rockdotcom_2.0
Frankfurter Level: 62
Posts: 634/763 EXP: 1897387 For next: 87310
Since: 9.1.02 From: Virginia Beach Va
Since last post: 4016 days Last activity: 1 day
| #1 Posted on 6.10.04 1629.15 Reposted on: 6.10.11 1629.21 | The chief US Weapons inspector Charles Duelferhas reported that there were no WMDs in Iraq after 1991.
Click Here (cnn.com)
I guess this is the final nail in the WMD coffin. I just dont understand how ALL of us, Republicans and Democrats alike could have been so wrong on this for 12 years.
And does this mean that we owe and apology to the UN because it looks the Sanctions worked? Promote this thread! | | Roy.
Pepperoni Level: 70
Posts: 441/1040 EXP: 2870901 For next: 144925
Since: 25.2.04 From: Keystone State
Since last post: 5792 days Last activity: 1756 days
| #2 Posted on 6.10.04 1640.49 Reposted on: 6.10.11 1641.04 | I'm not sure what it means. I think the key passage in the article is this:
Originally posted by CNN.com But Duelfer also supports Bush's argument that Saddam remained a threat. Interviews with the toppled leader and other former Iraqi officials made clear to inspectors that Saddam had not lost his ambition to pursue weapons of mass destruction and hoped to revive his weapons program if U.N. sanctions were lifted, the report said.
So if the sanctions were lifted (were they close to being lifted? I don't remember.) He'd probably try to get stuff, but since he was being watched closely, he couldn't. Was the fact that he desired WMDs enough to go to war?
It also looks like 9/11 did a good job of screwing up Saddam's quest:
Originally posted by CNN.com However, the erosion of sanctions stopped after the September 11, 2001, attacks, Duelfer found, preventing Saddam from pursuing weapons of mass destruction.
The only thing that bothers me is over 1000 Americans dead because of a total breakdown in intelligence. Yes, he was evil, but was what's looking essentially like a simple regime change and nation build worth it? I'm not sure anymore. And if things don't start looking better over there in the next few months/years, can we call this whole affair a brutal failure?
(edited by Roy. on 6.10.04 1742) | Big Bad
Scrapple Level: 161
Posts: 3335/7062 EXP: 53444205 For next: 669028
Since: 4.1.02 From: Dorchester, Ontario
Since last post: 1917 days Last activity: 1486 days
| #3 Posted on 6.10.04 1713.16 Reposted on: 6.10.11 1713.38 | I think we can go ahead and call the whole thing a brutal failure right now. Saddam was a threat, sure, but it's sort of like how Charles Manson is a threat to me. He's certainly an evil enough bastard, but his current situation isn't exactly causing me to lose sleep at night worrying about getting pentagrams carved into my head. | StaggerLee
Scrapple Level: 161
Posts: 1979/7105 EXP: 53018774 For next: 1094459
Since: 3.10.02 From: Right side of the tracks
Since last post: 928 days Last activity: 928 days
| #4 Posted on 6.10.04 1836.49 Reposted on: 6.10.11 1837.11 | Originally posted by Big Bad I think we can go ahead and call the whole thing a brutal failure right now. Saddam was a threat, sure, but it's sort of like how Charles Manson is a threat to me. He's certainly an evil enough bastard, but his current situation isn't exactly causing me to lose sleep at night worrying about getting pentagrams carved into my head.
So, if we and the UN had a year and a half of uninterupted, unfettered inspections, all the economic sanctions would have been done and over with in what, 1993? Instead he bullies people for another decade and makes threats, and still was killing his own people. Its as simple as this, if he would have just allowed the inspections, none of the past twelve years of fighting about GETTING inspectors on the ground, and into the offices/palaces/etc would have happened.
Call it a failure? No, call it a tragedy that Saddam let his people starve, and suffer for no other reason to protect his "strong man" image. | BigVitoMark
Lap cheong Level: 82
Posts: 1294/1509 EXP: 5207426 For next: 1823
Since: 10.8.02 From: Queen's University, Canada
Since last post: 6812 days Last activity: 6722 days
| ICQ: | |
| |
| #5 Posted on 6.10.04 1841.30 Reposted on: 6.10.11 1843.35 | The thing that doesn't make sense, then, is this. If Saddam was being a good boy for all those years, why did he keep denying access to UN inspectors? His actions were those of a man with something to hide.
