Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Syria's WMD
#41
Jr had to settle Dads score for him. Wouldn't be right for the Bush legacy to have had a hit placed on them without any retaliation. After 9/11 it was an easy sell and helped motivate the people. Plus, you get the added advantage of stripping people of their freedoms in exchange for stronger "security" measures which also put money into coffers for companies that make scanning machines, drones, etc. Jr killed the man that threatened his daddy, pacified people into accepting larger government control, bailed out large companies that were incapable of balancing their budgets, and now with this hidden WMD agenda, he comes out smelling like roses. What's not to like here?
Reply
#42
Are all you guys devoid of anything but short-term memory?

When we went into Iraq - it was because the entire world knew (not just guessed) that Hussein had WMD - programs for developing them and stockpiles. Show me one piece of intelligence before the war that hinted that there was any doubt whatsover.

When we went into Middle east the first time - to liberate Kuwait, Hussein had WMD - some hidden, but not completely with the detail the Sarindar protocol engendered. We didn't go all the way to oust Saddam that time, and The UN took over vetting Iraq and its WMD. Their reports said that he still had them and must destroy them. After a decade, the UN said Iraq had not done so. Before 911, the UN had said he was a major provider of war materiel to terrorists. After 911 we were talked into 9 months of diplomacy before going in. During that time we were hit by an anthrax attack over the mail - and the UN had records that Hussein was the likely culprit. After the sanctions failed because Germany, Russia, and France (who were providers of the WMD programs to Iraq) took payoffs in the food for oil scam and blocked serious action, the Allied world banded together to go in.

It was long after the Congress and Senate gave near-unanimous authority to attack, that the British, Israelis, and fifteen other Intel services verified all the facts. Hussein had WMD and would use them on any Allied forces if they attacked him. The Democrats made a big deal about tens of thousands of body bags needed before the invasion started. There was no Bush-led conspiracy.

During those nine months, those same intel agencies noted the Russian Generals were involved with major movement all over Iraq and Syria. Our own satellite cameras documented Russian and Iraqi security forces escorting truck caravans into Syria. Just before the invasion, these Generals were honored by the Iraqis and given medals. Pacepa just explained what was the standard operating procedures.

Please remember that part of Sarindar was the ability to reconstruct the WMS program after the stockpiles had been hidden or deep-sixed. Not only did we find stockpiles of WMD that were not yet removed, we uncovered the programs, themselves, that had been hidden away. The media covered some of the discoveries of stockpiles - but minimized them as not the entire stockpile.

After we had removed Saddam and secured Iraq - we went around blowing up stockpiles of weaponry, chemicals, and explosives.

...and yes, there was an attempt to assassinate Bush 41 that was thwarted. However; that was never tied to the government - although it were the prime suspect. Going into Iraq was not caused by the assassination attempt, but it surely fired up some people.

These things were not guesstimates or conspiracy theory - it was the history of the times.
Reply
#43
(08-07-2012, 04:37 PM)ghoullio Wrote: Jr had to settle Dads score for him. Wouldn't be right for the Bush legacy to have had a hit placed on them without any retaliation.

You are assuming that Jr was a player rather than a mere figurehead for the Rep wing of the ruling mob, and the mob is more about profits than vengeance.

It well may be that the idea of avenging is a plant too, intended to paint Jr as a human being (cf. Sarindar's painting Jr as not a maniacal killer). PR, nothing else. Did not quite make him smell like a rose, but hid some of the manure aroma S6

Now, use of 9/11 and WMD scares for building a bigger gummint -- most certainly.

Oh no, we are not going into discussing Saddam's WMD again.... sure he had some, not any more than others, did not use them, case closed. Linking anthrax to Hussein is bizarre; Jr is a considerably more likely suspect because we have to choose between FBI's total incompetence and a cover up and if happens to be the latter, why would we cover up the Saddam's connection if such existed? The only interesting aspect in Saddam-anthrax stories is the strange interest of ABC in pushing this dope....but do we really care to waste time on this?. And that US allies collaborated WMD stories only means that the US has allies who also profited from the adventure... nothing new.
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#44
What is so bizarre about the contemporaneous attitude at the time? The info was considered clean and accurate. It was only after the Russian cleanup efforts that enough WMD stockpiles were reduced to the point that not finding everything the UN inspection teams said was there, became a political issue of the Left. Don't kid yourself that disinformation ever trumps reality.

