If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Weapons of Mass Destruction
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
0
Comments
Maybe I'll be proved wrong one day, who knows.
Regards
I personally believe I have seen proof Saddam had them by the gassing of thousands of kurds and I supported the war because I felt Saddam had to be removed.
I dont like the way the politicians tried to justify it though, it appears they lied and IMO they didnt need to.
Had they said they were going in to Iraq to remove Saddam because he is a tyrant who the world would be better off without I dont think many people would have disagreed.
As the article states, Saddam was undoubtedly guilty of human rights abuses, as are most dictators which Washington supports for economic and strategic military ends. However, as justifications for wholesale invasion and conquest this may yet prove to be another snow job and one which reeks of utter hypocrisy from those who talk routinely of "collateral damage".
Sadly this story was obviously lost or buried in the sea of spin that preceded our invasion. How many US and British, Italian, Spanish soldiers and civilians might be alive today if this story had been front page news before spring of this year?
We can only wonder.
I still have no doubts Iraq had/has WMD. Bio/chem weapons are way too easy to make and hide.
Here is a picture made in Iraq of a buried jet fighter. Bio or chem weapon components could be hidden in a much smaller footprint than that of a fighter.
Another issue is how many of those weapons remained... and the answer is none. Zero. Nada. A whole number between 1 and -1.
Of this the US must have been very aware. The UN inspectors had reported back in 1998 that Saddam had destroyed more than 90% of his pre-1991 stock. As they came to discover during the inspections they were allowed to conduct, Saddam had since destroyed the remaining stock.
Why do you think Bush and Blair were in such a hurry to go to war, while inspections were taking place? Could it be because the inspectors were a few months away from declaring Iraq free of WMDs? And thus removing the main excuse for the Axis of Murdering Idiots to invade a sovereign nation?
I mean, regardless of whether people might think that removing Saddam was the right thing to do and whatever, is there really any doubt in anyone's mind that Bush and Blair were pushing their own agendas when they went ahead with the war, and that they lied when they said they had to move in to rid the world of the danger Saddam's WMDs posed??? Why that rush to go to war after 12 years of happiness at the situation? Why did they interrupt the inspectors' work barely weeks after authorising them to go in?
When you get government officials plagiarising 12-year old papers from students found on the internet, altering them so they look like "evidence" of WMDs and presenting them to the United Nations, you know that someone is getting really desperate. And everyone should be asking themselves very seriously why would our governments lie to us and to the UN and push for a war that was both unnecessary and illegal.
Regardless of whether people thing removing Saddam was the right thing, that anyone whatsoever could still believe the American and British governments acted to protect us, to remove Saddam’s (non-existent) WMDs or because they gave a fuck about the welfare of the Iraqis simply beggars belief.
Fucking pathetic, really.
I had suspected he did initially because Britain (under Margaret Thatcher) alongside others were selling him all and sundry to equip himself despite intelligence warnings and his record during the war with Iran.
I just didn't think he would have kept them after Desert Storm if he wanted any hope of staying in power.
http://www.labournet.net/world/9903/biwater2.html
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/1996/223/223p22.htm
I never thought Iraq was a direct threat to either the US or UK. However, I think Saddam Hussein would and could provide those chem / bio weapons to those who would do us harm.
I remember reading of an island in the UK that is still contaminated with anthrax from WWII. The amount needed to be lethal over a very large area is very small. Could be hidden in a small room or buried in a back yard. I shudder to think what a handful could do in the hands of someone in a terrorist cell in London, New York or Paris.
I don't see how you can know with such certainty that Iraq did not or does not have them. Seems a better save than sorry approach is called for.
I don't think the ulterior motives you attribute to Bush and Blair are appropriate. I think they are honest men trying to do the right things for our countries.
Saddam buried his Air Force. What makes you think he wouldn't do the same with WMDs?
I highly doubt it... proof, please
I'll ask again: why do you think there was such urgency to go to war, even with the inspectors inside Iraq and doing the work they had been asked to do?
As for the anthrax... well as it has been proven there is only one country in the world today that has masses of anthrax in storage, anthrax which has been used for terrorist purposes. That country is of course the USA, and the terrorist(s) in question American scientist(s). Perhaps you should look a little closer to home if you are concerned with the existence and possible use of chemical/biological weapons.
As for Bush... well I have no doubt he's trying to do what he sees as the 'right' thing for his country. Namely securing global geopolitical supremacy and oil supplies. Sadly that's not the right thing for the rest of the world. Nor is ethical, legal or honest. It's criminal, murderous, illegal and atrocious.
