WMD's

Originally posted by normbenign
WMDs is a ridiculous abbreviation for Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear weapons. Clearly there were those weapons in Iraq at one time, and they are such that once created, they could be recreated. For example Iraqi scientists from Sadaam's regime who had fled to the US all said that he had the knowledge to make bombs. He clearly had the knowledge to make and use chemicals and biologicals, as well as the amorality to use them as he saw fit.

The excuse for the war wasn't that there were some Iraqis that knew how to produce such weapons but that the Iraqi government was actively creating them. That claim was blatantly false.

EDIT: "Indeed, the facts and Iraq's behavior show that Saddam Hussein and his regime are concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction."

US Secretary of State Colin Powell at the UN February 5, 2003

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/feb/05/iraq.usa

Originally posted by no1marauder
The excuse for the war wasn't that there were some Iraqis that knew how to produce such weapons but that the Iraqi government was actively creating them. That claim was blatantly false.

And the truth is that the Iraqi government (Sadaam) refused to cooperate with any and all UN resolutions to determine if there were such weapons or the ability to produce them. They played cat and mouse with weapons inspectors. In the end, full cooperation would have left Bush and the UN with no excuse for invasion. That no WMDs were found is in no way proof that they never existed. It was nearly a year from the UN resolution authorizing force and the final deployment of US troops.

The majority of both parties twice authorized US enforcement of the UN resolution, with Ron Paul and a few Democrats taking the negative position on the vote.

Originally posted by normbenign
And the truth is that the Iraqi government (Sadaam) refused to cooperate with any and all UN resolutions to determine if there were such weapons or the ability to produce them. They played cat and mouse with weapons inspectors. In the end, full cooperation would have left Bush and the UN with no excuse for invasion. That no WMDs were found is in no way ...[text shortened]... f the UN resolution, with Ron Paul and a few Democrats taking the negative position on the vote.

That is not the truth. The US attacked before the UN inspectors had finished their mission but no report by Blix and the rest at the time asserted that the Iraqi government was creating and/or possessed WMDs. No level of cooperation would have been sufficient to prevent Bush from invading Iraq.

There never was a UN resolution authorizing force and the US attempt to get one shortly before the invasion was abandoned without a Security Council vote because it was sure to fail.

Originally posted by normbenign
And the truth is that the Iraqi government (Sadaam) refused to cooperate with any and all UN resolutions to determine if there were such weapons or the ability to produce them. They played cat and mouse with weapons inspectors. In the end, full cooperation would have left Bush and the UN with no excuse for invasion. That no WMDs were found is in no way ...[text shortened]... f the UN resolution, with Ron Paul and a few Democrats taking the negative position on the vote.

After intensive, behind-the-scenes haggling, the council responded to Bush's challenge on November 7 by unanimously adopting Resolution 1441, which found Iraq in "material breach" of prior resolutions, set up a new inspections regime, and warned once again of "serious consequences" if Iraq again failed to disarm. The resolution did not explicitly authorize force, however, and Washington pledged to return to the council for another discussion before resorting to arms.

The vote for Resolution 1441 was a huge personal victory for Secretary of State Colin Powell, who had spent much political capital urging his government to go the UN route in the first place and had fought hard diplomatically to win international backing. Nonetheless, doubts soon emerged concerning the effectiveness of the new inspections regime and the extent of Iraq's cooperation. On January 21, 2003, Powell himself declared that the "inspections will not work." He returned to the UN on February 5 and made the case that Iraq was still hiding its weapons of mass destruction (WMD). France and Germany responded by pressing for more time. Tensions between the allies, already high, began to mount and divisions deepened still further when 18 European countries signed letters in support of the American position.

On February 14, the inspectors returned to the Security Council to report that, after 11 weeks of investigation in Iraq, they had discovered no evidence of WMD (although many items remained unaccounted for). Ten days later, on February 24, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Spain introduced a resolution that would have had the council simply declare, under Chapter VII of the UN Charter (the section dealing with threats to the peace), that "Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it in Resolution 1441." France, Germany, and Russia once more proposed giving Iraq still more time. On February 28, the White House, increasingly frustrated, upped the ante: Press Secretary Ari Fleischer announced that the American goal was no longer simply Iraq's disarmament but now included "regime change."