There was no coverup that I ever heard about - just lack of publishing of the information that was developed. If you only heard Durbin and Reid talking about it, I understand how you can believe there was a conspiracy. I still read about how there was PROVEN to be no Iraq search for yellowcake - because Plame's husband said so, when in fact it was admitted that there was an active effort to acquire it. Joe Wilson's hunt actually produced info that proved it. " The Intelligence Committee Report said in Conclusion 13 of the Niger Conclusions, that the information from Joe Wilson "lent more credibility" to the CIA report that Saddam was shopping Niger for Yellow cake."

So much bad information was reported, and far too many otherwise aware people were snowed by it.
Reply
#45
Let's try a little logic here. Notice that I do not expect to see logic from Jr, we do not know his level of intelligence and true motivations. Putin, however, is very predictable, to the point of being boring... he simply makes good moves. (Just like it is difficult for me to think of any good moves made by Jr or Boy, I am not aware of bad moves by Putin.)

And alleged removal of WMD's from Iraq is just not a good move if the idea is to hide Russian involvement. First of all, it does not need to be hidden, it is well known that many players helped Saddam, including the Germans as the biggest contributors (see the link above) and about everyone else***. If it so happens that there is a definite Russian trace found, it would have been easy to dismiss the entire episode as a private initiative of unauthorized people, cf. the famous episode with VX precursors supplied to Syria by a rogue Russian general (Kuntsevich). And in 2003, such a denial would have been particularly easy since Putin's administration was relatively new.
OTOH, being caught removing WMD's would have been quite unpleasant ... recall "It is not the crime, it is coverup".

Sarindar is simply not a smart thing for Putin to do... it is only a smart thing for the Bushists to invent.

(Now there is one peculiar exception that makes WMD removal smart indeed despite what I said...a different rationale entirely rooted in the Russian worldview... but I'm not convinced that Putin is THAT smart, THAT willing to gamble, and THAT capable of removing all traces of paperwork in all Iraqi ministries... He just cannot be THAT good.)

Quote: It was only after the Russian cleanup efforts that enough WMD stockpiles were reduced to the point that not finding everything the UN inspection teams said was there, became a political issue of the Left.

While Russian cleanup efforts are most likely a fiction, let's give the Left credit for recognizing Jr as a fraud before any of us did... for whatever reasons.

One footnote: *** I will not totally dismiss the possibility that the Iraqi WMD's were actually found and the Western trace was so obvious that Jr. had to have them destroyed or transferred to Syria (US ally at the time!) asap.
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#46
OK --I like this line of reasoning MV. I am too lazy to go into the depths you do at present. I wasted enough time dithering with, and in, Iraq.

I have several questions though:

1. What in the Russian Worldview would lead a theoretically smarter Putin to clean everything out of Iraq and would make WMD removal smart?

2. You mean that there would be weapons found to have been sold by the US to Iraq in the 80s, or is there something more insidious at play?

On this last question, we could be delving into really dark waters in that if there was something more at play, then what was it? Was Iraq doing something for us and us for them before 9/11 that went our on us? Or we were doing something that Iraq knew about it (US incompetence) and therefore had to be removed.

I sit sometimes at night and go over my OIF tour wondering what the point was aside from all the bullshit about democracy and freedom to the Iraqis and shit. As I said earlier, I don't devote too much thought to it at one time, but while typing up this post, I have to wonder what else might at play out there that we don't know about, and that apparently justified nearly 5000 KIA, tens of thousands wounded and maimed, hundreds of thousands of civilian dead (not that I really give a shit about those), billions in spending for the war, and so on.

