Did the Bush administration claim Iraq was an imminent threat? - Page 8

Put it together:

"WMD that are unaccounted for" + SH lied about the numbers of weapons he had = very, very likely that there are no WMD

I'm trying to figure out your news sources. I'd like to find out where you learned clinton was a "liberal".

I don't think it'd be too hard to guess.

once again you are joking here, right?

This could be more easily explained the other way. He could have stashed them anywhere in that region and lied about amounts to throw off the inspectors.

Hans Baby said they were actively trying to deceive the UN inspectors. Why would an innocent heavy-handed dictator like SH lie and deceive and cover up if he did not have anything to conceal?

Because SH learned a valuable lesson from watching the USSR/US cold war: It is far cheaper to lie and say you have lots and lots of weapons, and to act as if you do than it is to actually spend the money on the things.

Why would he lie? Simple. Power.

That, and he's a lunatic.

he lied because he did not respect or buy into the purpose of the UN inspections and he hated america and anything associated. He thought he could continue the 12 year deception.

SH had to know, if only from past experience, that the US would spank him militarily. Why would he push it to that point. All he had to do was account for his weapons. This was not the soviet union we are talking about.

Who did he have to project that power to? His people were constantly bludgeoned into submission. His neighbors, maybe but the US ans UN was breathing down his neck.

Are you suggesting he was more afraid of Iran or Saudis or someone else than US?

Again, back to my original point: How do you PROVE that you DON'T HAVE something? Especially if you've lied about having it in the first place.


He was a dictator in a region that respects power. He had to seem strong to his people. He had to seem strong to Iran. He had to seem strong to Israel. He had to seem strong to SA. And to the US. And to the UN. The longer he can make us think he's a threat, the more power he's got.

He was also a looney. We can't discount that. This is NOT a rational man. Rational men don't do the kinds of things he's done.

Cheers
Scott

Agreed, but he did at one point have them. And there is a pattern of deception an his part. This argument could circulate forever. It's not like he lied twice. It was one story until proven otherwise then another then another ..... until he was deposed. Maybe he just tried (read successfully) to bluff with the wrong people.


Agreed.

Good. Now we're getting somewhere.

Very likely Saddam passed much of it on to another terrorist Baathist dictator, Assad of Syria.. but much is also buried in Iraq. There's just no way Saddam was not going to arm himself w WMD, when Iran next door is developing Nuclear capabilities and he is burring 10's of thousand of their Shiites brethren under asphalt.

Right. I just try to analyze things from a "does this make sense" POV.

Bluffing. That makes more sense that a lot of things I've heard

I disagree strongly.

Saddam was/is a very rational man. He just had different factors dominating his calculations than your average western politician. That's all. To say he was not rational, that's just a wrong.

--

He could have stashed VX away and used it later?

Giant, Ive done a little more research but am finding some blank and or complex spots. Perhaps you could help. It may be a few more questions than necessary, but Im curious about the following:

Well I am curious, what were their dissertations on?

Michael Lind, of the New Statesman, has linked the legacy and tactics of Trotskyism to the neoconservatives, as least those in defense. I know that Pfaff and Heer have made similar connections, and Pfaff (I think) has alluded to the administration is a rightist version of Trotskys permanent revolution. What do you think of Trotskys ideas even being a factor, if so, how important is it?

Some say LaRouche also found these connections, before most of it became public. Is that true?

Also Pfaff seems to think of Strauss as a true Machivellian; and that his writings promote a belief in an elite, an intellectual elite, that feels entitled to rule by covert means. I cant really speak to Machivelli, but do you agree?

Where does the A.E.I. fit in all this, if anywhere ? I know its a neoconservative think tank based in Washington, but how involved are they? The NYTimes said its made up of mostily of Straussians.

Do you know what Perles and Wohlstetters ties are, to each other and Strauss ? I know Perles speciality was nuclear arms issuesbut thats about all.

Bule, of Tikkun, pointed out the Jewish-Israel-Likkud connection, do you find any signifigance in that ?

And last, how do the senior members of the foreign policy team fit in, Im not sure if any of them are Straussians (Cheney, Powell, Rice and Rumsfeld) ?

Thanks.

Sigh....

VX is volatile (5 to 6 years shelf life I've read) no doubt, but that is not the on CW or BW that SH may have had. One thing that is not clear to me is if certain kinds of storage can prolong that. Unless you assume he just buried it in the sand somewhere.

Yes. If he were going to use it to wash his car.

As for what's 'not clear,' let's just pick this conversation up again when it is. What you've said right here is incorrect, as is what you are hinting at. As for the rest of the WMD, just go down the list and read the UN reports (you could also learn a lot by reading the Claims and Evaluations I linked to all the way through. And I do mean all the way through. Then you can check out the CCR link I provided for more detailed info. By the time you are done with that, you be ready to move on to everything else and will, hopefully, know where to look.

Max, a lot of that info is fairly easy to get, either from the pnac site, the University of Chicago site or through the assistance of your local librarian. You are touching on a whole lot of topics there in that post.

Ok, look I'm not going to follow hand picked quotes by you. In order to be deemed fit to carry on a discussion with you. Nor do I need to. I can find resources on my own. Thanks

I think I have spent enough time chasing your logic. What was said about you has proved true. I really have no desire to continue any conversation with you.

And before you pull out the childish "chicken" angle, I just feel you are wasting my and others time. I wish to talk to people that are reasonable and want to have a civil conversation.