Originally posted by Big Bad I think we can go ahead and call the whole thing a brutal failure right now. Saddam was a threat, sure, but it's sort of like how Charles Manson is a threat to me.
That's a tad short-sighted, given that Manson has been jailed for decades and Saddam had killed thousands in that time. Just because he wasn't killing regular guys in Canada like you and me doesn't mean Saddam wasn't one evil man who needed to be brought down. | rockdotcom_2.0
Frankfurter Level: 62
Posts: 635/763 EXP: 1897387 For next: 87310
Since: 9.1.02 From: Virginia Beach Va
Since last post: 4016 days Last activity: 1 day
| #6 Posted on 6.10.04 1849.38 Reposted on: 6.10.11 1851.05 | Originally posted by Staggerlee Call it a failure? No, call it a tragedy that Saddam let his people starve, and suffer for no other reason to protect his "strong man" image.
And where does that leave us? Have we spent almost 200 Billion dollars and lost a thousand lives for nothing now? If Saddam had no WMD that means he wasnt violatiing UN sanctions. And we cant find any substantial ties to Al-Quaeda. So why did we invade? Because he was bad man? Thats not enough. Castro is a bad man. And we could invade Cuba and have that whole thing wrapped up by Thanksgiving. The more Im thinking about this, the more it becomes clear that this Iraq war is a waste and we have accomplished nothing by going in there. In fact weve probably made things worse. Am I looking at this wrong? | StaggerLee
Scrapple Level: 161
Posts: 1980/7105 EXP: 53018774 For next: 1094459
Since: 3.10.02 From: Right side of the tracks
Since last post: 928 days Last activity: 928 days
| #7 Posted on 6.10.04 1859.14 Reposted on: 6.10.11 1901.58 | Well, the thing is, he was in violation of a lot more than just simply having or making WMD. While most of it is smaller in nature, they were no doubt, violations of sanctions, and of the oil embargo imposed on his nation.
Illegal oil sales to buy technology/weapons. Killing his countrymen. Not allowing inspections. Supporting terrorists.
All of this seems like a person who SHOULD have been removed. The argument that is starting to change my mind about it, is what price is acceptable in lives and money, to achieve the goal of getting him out of office, and hopefully installing the ability of the people who live there to govern themselves, and to pick a leader who will be friendly to the USA and our interests/causes. | rockdotcom_2.0
Frankfurter Level: 62
Posts: 636/763 EXP: 1897387 For next: 87310
Since: 9.1.02 From: Virginia Beach Va
Since last post: 4016 days Last activity: 1 day
| #8 Posted on 6.10.04 1927.07 Reposted on: 6.10.11 1927.09 | But having or making WMD is what brought on the UN sanctions and the oil embargo. If he destroyed all the weapons in 1991 then werent the sanctions unjustified?
As far as killing his countrymen, that is a tragedy but is it worth a invasion? I dont mean to sound cold but I dont think so. Like I said, Castro is 90 miles from our borders. And Im sure he has killed plenty of his countrymen.
And the only way Ive seen that hes supported terrorists, is the money for the suicide bombers in Isreal. I dont think thats enough either. | fuelinjected
Banger Level: 106
Posts: 2451/2679 EXP: 12269098 For next: 402886
Since: 12.10.02 From: Canada
Since last post: 6696 days Last activity: 6696 days
| #9 Posted on 6.10.04 1933.30 Reposted on: 6.10.11 1935.17 | (deleted by CRZ on 7.10.04 0310) | CRZ
Big Brother Administrator Level: 239
Posts: 5169/17694 EXP: 212287482 For next: 1873317
Since: 9.12.01 From: ミネアポリス
Since last post: 17 days Last activity: 8 days
| ICQ: | |
| Y!: | |
|
| #10 Posted on 6.10.04 1950.37 Reposted on: 6.10.11 1951.35 | Okay, fine, it's open again. PLEASE don't cover ground that's been covered a couple million times and DEFINITELY don't just post a one-liner. I'm sick of it.