Moreover, I have seen the military industrial contractor complex up close and in action. It's quite sickening, and so powerfully entrenched that it wouldn't surprise me if that was a major reason for much of US foreign policy. Civilians do everything for the military now it seems, and more are hired on the great gravy train everyday nearly.
Reply
#47
I imagine at a US cleansing of Western-supplied WMDs in Iraq would have to be so precise and thorough that we would never be able to pull it off properly. We'd have bungled it somehow. Any evidence of this would have brought the entire house of cards down around our ears. Foreign or domestic agents with an anti-US agenda would have profited tremendously from such evidence, so much that major power players outside of the West would have given nearly anything for such information. Maybe it's out there and our government has censored this information , but something would have leaked.

...Maybe Assange has the evidence. That might explain our very curious interest in shutting him the hell up...
Reply
#48
(08-08-2012, 09:59 AM)ghoullio Wrote: I imagine at a US cleansing of Western-supplied WMDs in Iraq would have to be so precise and thorough that we would never be able to pull it off properly. We'd have bungled it somehow. Any evidence of this would have brought the entire house of cards down around our ears. Foreign or domestic agents with an anti-US agenda would have profited tremendously from such evidence, so much that major power players outside of the West would have given nearly anything for such information. Maybe it's out there and our government has censored this information , but something would have leaked.

...Maybe Assange has the evidence. That might explain our very curious interest in shutting him the hell up...

Kris, kindly read point number 1, in this report. Uncle Saddam's son-in-laws, when they temporarily defected provided information, which when followed up, was substantiated. The VX was locked up and accounted for, but between the inspectors having to leave the country, and the invasion, something conveniently happened to that gas.

Bush didn't make an issue of it all, because he lacked the 'stomach' to do it. Typical Republican Dumbass action.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#49
OK, here are two new possibilities to ponder (in addition to the default of no WMD):

1. Cleanup by Putin. Russian Worldview is that the US, at least since the older Bush, repeatedly commits acts of unprovoked aggression against sovereign countries and in each case manufactures evidence to create pretexts and gain accomplices (aka coalition partners). This seems to be about the universal opinion today.
One way to counteract such an enemy is to undermine the evidence... thus if Putin could remove all WMD's from Iraq, regardless of their origins, it would have been a very smart thing to do.... it would hurt US credibility for years to come and make coalition-gathering in the future more difficult, exactly as we see with Syria and Iran now.
Removing WMDs to hide "Russian trace" is stupid.... removing all WMDs to undermine the US for years to come is not.
But this requires thinking ahead, taking risks, and then doing superb cleanup job...

2. Cleanup by Bush to hide Western connection (ghoullio: not "Western-supplied WMDs" but more likely western help in manufacturing Iraqi WMDs.. stuff like technology transfer and dual-use materials). Makes one recall the connections of some of the US firms to Germany in 1930s, and the allegations of the Bush family special role in it... true or false, when Saddam is being compared to Hitler, you want to destroy the evidence. So Bush might have been motivated too.

And to please Pacepa disciples: consider this scenario too: Bush employs Viktor Bout or some other rogue Russian group to move the evidence to Syria.... so Pacepa was right after all! A bit more credible than Sarindar since we can see the motives ... and makes for a great conspiracy/action novel!

Quote:I imagine at a US cleansing of Western-supplied WMDs in Iraq would have to be so precise and thorough that we would never be able to pull it off properly.

Sure, but this reasoning applies to ALL cleanup scenarios. Thus "Bush lied, people died" (no WMD) remains the only solid explanation... but I hope that my two additional theories are at least better than Vanilla Pacepa.
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#50
Fine theory except you skip the part about the WMD being proven to be there in violation of the Peace accords from the first war.

There are plenty of reports if you care to doublecheck. My summation to make it easier to understand is this: Russia was the source of one kind of WMD to Saddam. France was the source of another, and Germany did most of the infrastructure work, including all those miles of clandestine tunnels running throughout the bowels of Iraq. Perhaps we will eventually get detailed maps from Germany that can show where some of those tunnels are, where WMD may be hidden.

