Skip navigation.

WMD in Iraq?

Think the debate about pre-war intelligence--what we knew and what we didn't know--is over? Think again.

Yesterday we attended a lecture by Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of the British Secret Intelligence Service. Mr. Dearlove fielded our questions about 9/11, Iraq, and the nature of covert intelligence collection and analysis.

Click here to read the full take and please note that we have changed our web address to lybberty.com.

WMD's found in the USA

It is easy to blame Saddam for the war and for the fictitious or non fictitious WMD (The weapons inspectors in the latter 90's and the NIE of 2001 would say they were more on the fictitious side), but we forget so easily how Saddam was our boy and we supported him in all of his atrocities by blocking efforts to censure him at the UN and financially supporting his war against Iran and providing weapons for him as well as precursors for biochemical weapons etc.
Guess who does have WMD's and uses them on a regular basis these days?

WMD's in Israel

And, it turns out that Israel, which is currently going beserk in the middle east, has a lot of WMD's. 200-500 nuclear warheads by most estimates.

And finally, WMD's in Iraq

More WMD's found in Iraq: Depleted Uranium killing Iraqi kids.

"The World Health Organization (WHO) has reported that Iraq, with a population of about 26 million, in the year 2000 had a total of 195,374 new cases of cancer and 126,677 cancer deaths, most of them children.

From 1990 to 1999, the cancer rate rose 242 percent in southern Iraq alone and birth defects increased tenfold.

Before the 1991 Gulf War, children made up 13 percent of cancer cases. By 2002, 56 percent of all cancer cases were in children under 5."

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m24596&hd=0&size=1&l=e

WMD Illusions

I suppose it's a testament to the undying nature of the human spirit that folks like Santorum and Lybbert continue to argue that Saddam had WMDs.

The bottom line is pretty simple: If he had usable WMDs, why would he choose not to use them? If he had WMDs, but they weren't usable, or if he had no WMDs, then the WMD rational for the invasion was mistaken - either an intentional mistake or an accidental one.

It's a pretty inescapable fact that Saddam had no WMDs available to use against our invasion. To suggest that they were transported to Syria (a theory which even the Bush Administration does not endorse) is speculation that flies in the face of logic.

Jacob, this argument is over. Bush was wrong. You were wrong. I was wrong. That happens to all of us at times. Just accept it and move on.

Part of the problem is that

Part of the problem is that Saddam was under the mistaken impression that people thinking that he had WMDs made him safer (a la North Korea, where it does make them less likely to be invaded).

Lots of issues. Small amounts of WMDs, have, of course been found. A few hundred gas shells (with gas) here, other stuff there. The pace of war was fast enough that those never got fully deployed.

Kurds, anyone?

Maybe we should ask them whether Saddam Hussein had access to WMDs.

But who cares about Kurds...think of Iraqi children!!11...The war's gotta end!!1!1...Buck Fush!!1!1...Vote Democrat!!!1!11one

Disclaimer: any suggestions that people use the consequences of the war on the Iraqi people to their own political advantage are a product of your own imagination, and in no way they represent the actions of key members of the Democrat party, or ego-boosting mental activities of teenage punk-libs.

"There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Hamlet, Shakespeare

WMD's in Iraq

"[UN Sanctions] have worked. He [Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction (Secretary of State Colin Powell, 2/24/01). I don't think that Iraq is especially eager in the biological and chemical area to produce such weapons for storage (Former UNSCOM chief, Rolf Ekeus, 3/00). When I left Iraq in 1998... the [nuclear] infrastructure and facilities had been 100% eliminated. There's no debate about that. All of their instruments and facilities had been destroyed. The weapons design facility had been destroyed. The production equipment had been hunted down and destroyed (Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, 9/02).
According to Ha'aretz columnist Gideon Levy, Israel's previous director of Military Intelligence, Amos Malka, declared in Fall 2002 that "he was more concerned about traffic accidents" in Israel than WMD in Iraq
http://www.counterpunch.org/chazelle01312004.html

Who?

Guess who does have WMD's and uses them on a regular basis these days?

The suspense is killing me.

"There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Hamlet, Shakespeare

Ask the US

You don't need to ask the Kurds. Ask Pres. Reagan or any of his administration. They stifled a US Congressional plan of sanctions against Saddam and supported the atrocities against the Kurds. Same with the rest of Saddam's atrocities up to Kuwait. The complicity of the US government in all of this is glaring.

The leet speak is fun, isn't

The leet speak is fun, isn't it? A straw man brought down to the language of the people, the internet language. Sure makes for a compelling point. Not to mention the eternal phantasm of the "punk lib".
----------

I think we have a responsibility as the invading nation to consider the human cost of this war, and I don't think that responsibility is being met, by either the GOP or dems, by anyone.

That said, do you ever hear reports on the news, ostensibly the liberal controlled media, about the casualty toll of this war on civilians? Even setting aside the daily insugent attacks, I'm talking about casualty numbers from just direct US operations?

You really dont, the numbers you hear are the numbers of US soldiers hurt or killed. It's these numbers that democrats clutch on to, because unfortunately these are the only numbers that matter to the American public. These are the numbers that can be used in the political arena. The american public at large could give two whits about Iraqi civilian casualties; at the very least, it's not going to drive anyone to action, or more specifically, to vote.

Since we as a nation will reap whatever benefits are to come from this conflict (secured oil, maybe a friendly ally in the region), and since this war was initiated by us, I think that we have an obligation to consider the full human cost, and not just as it applies to our own citizens.
-------------

For the record, I have made friends with some of the iraqi children so scornfully referenced above, and the experience has changed my life, not just my politics.

So what about the kurds?

Let's see how much the US government cared about the kurdish situation.

As the most senior U.S. official to visit Iraq in six years, Rumsfeld had served as Reagan's point man for warming relations with Saddam. In 1984, the administration engineered the sale to Baghdad of 45 ostensibly civilian-use Bell 214ST helicopters. Saddam's military found them quite useful for attacking Kurdish civilians with poison gas in 1988, according to U.S. intelligence sources. "In response to the gassing," journalist Jeremy Scahill has pointed out, "sweeping sanctions were unanimously passed by the U.S. Senate that would have denied Iraq access to most U.S. technology. The measure was killed by the White House."
http://www.counterpunch.org/solomon12082005.html

and..

After the massacres, despite urgent concerns raised at government level by the Senate, NGOs and other international observers, the US was granting new licenses for dual-use technology exports--materials that could be used to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons - at a rate more than 50 per cent greater than before Saddam's gassing of the Kurds. At around the same time, US Customs Service inspectors had "detected a marked increase in the activity levels of Iraq's procurement networks. These increased levels of activity were particularly noticeable in the areas of missile technology, chemical-biological warfare and fuze technology."
http://www.counterpunch.org/ahmed10252005.html

US cares about Kurds

A good measure of how much US government cares about Kurds is seen in Turkey, across the border of Iraq, where there were about 2 million kurdish refugees 1984-1999, persecuted bigtime and killed by the Turkish government... Tens of thousands of people killed, 3500 towns and villages destroyed... all with US supplied weapons and helicopters. Of course, Turkey is a strategic ally of the US and it doesn't matter what they do to their kurds, just what Saddam does to his.

US support for Iraq WMD's

The US provided information to Iraq so that they could successfully drop Chemical Weapons (CW) on Iran!
The following information should change sentiments against Saddam or Iraq for WMD stuff, to dislike for our own government at the support they showed Saddam for his atrocities, which we are now condemning when it is convenient for our purposes.