(edited by CRZ on 7.10.04 0311) | It's False
Scrapple Level: 151
Posts: 1218/6155 EXP: 43034308 For next: 262268
Since: 20.6.02 From: I am the Tag Team Champions!
Since last post: 2190 days Last activity: 572 days
| #11 Posted on 7.10.04 1434.05 Reposted on: 7.10.11 1434.53 | In the face of the biggest evidence to date, even Bush is now admitting that Iraq had no WMD's.
Of course, it doesn't stop him from defending his decision to take us to war.
Bush Defends Iraq Invasion Despite Report
Faced with a harshly critical new report, President Bush conceded Thursday that Iraq did not have the stockpiles of banned weapons he had warned of before the invasion last year, but insisted that "we were right to take action" against Saddam Hussein.
Sure, he LIED to take us to war, but that Saddam was a bad man, dammit! If taking him down meant having to lie to the entire nation, then so be it.
(edited by It's False on 7.10.04 1236) | Pool-Boy
Lap cheong Level: 88
Posts: 1596/1761 EXP: 6568402 For next: 82288
Since: 1.8.02 From: Huntington Beach, CA
Since last post: 197 days Last activity: 154 days
| #12 Posted on 7.10.04 1443.54 Reposted on: 7.10.11 1443.58 | In all honesty, I think the report supports a decision to go to war.
Originally posted by In the article... "Interviews with the toppled leader and other former Iraqi officials made clear to inspectors that Saddam had not lost his ambition to pursue weapons of mass destruction and hoped to revive his weapons program if U.N. sanctions were lifted, the report said."
IF you were going to use WMD's as a reason to go to war (never been mine, but nonetheless), the report indicated that once the sanctions were lifted, Hussein had plans to resume his WMD programs.
In other words, he was keeping his nose clean as long as he was being "punished."
What is the point of giving the guy a chance when he had every intention of doing exactly what we were trying to get him to stop doing? Who cares if he didn't have them now, he was going to have them eventually. Sanctions were pointless because they would ultimately fail as a corrective action. Inspections were pointless because once they ended, Hussein would start developing again.
So there were no WMDs there NOW. The report pretty clearly says that they were Hussein's goal. And unless you planned on continuing the sanctions and inspections for as long as Hussein was in power (which I argue would be worse than war for the people of Iraq in the long term), something had to be done to get him out of power...
(edited by Pool-Boy on 7.10.04 1246) | PalpatineW
Lap cheong Level: 83
Posts: 1300/1528 EXP: 5379342 For next: 52902
Since: 2.1.02 From: Getting Rowdy
Since last post: 6264 days Last activity: 6107 days
| #13 Posted on 7.10.04 1455.30 Reposted on: 7.10.11 1455.34 | Originally posted by It's False In the face of the biggest evidence to date, even Bush is now admitting that Iraq had no WMD's.
Of course, it doesn't stop him from defending his decision to take us to war.
Bush Defends Iraq Invasion Despite Report
Faced with a harshly critical new report, President Bush conceded Thursday that Iraq did not have the stockpiles of banned weapons he had warned of before the invasion last year, but insisted that "we were right to take action" against Saddam Hussein.
Sure, he LIED to take us to war, but that Saddam was a bad man, dammit! If taking him down meant having to lie to the entire nation, then so be it.
(edited by It's False on 7.10.04 1236)
He was given intelligence by people be believed he could trust. Not only the CIA, but foreign governments, too. He then acted on that intelligence. This does not constitute a lie. Especially not one in all caps.
You might also want to note that Charles Duelfer, the man responsible for this report, more or less backs the war. When asked by Senator John McCain if sanctions were working, he replied that they were "in free fall." The report also has plenty to say about French and Russian complicity.