If I remember right, the VX and explosives were Russia's, and France's was the biological stuff. What was important for Russia was the paperwork - most of it written in Russian that was so important for the ongoing programs. The stockpiles were only one phase of Sarindar. Most of the stockpiles were sanitized, but the United States did document chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic weapons and the programs that the Saddam successfully concealed for 12 years from U.N. weapons inspectors. We found the technological documents showing how to reproduce weapons stocks in just a few weeks. Securing the reference strains of biologicals was also important for Sarindar - and we found them. About the only intel failure that was really bad was the aluminum tubes that were thought to be for centrifuges - but were the wrong kind of material for that. The attempts to get the yellow cake that would have been put in centrifuges, though, were proven to have happened. Some people thought Saddam just got snookered with bad tubes.

The intel committee of March 31, 2005 was a political farce. They mentioned the tubes and ignored all the proven discoveries.
Reply
#51
I have another question: supposedly, if it did exist according to various dogmas concerning WMD's in Iraq, why haven't we invaded or taken down North Korea for violating all sorts of stuff?
Reply
#52
(08-09-2012, 01:27 AM)Gunnen4u Wrote: I have another question: supposedly, if it did exist according to various dogmas concerning WMD's in Iraq, why haven't we invaded or taken down North Korea for violating all sorts of stuff?

That's a 'loaded' question. If I use the word 'bully' in the answer, someone is going to take exception with it. S5
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#53
(08-09-2012, 12:16 AM)WmLambert Wrote: Fine theory except you skip the part about the WMD being proven to be there in violation of the Peace accords from the first war.
This is totally immaterial. The correct answer to Gunnen's question below ("Why not NK?") is "this is how one distinguishes a pretext from a cause". WMD's were merely a pretext. Optional wars launched by Jr, Sr, Bubba, Boy and perhaps the forthcoming Moron all use pretexts related to either WMD or human rights defense, applied...hmm...selectively!

Personally, I do think that Saddam experimented with all types of WMD, had a stockpile, obtained assistance from Russia, Germany, France, India, US, and perhaps a dozen more countries, and most likely kept some until the very end. Obviously, very little, since nothing was found, but some.. And so what?

If you actually find *the absent proof* would have been an acceptable justification for murdering at least 100K people in Iraq while getting nothing in return, I fail to understand just where you stand... this does not work on either moral or pragmatic grounds!

Anyway, I digress.... The point was not moral qualities of Jr, but of Putin; and the point I made is that Putin is pragmatic, and removal of WMD's was not a pragmatic thing to do, thus it did not take place. QED, really, but there is a really neat followup: Kaplan @ Stratfor today wrote a really nice piece on Western (im)morality vs Putin's pragmatism; and despite a couple of errors it provides the framework to exactly what I wrote yesterday, very much worth reading.
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#54
(08-09-2012, 01:27 AM)Gunnen4u Wrote: I have another question: supposedly, if it did exist according to various dogmas concerning WMD's in Iraq, why haven't we invaded or taken down North Korea for violating all sorts of stuff?

Did you see oil in NK?
Reply
#55
There were several reasons for going into Iraq that appeared in the media. These all were part of the drum beat that drove the public outrage. Some are good reasons and some aren't.

Devon Largio wrote a Thesis on the rationales for the war on Iraq. (Doctorate paper researched from all news, commentaries, and published history of the event.) His studies were exhaustive.

War on Terror
WMD
No Inspectors allowed
Remove Regime
SH "disgusting"
Favor w/ ME
Example
SH Hates US
Liberate Iraqis
Broken Promises
Revenge
Threat to Region
Because We Can
Unfinished business
War for Oil
Sake of History
Disarm
Safety of World
Compassion To Children
Imminent Threat
Preserve Peace
Threat to Freedom
Link to al Qaeda
Iraq Unique
Relevance of UN
International Law
Stimulate Economy

It was after, and not before, the 9/11 attacks that Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi moved from Afghanistan to Baghdad and began to plan his now very open and lethal design for a holy and ethnic civil war. On Dec. 1, 2003, the New York Times reported—and the David Kay report had established—that Saddam had been secretly negotiating with the "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il in a series of secret meetings in Syria, as late as the spring of 2003, to buy a North Korean missile system, and missile-production system, right off the shelf. (This attempt was not uncovered until after the fall of Baghdad, the coalition's presence having meanwhile put an end to the negotiations.)

