

That CDC article clearly states that Sarin is a weaponized nerve agent and is very toxic, and severe exposure is deadly...

It is an area denial agent, meant to flush out an enemy so you can shoot him with bullets. It only kills when one can't leave the area.

 

If used underground, where it's density concentrates its effectiveness, in a closed area packed with people like a subway, it can be lethal, as in the Tokyo subway attack in 1995.

 

are you going on some other definition of what a WMD is that I am not aware of?

Sarin is a weapon, I'll grant you. Mass Destruction? Two people got "destructed" in the Tokyo subway attack, a venue with circumstances that heavily favored Sarin's lethality. Do you think the American people would have counted Sarin as a WMD worth invading Iraq for if they had been told more than "deadly nerve gas"?

 

 

 

 

 

To (hopefully) bring this back around to the topic, I think the Bush administration had a plan that involved oil (their area of expertise) and began gathering justifications and reasons to implement that plan. Countries rarely go to war for just one reason and I can hardly fault them for killing as many "birds" as they could with this trillion dollar "stone". What remains crucial to me is whether they unfairly manipulated the bidding processes and bypassed our own market structure to favor their own, and whether they had to resort to lies and subterfuge against the American people to do it. Meetings kept secret with "supreme" fanaticism don't look to be counted in their favor.

[jryan]

Firstly, you're mixing quotes from my responses to different people. Secondly, you are reaching with both hands into the assumption bag about my mentality, based on what I've said so far about this matter. It shows you have a rabid response to any kind of inquiry that is at odds with your opinions. And thirdly, despite attempts and entreaties to avoid going off-topic in this thread, you persist in doing so. Let's start another thread or resurrect one of the old WMD threads.

 

First, my statement was not rabid.

 

Secondly, please explainto me what your belief is in contrast to what I have stated.

 

Thirdly, I had stated that we should start a new thread, but everyone keeps responding here. I am not sure how it is MY fault that the responses to my post were put in that thread. But I have now split it off so that you won't have to.

 

Didn't I say that I was arguing against that very point. Oh, yes I did, just a bit earlier, in the first sentence of the last paragraph in post #30.

 

You sated in that post that you didn't think Sarin was a WMD. I asked you how you came to that conclusion.

 

Here is your post again:

 

The report is an excellent one, but it's a strawman for my argument that gases like Sarin hardly constitute WMDs as the administration claimed. I made no assumptions and attributed no motivations (no one had to do much more than say "nerve gas"), and you'll find only facts about Sarin from this CDC link so you won't have to rely on my misinformed opinion.

 

So again, how do you come to that conclusion based on the CDC entry you posted?

 

It is an area denial agent, meant to flush out an enemy so you can shoot him with bullets. It only kills when one can't leave the area.

 

That is completely false. If you dump Sarin into a large populated area, the people in that area will be as good as dead before they know they should be exiting the area. From the CDC article:

 

"Sarin is a clear, colorless, and tasteless liquid that has no odor in its pure form. However, sarin can evaporate into a vapor (gas) and spread into the environment."

 

So explain to me how a colorless, odorless, tasteless gas would be an effective "area denial" tool? It's hard to deny area when the opponent doesn't know the stuff is their until they are dying from it.

 

If used underground, where it's density concentrates its effectiveness, in a closed area packed with people like a subway, it can be lethal, as in the Tokyo subway attack in 1995.

 

Which is the primary reason we wanted the stuff out of the hands of Saddam Hussein. I am not sure why you want to do so many mental contortions so you can disqualify Sarin as a WMD. Whether it is MORE effective in certain locations rather than others is immaterial. It would be like saying nuclear bombs are not WMDs because they are only effective against large, above ground, cities. The fact that Sarin is MORE efficient in closed spaces make NO difference whatsoever.

 

 

Sarin is a weapon, I'll grant you. Mass Destruction? Two people got "destructed" in the Tokyo subway attack, a venue with circumstances that heavily favored Sarin's lethality. Do you think the American people would have counted Sarin as a WMD worth invading Iraq for if they had been told more than "deadly nerve gas"?

 

Well, actually it was twelve dead, fifty severly injured, and temporary blindness to thousands more... all that from just 900 milliliters of Sarin. Had they used as little as 2 liters in that same space the death toll would have skyrocketed.

 

Now think of as little as four liters of Sarin in a small backpack in a busy New York subway station, or a domed football stadium.....

[Pangloss]

In my opinion Sarin constitutes a "WMD", but it is insufficient causes belli in the case of Iraq.

 

(Edit: Not offering that as refutation, btw, just going on record for this thread.)

 

Crud. I just moved Phi's post into this thread, but it put it at the top instead of appending it to the bottom. Some sort of bug in VB? Edit: Ok, I get it, Phi's post predates jryan's. Makes sense now. This looks right IMO but anybody has a problem with it just holler.

Edited July 1, 2008 by Pangloss
multiple post merged

[bascule]

I think sarin might constitute a WMD when it isn't 10 years past its shelf life

[jryan]

In my opinion Sarin constitutes a "WMD", but it is insufficient causes belli in the case of Iraq.

 

(Edit: Not offering that as refutation, btw, just going on record for this thread.)

 

Crud. I just moved Phi's post into this thread, but it put it at the top instead of appending it to the bottom. Some sort of bug in VB?

 

 

Well, you can continue to take each bit of evidence in a vacuum and say that that particular bit is not enought to go to war, but when you take a step back and look at even some of the accepted pieces together the picture looks a little different.

 

Here some of the things that we know that by themselves would be insufficient to go to war:

 

1) Saddam actively acted against the articles of the cease fire and denied inspectors access to sites for several weeks at a time.

 

2) Saddam Fired on U.S. planes that were patrolling the No-Fly zones that were agreed to in the cease fire agreement

 

3) Saddam was actively planning to reconstitute his WMD programs as soon as the UN lifted sanctions

 

4) Saddam maintained stockpiles of WMDs and precursors

 

5) Saddam sought uranium from Niger (the only piece that requires a little assumption.... but the alternative explanation makes less sense)

 

6) Saddam gave financial support to families of dead terrorists

 

7) Saddam was running a massive scam in the "oil for food" that made him millions of dollars and allowed him to bribe numerous UN and foreign officials. The ensured that the sanctions would continue to only affect those in Iraq that the program was meant to help and fill Saddam's coffers.

 

8 ) Among other things funded by this income were missiles with extended ranges in direct violation with the cease fire agreement (such as the Al-Samoud missile)

 

etc. etc.

 

I wonder what is supposed to happen when you repeated break the articles of a cease fire....

 

I think sarin might constitute a WMD when it isn't 10 years past its shelf life

 

And the status of the Sarin in Iraq should have been known even though it was hidden because everyone knows the current administration is omniscient.

Edited July 1, 2008 by jryan
multiple post merged

[Pangloss]

Ok, I agree with your saying that we have to look at those things, but each of those things is either manageable or out of context at the time of the invasion, so "looking at the big picture" is as much a matter of spin as ignoring them.

[bascule]

And the status of the Sarin in Iraq should have been known even though it was hidden because everyone knows the current administration is omniscient.

 

Given its limited shelf life, unless they're actively producing it we don't need to worry.

 

In 20/20 hindsight they hadn't been producing it for a decade.

[jryan]

Ok, I agree with your saying that we have to look at those things, but each of those things is either manageable or out of context at the time of the invasion, so "looking at the big picture" is as much a matter of spin as ignoring them.

 

You are assuming that we had the benefit of hindsight in 2003, but we didn't. If you can look at that information without muddying it with what you know now and also consider that the existence of the WMDs is a conclusion that was held by most of the western intelligence agencies, you can see better where we were.

 

Given its limited shelf life, unless they're actively producing it we don't need to worry.

 

In 20/20 hindsight they hadn't been producing it for a decade.

 

 

And we didn't know whether that was the case. So shelf life would not have played a role in the decision. Saddam active stymied the ability of UNSCOM to uncover the truth, leaving us with the conclusion that he is either actively hiding nothing or actively hiding something.

 

Assuming the former was not in the cards.

[iNow]

If you can look at that information without muddying it with what you know now and also consider that the existence of the WMDs is a conclusion that was held by most of the western intelligence agencies, you can see better where we were.

Then why, if the case was supposedly so clear, did we rely so heavily on evidence from curveball in our decision... evidence that no other intelligence agency in the world would have accepted (including many within our own), the majority of whom said it was doubtful and likely fabricated?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)

 

 

The evidence was not as plain as you make it out to be, nor were attempts to make sure the evidence we did have was accurate.

