[karajorma]

And all 800 of those supposed "incidents" involved weapons grade enriched uranium?  And all 800 of those supposed "incidents" were actual mistakes?  I admit its scary, but I think you (and the dude who wrote the article) are blowing the whole thing way out of proportion.

Again. It only takes one.

I think you missed my point.  The U.S. can't force allied countries to do what we want them to do.

But if it spent half as much time on convincing them to get rid of dangerous material as it had trying to browbeat everyone into supporting the invasion of Iraq there wouldn't be as much of a problem.

Again my point is that the US (and the rest of the world for that matter) are focused on the wrong threats. It's like stopping on a level crossing to look at a papercut rather than wondering what that ringing noise is.

 

Plus, if you think that the coalition forces were sent into Iraq for the sole reason of finding a WMD, you're dead dead dead wrong.  While it certainly was the heralded flagship reason (pushed even more by the media than the Bush administration), it most definitely was nowhere close to the only reason.

It was the big one. Don't swallow the big lie and believe that it wasn't the major reason they used. The war in Iraq lacked a single credible reason that the American public would have agreed to. WMD and insinuating that Saddam was involved in 9/11 were what sold it to them and both were complete fabrications. The American public would not have gone to war to bring "Peace and Democracy" to Iraq. That was the excuse that was given once the big two were proved to be bull****.

HAHAHAH Blix?  You're actually trying to use Hans "Left Out A Few Important Details From The Oral Report" Blix?  Hans "This Is Real Disarmament" Blix?  Don't even get me started.  No wonder you believe this crap if you actually believed Hans Blix.

On one hand you have the CIA - who were completely and utterly wrong. On the other hand you have the UN inspectors who by and large were right.

And you want to say Bush was right to trust the CIA?

I chose my phrasing carefully, and when I said WMDs I meant everything that might fall under the label. We know Iraq had the means to manufacture chemical and biological weapons, even if they didn't actually have any at the moment. Besides, the point I'm making is not that he would have given it away, but rather that in the chaos of a post-Saddam Iraq without some sort of strong stablizing influnence already in place, all the risks you fear would have existed, and more. I don't think you actually read what I wrote.

I read what you wrote but my point still stands. Saddam didn't have WMDs. Yes he could have made them but most countries in the world can make them. Mustard gas is pretty easy to make. If you're going to invade a country because it can make mustard gas and could destabilise after the death of a ruler then you're going to have to invade half of the 3rd world.

You're trying to argue that the US should have invaded because Saddam might have changed his mind and made some, might have suddenly died without setting up conditions where his sons or some other person could have taken the power from him gradually, which might have left the country in a state where terrorists might have been able to grab WMDs and get away with them.

Doesn't that seem like a flimsy pretext to you?

Wouldn't it be better to spend the money on real threats?

[Hazaanko]

But if it spent half as much time on convincing them to get rid of dangerous material as it had trying to browbeat everyone into supporting the invasion of Iraq there wouldn't be as much of a problem.

Again my point is that the US (and the rest of the world for that matter) are focused on the wrong threats. It's like stopping on a level crossing to look at a papercut rather than wondering what that ringing noise is.

Well, on second thought you may have a point there.  The only problem is, we're already IN Iraq (whether you agree to the reasons for going in or not), and that seems to be priority one.  I'm inclined to agree with the decision there.  Having a stable ally in the Middle East is going to be a huge asset in the war on terror in general in any number of different ways, and thus no small factor against nuclear terrorism.  We DID have Iran as an ally a few decades back... but thanks to the Carter presidency, they've pretty much got terrorists running the country now...

It was the big one. Don't swallow the big lie and believe that it wasn't the major reason they used. The war in Iraq lacked a single credible reason that the American public would have agreed to. WMD and insinuating that Saddam was involved in 9/11 were what sold it to them and both were complete fabrications. The American public would not have gone to war to bring "Peace and Democracy" to Iraq. That was the excuse that was given once the big two were proved to be bull****.