As for North Korea, I hear they have nukes and the willingness to put one in South Korea. Iran wants that ability, also. Saddam had mentioned using "dirty bombs" in Israel, because the largest population centers are relatively small areas. They had the dirty radioactives and just needed a delivery system. The finished nukes were a future threat.
Reply
#56
Wait, I got it --- North Korea doesn't threaten the Jews directly, but everyone else in the Middle East does!

North Korea has nukes and all that shit, blah blah blah -- so they are just not convenient enough for a war?

I could take 75% of that list and have more than enough reasons for a coalition of countries to invade the US, Wm. And if we are to take *stimulate economy* as justification for gore and death in foreign lands, we are in big trouble.
Reply
#57
Why would NK nuke SK?
Reply
#58
(08-09-2012, 10:24 PM)Gunnen4u Wrote: Wait, I got it --- North Korea doesn't threaten the Jews directly, but everyone else in the Middle East does!

North Korea has nukes and all that shit, blah blah blah -- so they are just not convenient enough for a war?

I could take 75% of that list and have more than enough reasons for a coalition of countries to invade the US, Wm. And if we are to take *stimulate economy* as justification for gore and death in foreign lands, we are in big trouble.

The Roman empire went into decline when Hadrian and his successors quit invading anyone. You need to set priorities, either accept big gummit, or more illegal Mexicans.
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#59
Saddam had WMDs and a WMD program but at the time of the invasion it was either dormant or abandonned.
Some stockpile were found but it was ery basic stuff that any country could afford.
Saddam didn't have any nuclear program, not een dirt bomb program at the time of the invasion. That was old stories dating from prior the Operation Desert Storm 10 years before.

Thw WMD was a pretext.

The real reason, IMO, was that Bush wanted to strike the muslim world hard. Remeber the muslim world was praising Osama Bin Laden as a hero, almost like a new prophet.
Afghanistan was too small a target to hit the minds so they had to do something more.

Saddam was the perfect target for that. He was still the legendary dictator known to be crual and feared. His sons hired prostitutes and dove sport cars, a sign of power for muslims.
Saddam did also many bad things.

+ there was oil.
Juicy oil contracts failed to materialize. But that's just one thing among many others that failed so it comes as no surprise.
In fact when you talk about petro-dollars to arabs they become much smarter than you think, all of a sudden.
Bush though he would rip off these monkeys. No.
He failed to do so because he couldn't count 1+1 himself.

But Saddam/Iraq was the perfect target to start the War On Terror.

They expected to shake the muslim world in a way that all the muslims would turn their back to radical Islam.

Somehow that succeeded because muslim couldn't care less about OBL when he was shot dead in Pakistan.
But that didn't go as expected: It took and incredible amount of casualities in the US army ranks, and Iraqis started an extremely violent and uncontrolable civil war based on ethnicities.

Moreover it didn't have the ripple effect, like the Arab Spring has now.
(Note the Arab Spring is a failure too for similar reason but it was more followed internationaly by the muslims than the wae of liberation started by W).

W wanted to change the ME. Change the muslims.

Now it's the reign of chaos and a security nightmare for oil companies.
Reply
#60
It is pleasant to see that the WMD reason does not seem to be taken all that seriously around here anymore.

@Devon Largio:

A nice try, but no sugar. I can think of more "reasons" to add.

How about "Because Jr likes killing people?" to begin with? S6

More seriously: we pretty much know that like every other aspect of US policy, wars serve private interests. We talk about channeling money to military-industrial complex, we have the glorious example of Green Energy companies under the boy, but there is more. Bush represented oil interests too, and Iraqi invasions drastically raised the price on oil, making Jr and friends much richer.

That's a fine reason, and what this did to the US economy was while predictable but also irrelevant to the elite...private interests come first.

Not claiming this was The Reason, but one of them...likely.
Sodomia delenda est

Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)