[Pangloss]

You are assuming that we had the benefit of hindsight in 2003, but we didn't. If you can look at that information without muddying it with what you know now and also consider that the existence of the WMDs is a conclusion that was held by most of the western intelligence agencies, you can see better where we were.

 

I just don't think that's accurate. Other countries were basing their intelligence assessments off ours. That's because no western intelligence agency had anything like as complete a picture as we had. And we were cherry-picking our facts.

 

Have you read Bob Woodward's trilogy of Bush administration books, jryan? I recommend Plan of Attack first and foremost. You know who else recommends them? George W. Bush. He gave Woodward unprecedented access, and complimented him numerous times on his accuracy and integrity after he read Woodward's books. I believe there's a subtle message there -- he may not entirely agree with Woodward, but he's going to admit someday that he was wrong about invading Iraq, or come darn close to doing so. You heard it here first.

 

 

Saddam active stymied the ability of UNSCOM to uncover the truth, leaving us with the conclusion that he is either actively hiding nothing or actively hiding something.

 

That he did. But in my opinion that is insufficient reason given the other inputs we were receiving and should have been heeding.

[jryan]

I just don't think that's accurate. Other countries were basing their intelligence assessments off ours. That's because no western intelligence agency had anything like as complete a picture as we had. And we were cherry-picking our facts.

 

Well, that is not true. The Niger intelligence, for example, was from the UK and Italy, the US contribution was from Joe Wilson, who has since been discredited for his obvious omissions of fact or just plain ignorance.

 

And with regard to the rest of the case made by the Bush Administration, read the the arguments for holding Saddam in contempt of the cease fire, and then read the January 2003 report by Hans Blix to the UN:

 

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm

 

The two are not significantly different.

 

As Bush said early on in the run up to the war, he was moving forward in such a way that his mistakes would not be due to assuming U.S. enemies couldn't harm the U.S., and that he would take the necessary effeorts to be sure. In the case of Saddam, he actively symied efforts to inspect his WMD capabilities, and the only way Bush saw to be sure would be to go in and oust Saddam.

 

There is much to say on boths sides about the manner in which he went about doing that, but I understand his motive.

 

Have you read Bob Woodward's trilogy of Bush administration books, jryan? I recommend Plan of Attack first and foremost. You know who else recommends them? George W. Bush. He gave Woodward unprecedented access, and complimented him numerous times on his accuracy and integrity after he read Woodward's books. I believe there's a subtle message there -- he may not entirely agree with Woodward, but he's going to admit someday that he was wrong about invading Iraq, or come darn close to doing so. You heard it here first.

 

Yes, I've read them. And yes, they are excellent books. I would suggest you also read "Unholy Alliance" by David Horowitz as an interesting companion to those books and as interesting insight into the politics underlying the anti-war movement.

 

That he did. But in my opinion that is insufficient reason given the other inputs we were receiving and should have been heeding.

 

The administration listened to that "mostly harmless" assumption leading up to 9/11 as well.

[Pangloss]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[bascule]

And we didn't know whether that was the case. So shelf life would not have played a role in the decision.

 

Huh? Are you saying since we don't know, we should assume, by default, that he's making more sarin?

 

Saddam active stymied the ability of UNSCOM to uncover the truth, leaving us with the conclusion that he is either actively hiding nothing or actively hiding something.

 

As it turned out, he was actively hiding nothing. Glad we destroyed our economy, our reputation in the international community, and the lives of thousands of Americans to figure that out empirically.

 

Assuming the former was not in the cards.

 

Your argument is based on an appeal to consequences (if Saddam has WMDs he might kill us all!), which is a logical fallacy. I agree having WMDs is bad, but it says nothing about the truth of whether or not he did have WMDs. This turned out to be false, and there turned out to be dire consequences on the other side as well.

[Pangloss]

Exactly. And if I could extend that a bit with my own opinion (not trying to put words in Bascule's mouth, but just in addition to what he said), I would say that if there's as much uncertainty and counter-evidence as we now know existed and was reviewed by the administration, it seems clear that you don't invade. You keep the pressure on, you keep the information out there and transparent, and you await further developments.

 

I think it's awful what the Iraqi people were dealing with under Saddam. But dammit, I'm tired of being both the scapegoat and the paymaster for all the world's ills, and I think if the world wasn't willing to step up OR support us, then we should have waited, even if it meant another WMD attack from Saddam (which I'm SURE would have been followed with a tirade of blame against the US, but at least I'd be several thousand dollars richer).