A period of intense lobbying followed. Then, on March 5, France and Russia announced they would block any subsequent resolution authorizing the use of force against Saddam. The next day, China declared that it was taking the same position. The United Kingdom floated a compromise proposal, but the council's five permanent members could not agree.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/58972/michael-j-glennon/why-the-security-council-failed

Originally posted by normbenign
And the truth is that the Iraqi government (Sadaam) refused to cooperate with any and all UN resolutions to determine if there were such weapons or the ability to produce them. They played cat and mouse with weapons inspectors. In the end, full cooperation would have left Bush and the UN with no excuse for invasion. That no WMDs were found is in no way ...[text shortened]... f the UN resolution, with Ron Paul and a few Democrats taking the negative position on the vote.

And the majority of Democrats in Congress voted against the resolution authorizing force against Iraq. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2002/h455

Originally posted by no1marauder
After intensive, behind-the-scenes haggling, the council responded to Bush's challenge on November 7 by unanimously adopting Resolution 1441, which found Iraq in "material breach" of prior resolutions, set up a new inspections regime, and warned once again of "serious consequences" if Iraq again failed to disarm. [b]The resolution did not explicitly auth ...[text shortened]...
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/58972/michael-j-glennon/why-the-security-council-failed

If the liberal Democrats remain in power nothing will ever be done to prevent Iran from building Nuclear weapons. At least Bush and the Republicans prevented Saddam Hussein from making WMDs and giving them to the terrorist groups to use. It really does not matter if the intelligence was not completely accurate to me. I think is better to be safe than sorry.

Originally posted by RJHinds
If the liberal Democrats remain in power nothing will ever be done to prevent Iran from building Nuclear weapons. At least Bush and the Republicans prevented Saddam Hussein from making WMDs and giving them to the terrorist groups to use. It really does not matter if the intelligence was not completely accurate to me. I think is better to be safe than sorry.

Dope, invading Iraq made the region less stable. ISIS wouldn't exist if Iraq hadn't been invaded. The Taliban probably wouldn't have made a comeback in Afghanistan either. Saddam Hussain did not have a stockpile of usable chemical weapons. He wasn't in a position to provide Terrorist groups with chemical weapons. The intelligence wasn't only inaccurate it was invented.

It's an interesting article that #1 posted, try reading it.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Dope, invading Iraq made the region less stable. ISIS wouldn't exist if Iraq hadn't been invaded. The Taliban probably wouldn't have made a comeback in Afghanistan either. Saddam Hussain did not have a stockpile of usable chemical weapons. He wasn't in a position to provide Terrorist groups with chemical weapons. The intelligence wasn't only inaccurate it was invented.

It's an interesting article that #1 posted, try reading it.

We could only guess at what would happened if we had done this, or that, or nothing. We can't know for sure if it would have been better or worse regardless of what we did or did not do. But I am on the side of doing something rather than doing nothing.

NBC is a liberal news organization and are not likely to present anything like this if it were not true.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/25546334/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/secret-us-mission-hauls-uranium-iraq/

FOX News maybe:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/07/05/report-uranium-stockpile-removed-from-iraq-in-secret-us-mission/

The Raw Story

In April, truck convoys started moving the yellowcake from Tuwaitha to Baghdad's international airport, the official said. Then, for two weeks in May, it was ferried in 37 flights to Diego Garcia, a speck of British territory in the Indian Ocean where the U.S. military maintains a base.

On June 3, an American ship left the island for Montreal, said the official, who declined to give further details about the operation.

The yellowcake wasn't the only dangerous item removed from Tuwaitha.

Earlier this year, the military withdrew four devices for controlled radiation exposure from the former nuclear complex. The lead-enclosed irradiation units, used to decontaminate food and other items, contain elements of high radioactivity that could potentially be used in a weapon, according to the official. Their Ottawa-based manufacturer, MDS Nordion, took them back for free, the official said.