Well I must say this is a first... Even the most rabid supporter of Bush and/or the war have happily admitted that the Americans (and the British) sold WMDs to Saddam in the past (saying now that it was a "mistake" they did so). Hell, even the US government has said as much. But this is the first time I've actually heard someone say it didn't happen...
Next we'll be told that Hitler didn't invade Poland.
http://members.cox.net/impunity/endofworld.swf
Aladdin, I think 12 years was long enough to wait. That doesn't seem like such a hurry to invade. The only reason I see that the inspectors were allowed back in Iraq was the forces deployed in the region. Once deployment was complete they had to be used or sent home.
President Bush gave Saddam Hussein a final ultimatum and Hussein refused.
I think Iraq was a stepping stone in the wider war on terror. Other countries harboring and supporting terrorist have to be wary of the results of their actions. Save havens for terrorists just can't be allowed.
To continue to blur issues is merely a way of sidestepping the total contravention of international law whilst preaching the "rule of law" to other nations simply because we are currently mighty enough to do so.
12 years of sanctions and inspections/'weapons destruction, JD, also puts lie to any imminent threat used to justify pre-emptive attacks on another sovereign nation, which merely opened the floodgates for other nations to invade their neighbours upon such contrived perceptions of "threat".
Thus the world is not made safer and more secure, but increasingly regressivistic back to the days of unmitigated conquest of the mighty over the weak.
I suggest you reread the article I posted and take note of the real reasons for this invasion. Then ask yourself why it is okay for neo-cons to storm and rage over lies regarding a sexual indiscretion which hurt noone and did nothing to damage our national integrity abroad, whilst excusing the many more lies systematically made, revealed, and reversed/sidestepped by this administration which HAVE resulted in the unnecessary and unjustified deaths of many of our servicemen?
If you can excuse these lies then it's patently obvious that the conservatice mindset is both arrogantly militant as well as hypocritical. Neither of which suits the future security and wellbeing of our nation (or any others).
We either own up to our sworn obligations as per our nation's ratification of multilateral frameworks or the "rule of law" means nothing.
I was a Logistics Planner in the USAF, tasked for both planning and plan execution. Planning and executing are two very different issues. I can tell you with certainty plans are on the shelf to do the same with numerous countries around the world. That doesn't mean any of them will come to fruition.
The plan you refer to has been on the shelf since before my entry in the service. Planning is just thinking out "what if" type questions - seems prudent to me.
As far as immanent threat is concerned, I don't think Iraq was ever a threat to anyone directly. I do believe the preponderance of evidence points to Iraq's possession of prohibited weapons. Even the United Nations believed this, otherwise why send inspectors to Iraq. In Hans Blix final report, didn't he mention unresolved issues concerning weapons Iraq admitted to in 1991 that were never located/destroyed.
I firmly believe Islamic terrorist will use WMD where ever they can be best deployed and effective, it is just a matter of obtaining such weapons.
I did reread the posted article by STEPHEN C. PELLETIERE. He only spoke of Halabja. I don't see this as pertinent to the question. Iran and Iraq used chemical weapons in their war. We sided with Iraq. We fought Germany / Japan and others through history. Some are allies some not.
Like you I don't believe the world has been made safer by the invasion, I do think the future is brighter than you do. Countries supporting terrorism will take heed and join the rest of the world.
I can certainly appreciate that the logistical planning side of things, as your experience serves, comprise the "what if" aspect of pontential conflicts and conflict areas.
The plan I refer to is that of the political and thus deciding aspect of not the "what if" of the scenario(s) in question, but rather the "when". That "when" was illegitimately seized upon based on fraudulent pretexts and lies.
Moreover, the atmosphere in which public consent (or more rightly in the context prior to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, "public silence") was contrived and Constitutionally madated propriety of Congress and Congress alone to declare "war" was coerced away into a blank check for the administration comprised of the very architects of the PNAC, continues to be played up through misinformation and (as cited in the article) half truths stripped of the historical context necessary to understand the reality behind the spin.
"what if's" are perfectly understandable for any professional military. The political arena's "when's" and perhaps more important "why's" are what demand the full scrutiny of the electorate and a redress for the complicity of corporate media in catering to the misleading political agenda that underlies this and all other administrations' flagrant disregard of international law whenever it is determined to be in our national self interest (read elitest or corporate self interest) to do so.