Enjoy

"According to the Washington Post, the CIA began in 1984 secretly to give Iraq intelligence that Iraq uses to "calibrate" its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. In August, the CIA establishes a direct Washington-Baghdad intelligence link, and for 18 months, starting in early 1985, the CIA provided Iraq with "data from sensitive U.S. satellite reconnaissance photography...to assist Iraqi bombing raids." The Post’s source said that this data was essential to Iraq’s war effort.[17]
Following the Halabja attack and Iraq’s August CW offensive against Iraqi Kurds, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed on 8 September the "Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988" the day after it is introduced.[31] The act cuts off from Iraq U.S. loans, military and non-military assistance, credits, credit guarantees, items subject to export controls, and U.S. imports of Iraqi oil.[32] Immediately after the bill’s passage the Reagan Administration announced its opposition to the bill,[33] and SD spokesman Charles Redman called the bill "premature".[34] The Administration works with House opponents to a House companion bill, and after numerous legislation compromises and end-of-session haggling, the Senate bill died "on the last day of the legislative session".[35] According to a 15 September news report, Reagan Administration officials stated that the U.S. intercepted Iraqi military communications marking Iraq’s CW attacks on Kurds.[36] U.S. intelligence reported in 1991 that the U.S. helicopters sold to Iraq in 1983 were used in 1988 to spray Kurds with chemicals.[37]
The Security Council could only condemn Iraq by name for using chemical weapons through non-binding Presidential statements, over which permanent members of the Security Council do not have an individual veto. On 21 March 1986, the Security Council President, making a "declaration" and "speaking on behalf of the Security Council," stated that the Council members are "profoundly concerned by the unanimous conclusion of the specialists that chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian troops...[and] the members of the Council strongly condemn this continued use of chemical weapons in clear violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 which prohibits the use in war of chemical weapons".[51] The US voted against the issuance of this statement, and the UK, Australia, France and Denmark abstained. However, the concurring votes of the other ten members of the Security Council ensured that this statement constituted the first criticism of Iraq by the Security Council. A similar Presidential statement was made on 14 May 1987, which noted that the Council was "deeply dismayed" about the CW use against Iranian forces and civilians.

Items sent from the U.S. during the Reagan and Bush Administrations that helped Iraq’s non-conventional weapons programs and that were shipped to known military industrial facilities include:
Computers to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons;[59] machine tools and lasers to extend ballistic missile range;[60] graphics terminals to design and analyze rockets;[61] West Nile Fever virus, a known potential BW agent, sent by the U.S. government’s Centers for Disease Control (CDC);[62] the agents for botulism, tetnus, and anthrax.[63]
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html

1337 speak is phun

For the record, I have made friends with some of the iraqi children so scornfully referenced above, and the experience has changed my life, not just my politics.

Who was scorning Iraqi children? I was scorning the oh-so-obviously "unexistent" Utah punk-libs and their entirely-made-up-in-my-mind culture.

Yea, let's pretend a few hangout places on Univ. Avenue and Center St. in Provo don't exist. Let's pretend several bands referred to by the City Weekly are just more ramblings of my imagination.

B0b, if you're gonna call straw man, at least call one that is not in someone's imagination (in this case, not mine).

"There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Hamlet, Shakespeare

Errm

Well, I guess I was wrong about what you were saying, it wasn't about the kids. So, my bad on that.

That said, WHAT HANGOUTS? WHAT BANDS? If they're mentioned in the City Weekly, why not quote it and let everyone know what you're talking about? It's all online, it wouldn't take that long. If it's your interpretation of what the kids at Velour are saying, I still dismiss that unless you can quote someone.

Let's even say you can quote them (though in two years I've yet to see it). What do the Velour kids (if its the Velour kids you're talking about) have to do with anything? Are they posting here? If so, why not quote them? If not, why bring them up? Is the discussion here an excuse to dog on the politics present on Acoustic Tuesdays? If so, this doesn't seem the venue for it, and it -definitely- has nothing to do anything being said here.

I realize I've been riding you about this, but give me a friggin break! When I talk to you, I respond to you, I don't bring up the attitudes of whatever christian rock band I might have a personal problem with to argue against. It's a little silly, and more than a little distracting.