The yellowcake was the last major stockpile from Saddam's nuclear efforts, but years of final cleanup is ahead for Tuwaitha and other smaller sites.

The U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency plans to offer technical expertise.

Last month, a team of Iraqi nuclear experts completed training in the Ukrainian ghost town of Pripyat, which once housed the Chernobyl workers before the deadly meltdown in 1986, said an IAEA official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the decontamination plan has not yet been publicly announced.

But the job ahead is enormous, complicated by digging out radioactive "hot zones" entombed in concrete during Saddam's rule, said the IAEA official. Last year, an IAEA safety expert, Dennis Reisenweaver, predicted the cleanup could take "many years."

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Report_Uranium_Stockpile_Removed_From_Iraq_0705.html

Originally posted by RJHinds
We could only guess at what would happened if we had done this, or that, or nothing. We can't know for sure if it would have been better or worse regardless of what we did or did not do. But I am on the side of doing something rather than doing nothing.

NBC is a liberal news organization and are not likely to present anything like this if it were not tr ...[text shortened]... " [/quote]

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Report_Uranium_Stockpile_Removed_From_Iraq_0705.html

From the NBC story:

Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.

Originally posted by no1marauder
From the NBC story:

Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. [b]There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.[/b]

This just goes to show that we stopped Saddam Hussein from obtaining any new material for more Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Originally posted by RJHinds
This just goes to show that we stopped Saddam Hussein from obtaining any new material for more Weapons of Mass Destruction.

It just shows that there was no need to invade Iraq in 2003 to do so.

Originally posted by no1marauder
It just shows that there was no need to invade Iraq in 2003 to do so.

Perhaps we could have kicked the can down the road, but eventually something was going to have to be done to ensure those WMDs did not get into the hands of the terrorists. Also eventually something is going to have to be done about ISIS, Al-Qaida, and Iran obtaining WMDs or we can just let them cut off our heads and be done with it.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Perhaps we could have kicked the can down the road, but eventually something was going to have to be done to ensure those WMDs did not get into the hands of the terrorists. Also eventually something is going to have to be done about ISIS, Al-Qaida, and Iran obtaining WMDs or we can just let them cut off our heads and be done with it.

RJ, thought shouldn't involve tramlines. Saddam did not have any usable chemical weapons. No one has ever accused him, to my knowledge, of having any interest in biological weapons - basically for the same reason everyone else is wary of them - too much chance of an own goal.

Nuclear weapons just aren't that easy to build. As witness N. Korea's inability to produce anything more than a fizzle. You need enough plutonium, a source of tritium and really good electronics. If they were easy to make everyone would have them. It's not just the non-proliferation treaty that's stopped it.

The only thing that could possibly be done is a dirty bomb. This is within reach of terrorist groups, but none has ever done it. The reason for this is that they want something spectacular. The purpose of their actions is propaganda and to spread fear. They do not want to induce a concerted international response. Besides radiological clean-up is a pain but can be done.

If you want to worry about radiological problems then worry about organised crime. They enter contracts to dispose of nuclear waste and then just dump it irresponsibly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_waste_dumping_by_the_%27Ndrangheta

Originally posted by DeepThought
RJ, thought shouldn't involve tramlines. Saddam did not have any usable chemical weapons. No one has ever accused him, to my knowledge, of having any interest in biological weapons - basically for the same reason everyone else is wary of them - too much chance of an own goal.

Nuclear weapons just aren't that easy to build. As witness N. Korea's ina ...[text shortened]... dump it irresponsibly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_waste_dumping_by_the_%27Ndrangheta

Another mistake Bush made was in not making any effort to use Iraq oil to at least pay for the war effort. He put all that burden on the American taxpayer.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Another mistake Bush made was in not making any effort to use Iraq oil to at least pay for the war effort. He put all that burden on the American taxpayer.

That would not have looked good to the world.