As you can rightly tell, I neither subscribe to "might makes right" nor "my country right or wrong". When our leaders break international law and engage our nation in wars based upon lies, they like other national leaders before them, should be dragged to the Hague and put on trial. The rule of law applies equally or it applies not at all. Otherwise, the blindness of unilateral might will lead us - as it has empires past - to our own impending decline and subsequent victimisation at the hands of the next power(s) to rise up by the very standards we wrongfully exemplify at present.
Hans Blix also pointed out that the discrepencies more more likely the result of improper record keeping on the part of Saddam's regime as year after year of sanctions and our ongoing (but not highly televised) bombing of the country turned a once highly developed system into a all too typical impoverished and ramshackle Middle Eastern society.
Fact is that Scott Ritter (dismiss him if you like) stated categorically that there was little or no liklihood that they had missed any significant traces of Bio/Chem weaponry before the invasion was launched, and the knee-jerk neo cons screamed him down and villified him in the media. Now he is vindicated even after specially handicked partisan inspectors fail to turn up credible evidence for the Bushbots to seize upon. Where then is the rightful condemnation for the administration?
Ah, right, only from the loony treasonous left, if certain opinions be taken to reflect the as yet prevailing attitudes of the nation.
And once again, the "terrorists" of which you speak or any such extremist groups had nothing whatsoever to do with Saddam's secular Baathist regime. No legitimacy has been given to this yet further contrived "justification" for invasion by any western intelligence agency. If anything, our invasion and the instability and chaos it has evoked has made the acquisition of military hardware far more realistic than at any time previously.
But that fact aside, our own MIC is so indiscrimate in its proliferation of weapons systems and lesser military hardware to developing nations (see link below) that we are undoutbedly providing the predominate source of any necessary hardware. Not to hard for any of the numerous despotic governments being treated as friends and allies in the "WoT" (War on Truth more rightly) to resell equipment on the secondary market and thus place it in the hands of extremist organisations. Tis a very murky sea when one follows the web of weapons transfers.
http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/military-transfers.cfm
The issue of Halabja, having been broadcast repeatedly as the last ditch effort of the admin to swing public sentiment behind this invasion, entirely devoid of the historical actualities of the use of those chemical agents and the fact that it was more likely Iran than Iraq that gassed the kurds, is indeed pertinent to this discussion. So too the truth, which some would obviously rather deny and turn a blind eye to, that the chemical and biological precursors for those weapons and the technical know-how to cultivate/process them into lethal WMDs were provided by or otherwise sanctioned by Washington, knowing full well their intended use. So why are none of our leaders like Rumsfeld up for crimes against humanity?
Oh right, the victors (re)write history, so we can just sweep that nasty truth under the carpet out of partisan interest.
I applaud you that you view the future with optimism. I on the other cannot see optimism in the face of willful public blindness and misinformation, a military budget out of proportion to any credible threat to our national security, military contractors basking in the sun of this resumed glut of public budget allocations, and an administration which is merely riding out the criticism of its already demonstrable mishandling of matters before likely resuming with gusto the establishment of a status quo of perpetual warmongering. Such an agenda only serves to strengthen the hand of our despotic client states, inspire greater hatred and disenfranchise increasing numbers of people around the globe.
And on the front lines, our young men and women, serving not the legitimate defense of America but rather the aggressive expansion of our foreign corporate interests which only seek increased global consolidation of profit, power and influence. Not what many sign up to fight and posssibly die for I suspect.
I enjoy reading what you say, you obviously have strong beliefs, but it sure is embedded with emotional overtones.
My response will have to come later - family calls.
From John Pilger's essay "Paying the Price"
There is no reliable evidence of any links between Iraq and Islamic terror groups afaik.
Be sure that as masters of packaging and forward planning, the vested interests which lay behind the public policy of our leaders (and the perceptions engendered within the public consciousness through the media by those same vested interests ) provide, with each cyclical revisit, a fresh justification for militancy which successive generations find more palatable. Thus the maintenance of the status quo.
The voices of dissent find themselves increasingly relegated to the wilderness (as testified to by the oft vitriolic responses of certain (shall we adopt a term and say "trolls"?
Until sufficient numbers recognise the downward spiral on which we are being manipulatively led toward utter devaluation of all the ideals upon which our nation was founded for the consolidation of power and wealth into increasingly fewer hands, that status quo will demand increasing diversion, conflict and blood sacrifice to sustain.
In defiance of that I find myself incapable of remaining dispassionate.