All I have to say is go back and read President Bush's address to the nation.  I never said it wasn't the main reason they used.  I said it wasn't the only.  And it sure as hell wasn't the only.  Don't swallow the big lie yourself.  And saying the war "lacked a single credible reason that the American public would have agreed to" is assuming an awful lot.  Oh by the way, the chemical weapons that Saddam had WERE technically considered WMDs, however you choose to define it.

On one hand you have the CIA - who were completely and utterly wrong. On the other hand you have the UN inspectors who by and large were right.

And you want to say Bush was right to trust the CIA?

The UN inspectors were wrong.  Very wrong.  They were proven wrong about the conventional and unconventional (chemical) weapon stockpiles, they were proven wrong about Saddam's technological ability to attack other countries, they were dead wrong about his attempts to obtain weapons grade nuclear materials and being willing to disarm.

And it wasn't just the CIA who were wrong about Saddam having WMD production facilities, it was almost every other ally's intelligence that said the same thing (including the British, which was the original report where the whole thing got started).  Its pretty sad, but who else were we supposed to believe?

[karajorma]

Well, on second thought you may have a point there.  The only problem is, we're already IN Iraq (whether you agree to the reasons for going in or not), and that seems to be priority one.

No one is saying we aren't in Iraq. My entire point was that trumpeting the removal of yellowcake from Iraq as a major victory in the war against terror is pretty stupid. There are far more important sources of nuclear material that have been ignored because of the preoccupation with Iraq. And that's before we get to the possibility that the invasion of Iraq led to the disappearance of nuclear material.

All I have to say is go back and read President Bush's address to the nation.  I never said it wasn't the main reason they used.  I said it wasn't the only.  And it sure as hell wasn't the only.  Don't swallow the big lie yourself. 

I never said it was the only. However it was the main one. And it was bollocks. For the reasons I gave above there were things that should have been on the list long before Iraq.

And saying the war "lacked a single credible reason that the American public would have agreed to" is assuming an awful lot. 

Assuming that the American public had known what we know now about Iraqi WMDs and links to al-Qaeda do you think they would have agreed to go to war?

Oh by the way, the chemical weapons that Saddam had WERE technically considered WMDs, however you choose to define it.

Which chemical weapons? The few remaining cans of ageing mustard gas he had left over from the Iran-Iraq war? How much has been found exactly since the war ended?

The UN inspectors were wrong.  Very wrong.  They were proven wrong about the conventional and unconventional (chemical) weapon stockpiles, they were proven wrong about Saddam's technological ability to attack other countries, they were dead wrong about his attempts to obtain weapons grade nuclear materials and being willing to disarm.

So you say. Now back that up. Where are these chemical weapons then?

And it wasn't just the CIA who were wrong about Saddam having WMD production facilities, it was almost every other ally's intelligence that said the same thing (including the British, which was the original report where the whole thing got started).  Its pretty sad, but who else were we supposed to believe?

Well obviously the French, Chinese and Russian agencies since their governments were (rightly) convinced that the whole WMD thing was a load of bollocks.

[Hazaanko]

No one is saying we aren't in Iraq. My entire point was that trumpeting the removal of yellowcake from Iraq as a major victory in the war against terror is pretty stupid. There are far more important sources of nuclear material that have been ignored because of the preoccupation with Iraq. And that's before we get to the possibility that the invasion of Iraq led to the disappearance of nuclear material.

When I posted that article, it wasn't about nuclear terrorism.  It was a response to somebody else's comment to show that Saddam was trying to go nuclear.  As far as "trumpeting" goes... if it were being trumpeted, then why was the first time you heard about it... was from me?

Which chemical weapons? The few remaining cans of ageing mustard gas he had left over from the Iran-Iraq war? How much has been found exactly since the war ended?

I wouldn't call 500 a 'few.'  And considering they're still being found, just goes to show you Saddam's unwillingness to disarm and get rid of the WMDs he already had.  Degraded they may be, but still "extremely dangerous."  http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=060622055545.07o4imol&show_article=1

Well obviously the French, Chinese and Russian agencies since their governments were (rightly) convinced that the whole WMD thing was a load of bollocks.

   Right.  Yeah we'll believe lesseee... the FRENCH, the CHINESE, and the RUSSIANS before we believe our other allies.  Perfectly good sources of information.   

[Al Tarket]

500 degraded bombs? that's not very threatening especially since none of it was used in the recent take over of Iraq. and that's the point.

The collapse, likely Iranian invasion, possible move by the lower Gulf states and/or US to counter, all that would have created a very seriously unstable environment and the possibility of some of Iraq's WMD capabilities (it would almost certainly have some that ten or twenty years down the road, if minuscule) falling into the hands of a quick-thinking Hezbollah leader isn't a pretty one. Though in terms of threats, there is probably one ranked above even that; Iraq still had some Scuds, they just couldn't have ever hoped to drive the TEL out of the shed without being immediately pounced on by US or other aircraft. Have Hezbollah get a hold of one of those and launch it from Iranian or Jordanian soil and we have all the makings of yet another Israel-vs-the-Arabic/Islamic-world war.

i do not like the idea of Israel vs the rest of the civilized Arabian world. Hezbo has its agendas that are not known to me or anyone else, but i would be very surprised that they would use chemical/nuke weapons that have seriously degraded or fell into disrepair to kill others. however it is possible. besides this im sure al quida has agents that keep a keen eye on such devices that could be used as another means of terrorism, i wouldn't put it past them that even at this moment they are waiting for the chance to steal a few of these devices and use them to their own ends while the whole network is located to a huge city of 5 million plus people as further insurance against retaliation.

as for the comment that seems everyone missed, if even Saddam had nukes or biological waste rockets the USA/Russia/Europe would of immediately picked it up on radars and intercepted such devices, and shot them out of the sky without any further harm. however i am not convinced one bit that 500 barrels of degraded chemicals counts much these days as a WMD and i am sure this whole WMD situation on iraq was been blown all out of proportion, trying to find some proof of such a thing about the WMD is futile because their are none. to argue about it you can do however its irrelevant unless you have some real proof of such things and not a website that means nothing in the way of proof.

[karajorma]

When I posted that article, it wasn't about nuclear terrorism.  It was a response to somebody else's comment to show that Saddam was trying to go nuclear.  As far as "trumpeting" goes... if it were being trumpeted, then why was the first time you heard about it... was from me?

Yellowcake can be purified for civilian nuclear power. You'll need better proof than that to claim that there were any serious attempts at enrichment for WMDs.

I wouldn't call 500 a 'few.'  And considering they're still being found, just goes to show you Saddam's unwillingness to disarm and get rid of the WMDs he already had.  Degraded they may be, but still "extremely dangerous."  http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=060622055545.07o4imol&show_article=1

Don't make me laugh. You're trying to claim Saddam didn't want to disarm because he dumped the shells rather than spending time and money on keeping them viable or disarming them? I know they say that the great thing about dictators is that they get the trains running on time but the other great thing about them is that they don't have to worry about the press complaining if they decide to dump toxic waste out in the middle of the desert rather than disposing of it properly.

To claim that 500 or more 15 year old unmaintained and half-forgotten shells are proof of a desire to hold onto WMD is seriously grasping at straws. He didn't want them so he dumped them.

  Right.  Yeah we'll believe lesseee... the FRENCH, the CHINESE, and the RUSSIANS before we believe our other allies.  Perfectly good sources of information.   

The French ARE our allies. Or has the whole Freedom Fries thing really gotten to you? As were the Germans and the other EU/NATO countries against the war.

Believing only the intelligence that gives you the answer you want was exactly the mistake Bush made.