New Information

[Maeve_Mari]

I am not going to argue this point, but I am going to make it simpley for the fact I know it will make some people pull their hair out.
Anthax is a disease passed among what animal most commonly?
What animal is the most common herd animal in all of Iraq?
How do you make a vaccine for most diseases? There are few exceptions. What disease happens to be one of them?

I'd have to pick Cattle.
And Ricketts Disease.

[Philistine]

Is that, as Inq put it, a "gut feeling"?

Its more that the only solid quotes and links I've found have been to bans on items other than biological agents. IIRC, it was only since 1984 that the CDC has kept records of transfers of anthrax and other baccili transfers.

--Philistine

[esskreemr]

Its more that the only solid quotes and links I've found have been to bans on items other than biological agents. IIRC, it was only since 1984 that the CDC has kept records of transfers of anthrax and other baccili transfers.

--Philistine

Selling biological agents such as Anthrax and botuli are in and of themselves not damning. I agree with you there. You have stated correctly that there are legitimate uses for these contaminants. But you have to put them in context with the timing of the sales and the contents of the other sales. In addition, the information that is available is horribly incomplete. It is based on unclassified documents. The paper trail leads many people, many experts, to believe that the classified information would be even worse. Until the classified docs are released (probably never), the speculation will continue based on the information at hand.

[Philistine]

{snip} Until the classified docs are released (probably never), the speculation will continue based on the information at hand.

What is the speculation, though? That the US wanted Iraq to have a thriving biological weapons program?

I certainly agree that the US maintained close ties with Iraq and sold them military and dual-use items in the early to mid 80's based upon our desire to see Iran lose in the Iraq-Iran war. In hindsight, this was perhaps not the best idea.

I disagree that the relevant administrations tacitly encouraged or allowed Iraq to build a biological weapons program. Were they exceedingly lax in letting Iraq (as well as many others) import items that could be used in biological warfare? Sure. Was it done on purpose? I doubt it.

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity" applies with full force here, I'd say.

(WRT chemical weapons--I am less convinced the US was not purposefully lax).

--Philistine

[Inquartata]

So the US sells "dual-use" equipment including anthrax, VX gas, botulsem, plauge, and all the plans and equipment necessary to 'weaponize' it including SCUD missles to deliver them, to a country that is in the midst of a war and which is using cemical weapons on a daily basis. All of this, you say, isn't enough for you to admit that the weapons of mass desctruction were set down in the middle of the desert by unthinking US administations?

I am only going by the initial thesis: "Between the periods of 1980 (the beginning of the Iran-Iraq war) until 1990 THE USA SOLD WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION TO IRAQ." Notice it's even in bold print. It requires a bold proof, too, I think. And there has been none forthcoming---only things like "we sold them dual-use technology" ( odd, the criticism of this Bush's venture is that the dual-use stuff was in fact being used for the innocuous purpose, not making WMDs ) and "computer programs" and the like...

The Russians have been helping Iran with reactors and such. Is Russia "selling nuclear weapons" to them? When Germany helps some third-world country build a fertilizer plant, are they selling them explosives? If a French company builds a chemical plant in Syria, is it selling them nerve gas?

How far are we to go back along the process chain? Can the ATF arrest me for making black-powder pipe bombs if I buy charcoal briquets and I have metal-pipe plumbing in my home?

The assertion was that we sold the Iraqis WMDs. Not CoWMDs ( Components of Weapons of Mass Destruction ). Not K-HfWMDs. ( Know-How for Weapons of Mass Destruction ). WMDs. I only ask for demonstration of the accuracy of that assertion.

didn't sell ACTUAL weapons of mass destruction to Iraq

Thank you. This is all I have been asking.

we just sold them the build it yourself kit.

Again, you exaggerate in your characterization. "Kit"? All in a box that they just had to open and assemble, eh? Nonsense. It was a multitude of different items bought or acquired from different sources at different times through different channels, and the actual processes still required a great deal of work on their part and a lot of materials which they did NOT get from the US.

For instance, you maintain that "the US sells...SCUD missles to deliver them", despite the fact that SCUDs aren't American---in all the above-posted documentation, this is all that is to be found on SCUDs: "The CD approved exports in January and February to Iraq’s SCUD missile program’s procurement agency." Not SCUDs, not even parts of SCUDs, just "exports" to a procurement agency! Yet you immediately upgrade this to "selling SCUDs".

You say "the US sells...VX gas". But that is in none of the documentation thus far presented; I did a search for both "nerve gas" and "VX", and the latter occurs only in your post, in your words, while the former appears only in the context of Iraq producing it, and of buying certain "chemical precursors" for making it...and it doesn't even say ALL of the chemical precursors....

I do not think I need help "seeing things I choose not to see". I think that perhaps it is you who are seeing things that are not THERE to be seen.

[Inquartata]

If I sell you AK-47s and disassemble them for shipping, have I sold you weapons?

Sorry, but read the supplied documentation again: this did not happen, either. At least there is no evidence given that we sold anything like disassembled WMDs. There is not even an intimation that we sold them all of the necessary components for any sort of NBC weapon.

There is a good deal more that goes into making the latter than simply assembling components or mixing independently acquired ingredients. Microbiology especially is a very complex, delicate, dangerous and expensive science where bioweapons are concerned. Nuclear weapons of course require certain things which are entirely proscribed and were NOT "made available" to Iraq by us, eg the fissile materials and certain technology needed to enrich them. Chemical weapons are the easiest to make, but again, nowhere in all of the above cited documentation is it asserted that the US transferred all needed materials to Iraq...

You miss the point, perhaps trivial to you, that the CDC and WHO haven't used WMD on anyone.

So Iraq is immune to possible disease outbreaks, for instance? The risk of epidemics of diseases much more likely in a state such as Iraq than in the industrial West was in fact nonexistant? No civilian microbiological research was ever done in Iraq? It can have had no imaginable other use than the manufacture of biowar agents? No vaccines were ever made?

If I strangle my neighbor, does that mean no one can ever sell me rope or a scarf or an extension cord again? ( After I get out of prison, presumably. )

Your inability to see something doesn't constitute a proof of nonexistence.

Nor does the fact that you "see" or "know" something prove that in fact it DOES exist. So where are we, then? We are left with the need for EVIDENCE. Concrete fact, showing clearly the existence of things alleged. That is what I ask for, and that is what you keep waving aside as irrelevant because of your supernal ability to "see" things, to make connections and "infer" things on the basis of, apparently, intuition. Your own incredible powers of perception and deduction may suffice to "prove" things to you, but you must forgive me if I fail to accord them the same deference as empirical fact...

We claimed they were instances of selling WMD because they were precursors to nuclear weapons

And so we are back once again to a request for proof of this. Can you supply a citation of some official "we" who has claimed that these components were in and of themselves WMDs, instead of pieces of a process leading to WMDs? A quote equating any item with a fully developed NBC weapon? Or is this another assumption on your part?

Not just the administration: there was bilateral agreement that those were WMD sales

Where, please? I await the specific language attributed to any functionary of the Administration.

So, the "Inquartat doctrine" of what qualifies as a WMD isn't observed by the US government.

I am willing to be convinced. Show me.

There might be something sinister, but only if you're left handed.

I believed what the president said during the run-up to the war, and noisily defended the policy on this board. I gave him more than the benefit of a doubt - only to find that I should haven't.

Yes, there's no zeal like that of a convert...

You denounce as false any source of evidence of anything counter to your preestablished preference,

Again: where, please?

Favors to Saudi Arabia have been widely discussed on this board

And the chain of causality between them and some other event is demostrated by....?

Consider our silence over their not turning over terrorism suspects to US. Consider our silence over Wahhabist hate-mongering). Of course, you'll issue a blanket denial of all of those, without the evidence you demand from everyone else.

That's very droll---evidence of the nonexistence of something?

Here's the way things work in the real world: if you think something is true, the burden of proving it is on you. It is not incumbent on me to find proof of its falsity or else accept it. My ony responsibility is to note that it has not been established, as your fervently believed hand-in-glove operating relationship between the Bush family and Saudi terror sponsors has not been demonstrated.

[Inquartata]

And anthrax is what, a heavy metal band?

A naturally occuring bacillus. It can, with a great deal of effort and expense, be made into a weapon, but it is not one in its naturally occuring state, and it is not even one in a grown culture. Any more than a branch on a tree is a weapon until it is sawn off, shaped and made into one. No more than iron ore is a weapon ere it has been smelted and forged into a blade or component of a weapon. Come, is this really controversial to you? If I cough on you while I have the flu, have I used a WMD on you? Hey, influenza has killed millions over the past century...

Ah, so now that Condi Rice has admitted that she knew at the time that the aluminum tubes werent the right type to use for centrifuges, we can admit that it doesn't fit the above scenario?

Assuming you can cite that admission, and that her knowledge was shared and that the contrary allegations were made anyway, we can indeed. Though I'm not sure how it advances your case that the US sold WMDs to Iraq in the 1980s...or that components are WMDs...

Inq tries to innoculate himself against having to respond to any statements of facts, despite being the one to have demanded them. Should such evidence be presented, he'll just deny their validity regardless of content.

Poisoning the well. Ah, whoever said that the preemptive strike was confined to Bush?

See, your list of quotes does indeed prove some things. It just doesn't prove the conclusions you so fervently hold that they prove. They do NOT prove any lying or deliberate deception by the Bush Administration with regard to Iraq. In fact, they prove nothing except that the people who made the statements made the statements, and perhaps believed them---just as do virtually identical statements by people you do NOT think were lying or deliberately deceiving...

[Inquartata]

Yes, once again you are right. The US sold Iraq 60 or so Hughes MD-500 helicopters.
[url]http://www.combataircraft.com/aircraft/hmd500.asp

[/quote]

Broken link. "The page cannot be found."

U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Second Staff Report on U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq and The Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the War
http://gulfwarvets.com/arison/banking.htm#N_6_

Can you point out to me where it says that the US sold a NBC weapon to Iraq? All I am seeing ( I have only skimmed it ) is the same information presented before: that they got stuff of use to their programs from us ( and others ).

As an aside, do you not find it whimsical that this report came out of a committee having nothing to do with military affairs or indeed foreign policy of any sort? I mean, I'm sure the report is very thorough and professional, and well-documented, and certainly it's interesting and relevant to this debate, but really---a report on Iraqi WMD programs and its hazards to the US armed forces by a banking and housing committee! What next, a report on the state of the fine arts by the Armed Services Committee?

Hmmm, little bit more than a civilian helicopter and a half-opened jar of mayonnaise, isn't it (botulism joke)?

Yes. And still far short of a Weapon of Mass Destruction. Your point?

Anyone have statistics on the correlation of smoke with the presence of fire? I think that such a study would be in the interests of the public everywhere.

1) Perhaps Soldier or Army Fencer or Mergs can enlighten us on the proper employment of smoke grenades?

2) My home smoke detectors seem to go off every time I make toast. Oddly enough, no fire seems to be involved.

3) Ever do any soldering?

4) Correlation does not imply causation.

Since when?

Since the advent of English common law, at the very least. Mens rea is an indispensible element of almost every serious crime. Acting in good faith on faulty information does not meet the standard of intent. I shouldn't really have to explain this, should I?

Yes you're right, your analogy is so much more pertinent. I would be an IMMINENT threat. Shoot me even if the gun is not loaded, you'll probably go free.

With the elision of the word "imminent", which has a specific meaning in international law and diplomacy, this is the state which was believed---by ALL parties, be it remembered, not just that wicked Bush cabal---to prevail. It was believed that there was evidence of the existence of stockpiles of WMDs. It has now been established beyond a strong suspicion, if not reasonable doubt, that this information was wrong---but this is in hindsight, not in prospect. How, then, are we to assign guilt for an action taken in the good-faith belief of an existing threat? Fairly, I mean; I know what the anti-war partisans would see done.

How many of the terrorists that flew planes into our buildings were Iraqis?

How many Germans and Italians attacked Pearl Harbor?

How many attacks on American troops had the Iraqis committed? I'm sure you'll mention the pot shots that Iraqis were taking at U.S. planes in the No-fly zone.

Thanks, that was an easy one!

Were those enought to invade a country and spend hundreds of billions of dollars trying to establish a doomed-to-fail (IMO) democracy?

Absent the IYO load to the question, yes. Yes, we were. ( BTW, there were more than just those two or three rationales, as you well know. )

Was it enough to take the intensity away from our actions in a country that was KNOWN to harbor Al-queda.

I can but say that I reject your characterization of "taking away the intensity"....especially inasmuch as by all information the bulk of al Qaeda were no longer in Afghanistan by the time we tirned toward Iraq. The job was well on its way to being done there. The hunt in that region has now moved to Pakistan, which is at least ostensibly an ally at the moment and cannot simply be overrun in the process.

The question is not whether Iraq was a potential threat, it was, under some standards, France, Great Britain, and Canada could be classified as POTENTIAL threats. The question is rather or not Iraq was an IMMINENT threat to the U.S.

When you are properly elected to lead the country, then you get to decide what the question is and which standards for military action apply. Until then you only get a tiny little say, indirectly, by voting. Just like I do---and I do not concur either with your definition of the question or wit your standard. Even if the votes may be the same...

[Inquartata]

With the widespread focus on Iraqi WMD programs, and the antrax mailing in the US--the popular focus seems to have shifted and many people have lost sight of the fact that using anthrax bacteria in reasearch on the actual disease is quite valid.

Come now, everyone knows that there are no livestock in Iraq, why would anyone ever have believed that they might be doing civilian epidemiology research? Tsk!

[Drifter]

Inq, I hate to do this to ya but what "I See" is a number of ardent Bush supporters arguing a multitude of points as to why the Iraqi chemical weapons operations were, apparently, the manufacture of a deluded mind. (Yes, I know there were a great many people killed by Hussen and his chemical weapons, but read you're own posts. You've made a pretty convincing argument that Iraq never had any nasty plans for any chemicals we sent over.) You've all been very gracious in building a magnitude of arguments as to why it was so very important to get ALL the facts before invading a foreign, soverign, nation. You're right. Sorry. I guess Iraq was just using all those things for peaceful purposes after all.

Ummm.... wait a minute.... why did the US invade Iraq again?

I'm surprised. Really. You'd think fencers would be prepared for a feint.

[Drifter]

IHow far are we to go back along the process chain? Can the ATF arrest me for making black-powder pipe bombs if I buy charcoal briquets and I have metal-pipe plumbing in my home?

Actually, yes they can. Ask any person that's been arrested and convicted of possesing "Drug paraphenallia." Not actual drugs just the commonly used things to do drugs. Or how about the people that have stolen large quanitites of fertilizer and are presently being held as terrorists? Maybe they just wanted to have a pretty front yard.

[esskreemr]

I mean, I'm sure the report is very thorough and professional, and well-documented, and certainly it's interesting and relevant to this debate, but really---a report on Iraqi WMD programs and its hazards to the US armed forces by a banking and housing committee! What next, a report on the state of the fine arts by the Armed Services Committee?

Ad hominem or Poisoning the Well?

4) Correlation does not imply causation.

Yes, but it provides a justification for an investigation. If smoke is pouring out of the hood of your car, are you going to continue to drive it or are you going to pull over and take a look under the hood?

Since the advent of English common law, at the very least. Mens rea is an indispensible element of almost every serious crime. Acting in good faith on faulty information does not meet the standard of intent. I shouldn't really have to explain this, should I?

I find it admirable that you are willing to trust that no malice was intended based merely on someone's words (not word, words), naive but admirable.

I burn down your house.
The police arrest me.
I tell the police that I'd meant to burn down your neighbor's house, but had the information wrong.
So, I burned your house down based on faulty information. I didn't mean to burn down your house. I'm not culpable?

With the elision of the word "imminent", which has a specific meaning in international law and diplomacy, this is the state which was believed---by ALL parties, be it remembered, not just that wicked Bush cabal---to prevail. It was believed that there was evidence of the existence of stockpiles of WMDs.

Based on assurances by the Bush Administration

It has now been established beyond a strong suspicion, if not reasonable doubt, that this information was wrong---but this is in hindsight, not in prospect. How, then, are we to assign guilt for an action taken in the good-faith belief of an existing threat?

Apparently we can't without a proper investigation and the scouring of classified documents. This will probably not happen for a few more years at least, if ever.

You don't at least agree that there is a possibility of impropriety? You don't at least support an actual investigation, not some committee without the power to properly view the evidence, subpoena classified evidence, and require the testimony, under oath, of those concerned?

How many Germans and Italians attacked Pearl Harbor?

0, which is why we immediately declared war on Japan. Germany and Italy returned the favor by declaring War on the U.S as required by their signatures on the Tripartite treaty.

I'm sorry, the parallels are lost on me, you'll have to explain how this is relevant to the current situation. After Pearl Harbor, we engaged those who had attacked us (the Japanese, remember?). Our official declaration of war didn't come until November 1941, however, we had previously participated in cutting off Japan's oil supply and supplied Britain and Russia with weapons and ships. The German's had made great efforts not to bring the U.S. into it. Japan's dependence on shipments of oil forced them to respond with an act of aggression. There were other attempts to commit to action that could have been construed as war, but Congress wasn't having it because the American People weren't interested in another WW. The Japanese fly planes into Pearl Harbor, we attack the Japanese after declaring war and so we officially entered WWII.

Absent the IYO load to the question, yes. Yes, we were. ( BTW, there were more than just those two or three rationales, as you well know. )

You mean these rationales?:
1) More money for Haliburton?
2) The chance to increase overall defense budget spending?
3) The chance to finish the job that caused the first Bush his job?
4) Retaliation for a plot to kill his daddy?
5) Something to stall or reverse the downward trend of President Bush's job approval rating which had picked up after 9/11 but had nearly returned to pre-9/11 levels?
6) The chance to establish a permanent militarized region for continuing operations in the Middle-East?
7) Divert attention away from the Saudis complicity in 9/11?
8) Relieve some of the growing heat off of Israel?

I can but say that I reject your characterization of "taking away the intensity"....especially inasmuch as by all information the bulk of al Qaeda were no longer in Afghanistan by the time we tirned toward Iraq. The job was well on its way to being done there. The hunt in that region has now moved to Pakistan, which is at least ostensibly an ally at the moment and cannot simply be overrun in the process.

Do you have proof of that? Do you have Bin Laden's cell phone number? Whose information are you using?

When you are properly elected to lead the country, then you get to decide what the question is and which standards for military action apply.

As has been stated, the President is not elected and no he doesn't get to decide what the question is and which standards for military action apply UNLESS he is properly authorized.

Until then you only get a tiny little say, indirectly, by voting.

Unless, of course, I own a large media consolidation or large amounts of superfluous cash.

Just like I do---and I do not concur either with your definition of the question or wit your standard. Even if the votes may be the same...

That's one of the reasons I haven't put you on my ignore list

[jBirch]

I don't take issue with the US invading Iraq if it believed that there was an imminent threat. I do not argue that the evidence presented showed that there was something that looked like WMD in Iraq. Specifically, that evidence could be interpreted as indicating chemical weapons were present.

As I've said before, I do take issue with:

1) The apparent lightness of the decision. Why was the intelligence not properly vetted before an action was taken? War is not something you do because you're bored on a Saturday. Bush unilaterally walked away from every check on US actions and committed the country to a position that is not in its best interests. He passed up every opportunity to make sure he was right and focused on persuading and coercing people to come with him, rather then making sure he made the right decision in the first place.

2) WMD that Iraq possessed were mostly chemical with a smattering of biological and no nuclear. Terrorists (the big boogie man) would have been able to obtain only limited amounts of chemical weapons in even the most pessimistic threat case. As the Tokyo subway attacks showed, chemical WMD, even deployed in optimum conditions, are not as deadly as the hype would have you believe. This lowers the threat to the US substantially.

3) Bush claims stupidity instead of culpability. This is my most ardent issue. If the invasion of Iraq was justified on faulty intelligence then the decision to act on faulty intelligence was ultimately his. His job is to make good decisions. That means that he must err on the side of caution when the information is sketchy and take pains to shore up the evidence with investigation. Now, either he believed weak evidence more strongly then it warrented, which makes him stupid and reckless, or he bolstered the case for a different agenda, which makes him deceitful. There were a host of other nations who did not believe the information was as solid as it was presented, which was the whole process the UN was going through. Bush decided to short circuit that process and insulted anyone else who did not believe the evidence as he did. Discussion and disagreement was "cowardice" and actively hostile to US interests.

4) The overkill of the action in Iraq.
If the goal was to enforce UN resolutions and remove the threat of chemical weapons, then why did the entire country have to be invaded, the indigenous military destroyed and the leader imprisoned? Does this not seem excessive for the goal? How many countries can be invaded before someone stands up and fights back?

5) The strategy for reducing the threat of terrorism.
The more countries are invaded the more likely terrorists are to try to strike. The problem with terrorism is that they can choose what to strike and you have to guard everything. The best strategy employed sucessfully over history is to reduce the number of terrorists through means other then killing them. Integrate them into the political process (as Canada did with the FLQ , Ireland did with the IRA, Britain did with America and India and Palestine) and take away their weapons in the process. You can fortify your house, arm yourself and your children and mine the front steps, or you can work on not being a target in the first place. You become a target by being weak and by being oppressive.

Who sold these weapons to Iraq, and who helped them to produce those weapons is immaterial. Their threat to the US was negligable so the decision to invade was based on weak threat and that weak threat is obvious. Whether it is noble or in the interests of the people of Iraq or helping bring democracy to the world is immaterial. The fact that the US invaded another country that did not pose a threat and imposed it's will on the nation is what the world takes issue with. The impression that the pattern of behaviour gave was one of eagerness for war and opportunistic imperialism. "Who's next?" is the thought on the world's mind and everyone but the very powerful seem to be targets on that list. This closes doors to US interests that then have to be banged down with the military. Whether the US people care about this, and about their reception outside of US borders, will be decided in the election and the administration's subsequent actions.

Take it easy.

[jeff]

Good points. I'd like us to note that we defy the UN in order to enforce its resolutions. eh?

As far as why the data wasn't properly vetted: I've seen the film clip where Richard Clarke says that on 9/12 he was getting direct pressure to find reasons to blame Iraq. O'Neill, the ex-Treasury secretary, also is explicit that the admin was looking for justification to invade Iraq. Why vet the evidence if a cursory glimpse (with a little nudge to emphasize them) supports what you really want to do.

[Soldier]

Good points. I'd like us to note that we defy the UN in order to enforce its resolutions. eh?

Perhaps a differing set of priorities? Looking at what's the right thing to do, ahead of the procedural thing to do? Looking at the spirit of the rule/law/resolution, instead of the letter?

[jBirch]

Perhaps a differing set of priorities? Looking at what's the right thing to do, ahead of the procedural thing to do? Looking at the spirit of the rule/law/resolution, instead of the letter?

Or not being wise enough to know why the procedural thing is the right thing?

A young man runs around doing a lot but accomplishing nothing. A wise man walks slowly in a straight line, not doing much, but accomplishing a lot.

Which is the US?

[Soldier]

You're assuming that the procedural thing was the right thing. And a wise yount man runs in a straight line, accomplishing more.

[achilleus]

Hey, here's more fuel to fire...

Isn't Iran, with known WMD's and known link to terrorists more of a threat than Iraq was? Even if you look at the faulty intelligence, compared with what we know about Iran...

So why didn't we invade Iran?

[Soldier]

The key: Known WMDs. Once again...rules change once the country has them for sure.

[Philistine]

The key: Known WMDs. Once again...rules change once the country has them for sure.

No they don't.

WMD's--Iran has them for sure. They used chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war. In retaliation for Iraq's use, sure--but they still used them.

The real issue is nuclear weapons. How is Iraq's situation different from Iran's with regard to nuclear weapons from the point of view of having them. How is it different from North Korea's for that matter? Then there's Pakistan--if you really want to get into the issue of when a country has them for sure....

--Philistine