How can we pressure Saddam into doing anything when he's got France on his payroll? France may not have a military to speak of, but it has a permanent veto on the security counsel, and enough cash to prop up a tyrant of choice. | eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni Level: 72
Posts: 1000/1084 EXP: 3213502 For next: 110276
Since: 6.1.02 From: not Japan
Since last post: 6422 days Last activity: 6419 days
| #14 Posted on 7.10.04 1511.57 Reposted on: 7.10.11 1515.05 | Originally posted by PalpatineW He was given intelligence by people be believed he could trust. Not only the CIA, but foreign governments, too. He then acted on that intelligence. This does not constitute a lie. Especially not one in all caps.
You might also want to note that Charles Duelfer, the man responsible for this report, more or less backs the war. When asked by Senator John McCain if sanctions were working, he replied that they were "in free fall." The report also has plenty to say about French and Russian complicity.
How can we pressure Saddam into doing anything when he's got France on his payroll? France may not have a military to speak of, but it has a permanent veto on the security counsel, and enough cash to prop up a tyrant of choice.
It's been shown many times that the administration pick and chose what intelligence to look at. So, while not a lie, willful ignorance is still nothing commendable.
Furthermore, I just posted a story yesterday that claims the French government was willing to supply troops in an Iraq invasion, if the U.S. was willing to allow the U.N. inspectors back into the country to see if he did have weapons or not. When the U.S. refused to do this, France decided to play hardball. Now, this report has not been verified or anything, but, as I stated before, by simply issuing "no comment," instead of any sort of denial, the White House is attributing some sort of validity to the claim. | rockdotcom_2.0
Frankfurter Level: 62
Posts: 637/763 EXP: 1897387 For next: 87310
Since: 9.1.02 From: Virginia Beach Va
Since last post: 4016 days Last activity: 1 day
| #15 Posted on 7.10.04 1514.57 Reposted on: 7.10.11 1515.33 | Originally posted by PalpatineW He was given intelligence by people be believed he could trust. Not only the CIA, but foreign governments, too. He then acted on that intelligence. This does not constitute a lie. Especially not one in all caps.
Now Im not sure that the White House didnt lie or at the very least stretch the truth. There were reports during the build up of the White House, Cheney in particular, leaning hard on CIA to get what they wanted. Supposedly Cheney even went out to Langley himself. Also some CIA analysts told Tenet that they werent sure what Saddam had but Tenet went with the old intel and told the WH that it was a "slam dunk." There needs to be a serious investigation into what the White House did and what they knew. | SlipperyPete
Bauerwurst Level: 25
Posts: 61/102 EXP: 87152 For next: 2469
Since: 13.8.04
Since last post: 7035 days Last activity: 7035 days
| #16 Posted on 9.10.04 0005.08 Reposted on: 9.10.11 0005.37 | Originally posted by rockdotcom_2.0 And does this mean that we owe and apology to the UN because it looks the Sanctions worked?
I don't know how anyone can think about apologizing to the UN after this report. We know that the entire thing was corrupt. The sanctions were bogus, countries were bribed, and the UN was never going to act against Iraq. If Saddam was still in power and the dance of inspectors was continuing, and the "sanctions" of the oil for food programs were still going on, Saddam would still be getting paid by the program and slowly strengthening himself. All while waiting for the sanctions to end so that he could get his weapons programs running again.
And all of this blows up John Kerry's talk on foreign policy. The UN is on the take, our "allies" were being bribed, and the idea of continuing sanctions would be an utter failure. | Net Hack Slasher
Banger Level: 108
Posts: 2619/2805 EXP: 13376328 For next: 144215
Since: 6.1.02 From: Outer reaches of your mind
Since last post: 7024 days Last activity: 5444 days
| #17 Posted on 10.10.04 0539.33 Reposted on: 10.10.11 0540.18 | Originally posted by BigVitoMark The thing that doesn't make sense, then, is this. If Saddam was being a good boy for all those years, why did he keep denying access to UN inspectors? His actions were those of a man with something to hide.
I'd hate to get in the mind of Saddam Hussein. But all I can think of is that he wanted to portray himself as strong to his countrymen and say he won't be pushed around yet still doing what the UN sanctions demanded... Or maybe out of paranoia that if it becomes clear that he has no weapons to defend himself it would allow an enemy country to just walk right in. Which ironically kind of happened.
Let's see if any other country falls for that trick, that's what's most concerning of this whole thing. | ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |