And finally, since I am talking about chemical and biological materials as weapons, I have to point out how easy it would be to give a half a barrel of anthrax to a terrorist. Think of the damage a few people could do in a city with that much anthrax.
Yeah, take Japan for example. Oh wait, they weren't able to hurt anyone with anthrax....
Re people: barrels of chemicals are moved to Syria and elsewhere, a few at a time, in pickup trucks or vans, stored in locked warehouses, five people left in Syria to guard the warehouses. Some barrels go by ship to Yemen/Sudan. The few people needed for this operation stay in the towns where the supplies are stored. They don't go back to Iraq. No surprise that we don't have them in custody.
This is speculation which is fully contradicted by any and all information regarding Iraq and biological and chemical programs.
Quote:
Originally posted by Carol A
As far as scientists not knowing stuff, a murderous dictator gives no one any more informantion than they must have to do their job. That's the way criminal regimes operate - only a few people know all the information. Everyone else just knows their own little part.
There are many, many detailed and corroborated accounts, accounts that are supported by large amounts of extremely detailed and specific evidence.
Quote:
Originally posted by Carol A
I'm speaking of chemical (and biological) weapons.
What chemical weapons would these be? Iraq's production of VX was always limited to making a quickly degrading product. All of the g-agent degrade even more rapidly (meaning there is no possibility at all of any viable stocks existing even 10 years ago much less today) as well as corrode metal making them extraordinarily difficult to store.
Note that we also now know that the Gulf War and subsequent inspection process halted new production, and also that this did not change following the removal of inspectors in 98.
Quote:
Originally posted by Carol A
botulism
But here's the reality of the situation:
Quote:
UNMOVIC further downgrade the quantity of growth media that Iraq could have retained for the production of botulinum toxin. UNMOVIC reached the following assessment:
"it seems unlikely that significant undeclared quantities of botulinum toxin could have been produced, based on the quantity of media unaccounted for."
("Unresolved Disarmament Issues", 6 March 2003, p.125).
Clostridium botulinum (botulinum toxin) consists of anaerobic bacilli, which have a short shelf life. As a result, UNMOVIC record:
"Any botulinum toxin that was produced and stored according to the methods described by Iraq and in the time period declared is unlikely to retain much, if any, of its potency. Therefore, any such stockpiles of botulinum toxin, whether in bulk storage or in weapons that remained in 1991, would not be active today."
("Unresolved Disarmament Issues", 6 March 2003, p.101).
According to a CIA briefing of 1990 on the threat from Iraq's biological weapons facilities:
"Botulinum toxin is nonpersistent, degrading rapidly in the environment. [...] [It is] fairly stable for a year when stored at temperatures below 27c."
The "strategic dossier" of the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) of 9 September 2002 assesses the likelihood of Iraq retaining a stockpile of biological weapons:
"Any botulinum toxin produced in 1989-90 would no longer be useful" (p.40).
Iraq states that a single static field test was conducted in November 1990, that it was considered to be a failure and that the project was abandoned. While UNMOVIC finds it probable that this test occurred, the project was probably abandoned due to the onset of war rather than the failure of the test. Apart from this static field test using 155mm artillery shells, there is no evidence to suggest that Iraq weaponized ricin for military purposes."
("Unresolved Disarmament Issues", 6 March 2003, p.116).
And this is all just the very beginning. The fact is the situation with Iraq WMD is not about finding weapons. The issue isn't about scientists being compartmentalized. All of the individuals with the technical ability are known. The structure of the various program groups are known. It's not like there are 100,000 individuals that could do this work. Not only do we know exactly who did what, most of them that aren't in US custody have spoken to the press and given accounts that are supported by all available evidence. Those in custody are stating that no WMD exist.
All available evidence points in one direction, and the only thing pointing in the other one is simply speculation. Superstition is a belief unsupported by fact, and the specter of Iraqi WMD is pure superstition.
The fact is the situation with Iraq WMD is not about finding weapons.
Oops! ***Strawman alert***
"Finding weapons" is simply a possible outcome (out of many). The real situation is to confirm that any/all weapons do or do not exist, in the face of inadequate documentation by a careless dictator. Given the nature of such devices/materials, it pays to physically verify rather than just take SH's word for it or just to assume that none exist since we don't see any lying out in the open.
I like this warning system you are adopting for your posts.
Quote:
The real situation is to confirm that any/all weapons do or do not exist,
And the only way to demonstrate that they do not exist is to compile a mountain of evidence supporting that. This is has already been done many times over. All physical evidence points to this. All remotely credible (meaning non-INC) accounts support this. When all available evidence points in one direction, it is simply ignorant to continue to hold beliefs contradicting it.
There is nothing wrong with discussing the possibilities within the context of fact. But discussions ignoring the cold hard reality of the situation (notably, Iraqi chemical weapons) are just fantasy.
And apparently the strawman you are referring to in your post is this:
Quote:
rather than just take SH's word for it or just to assume that none exist since we don't see any lying out in the open.
Come to think of it, I don't think I ever substantiated her sex for sure. It's always just the feeling I got that she was a female.
LOL..What a lame attempt at a personal insult.
I would've thought you'd be smart enough to figure out I'm a guy. Especially after I said things like:
Quote:
I don't know about you, but I was taught to respect women
Quote:
Sorry Randy, class doesn't "go out". Class is respecting women no matter what. I'm sorry there's troglodytes like you around who think otherwise. What would you do if a woman slapped you? Kick her ass cause " that shit went out n the 70's"???
on another thread in reply to some of your gems like:
Quote:
Originally posted by Randycat99What do I do if a woman slaps me? The answer is, "she would never get far enough to make contact". I'd catch it, lock her hand in mid-air, stare assertively into her eyes, and say, "Don't ever do that again unless you are ready to take some of it back."
Carol: I'm all male. By the way, we need to get you to Iraq as soon as possible. God, you seem to know more about the "missing" WMDs than the WMD team!!
Your arguments have a lot of holes and I have a feeling we would just go in circles if I keep replying to you Re: your hypotheticals. I could think of $millions of reasons why anyone who knows about those "mysterious" bunkers and the WMDs would love to come forward. Now be careful with Randy. He appears to have a short fuse when it comes to women.
Gilsch - Warehouses in Syria, and 60-80' bunkers in the desert of IRAQ. (He wouldn't build bunkers for his own safety in another country.) If the bunkers were built for Saddam's safety, which they were, he's not going to be announcing where they are located. He probably swore the engineers to silence, and though they might have communicated plans, I doubt they would give locations. Or, more probably, they might not even have known the locations. They might have been driven there at night, and didn't even know where they were when the sun rose. Easy to do that in a desert.
Re people: barrels of chemicals are moved to Syria and elsewhere, a few at a time, in pickup trucks or vans, stored in locked warehouses, five people left in Syria to guard the warehouses. Some barrels go by ship to Yemen/Sudan. The few people needed for this operation stay in the towns where the supplies are stored. They don't go back to Iraq. No surprise that we don't have them in custody.
As far as scientists not knowing stuff, a murderous dictator gives no one any more informantion than they must have to do their job. That's the way criminal regimes operate - only a few people know all the information. Everyone else just knows their own little part. Standard operating procedure for the KGB and other delightful groups.
Barrels are put in bunkers out in the desert, down 60-80', and NO ONE is needed to "mind" them. The bunkers are re-concealed with whatever desert camouflage works best, and the WMD are left there by themselves, in storage.
Maybe you don't know much about what deserts are like, with blowing sand obscuring what was once a road, and the whole unvariegated surface of hundreds of square miles that all look the same. Easy to get lost out there, with no landmarks, or with dunes shifting in appearance after every windstorm. Deserts would be a perfect place to dig deep bunkers and disguise the surface entrances. Easy to do.
Saddam was so paranoid about being assassinated that he slept in a different place every night, probably for the last twenty years. No one knew ahead of time where he would sleep. And I read that he was driven around in modest cars so no one would know it was he going by. So it stands to reason that if he built bunkers for his safety during bombardment, they would be well-concealed, and few people would know their location. They would be scattered around in the desert, probably in places unlikely to get bombed.
[...]
No insult intended Carol, but if Saddam had such advanced methods of moving and concealing all manner of things, it does make you wonder why he himself was found in such a pathetic little hole....
Not really, IMO. He had luxurious palaces, too, you know. Clearly Iraqi builders have advanced beyond the art of digging holes in the ground.
Perhaps, but it does make you wonder why, if the advanced hiding places are there, Saddam did not take advantage of them...and neither did his sons. Clearly they would have been difficult or impossible to find, based on the inability, to date, to find the weapons. And with all that advanced capability, the Iraqi regime could have stocked the underground vaults with advanced communications technology...multiple escape tunnels...food enough for years..the basics for mixed drinks...Waring blenders....
But I guess that Saddam saved his best spots for the weapons that were never used...although apparently we were to believe that they could be deployed on a few minutes notice. Maybe the weapons were too busy enjoying the fine facilities to bother to come out.
As posted earlier, no, it doesn't make me wonder why.
Hide in bunker full of deadly weapons? Hmmm...not my first choice. It's not likely these "underground bunkers" would be built with something as simple as a door you could use to enter and exit. Ideally, they would be inaccessible to anyone w/o some heavy machinery. Hence you have Saddam and his simple hole in the ground- accomodations fit for a single human with easy/low-tech accessibility. No...I can see such a premise pretty easily.
These bunkers were not designed to hide WMD from invading armies. They were designed for people to shelter in. They certainly do have exits though getting in without permission from the inhabitants may be tough.
As posted earlier, no, it doesn't make me wonder why.
Hide in bunker full of deadly weapons? Hmmm...not my first choice. It's not likely these "underground bunkers" would be built with something as simple as a door you could use to enter and exit. Ideally, they would be inaccessible to anyone w/o some heavy machinery. Hence you have Saddam and his simple hole in the ground- accomodations fit for a single human with easy/low-tech accessibility. No...I can see such a premise pretty easily.
????? Your point about hiding with deadly weapons is very weak. Presumably Saddam and/or his sons would have provided themselves with, and hidden in, one of the bunker complexes without the weapons, or, if in the same complex, at least in another wing of these supposedly enormous and advanced bunkers. Presumably he would have wanted to have one with escape routes, equipment, and some comfort. Unless, of course, none of this really existed, for him or the weapons.
I was actually willing to believe, up until about summer 2002, that the weapons existed and that it was necessary to go to war to remove them. Although I am a peacenik liberal, I was supportive of the pressure that was being put on Saddam.
I became more and more suspicious however,
- when the U.S. and the U.K. ratcheted up the rhetoric even as reported intelligence assessments started to downplay the level of threat;
- when the U.S. and the U.K effectively rejected weapons inspections;
-\twhen the U.S specifically put forward a doctrine ascribing itself the right to take unilateral action, undermined the role of the U.N., and scorned many of its allies.
We now know, of course, that the policy reason for going to war with Iraq had little or nothing to do with any imminent threat of WMD (and perhaps no threat at all) and was rather due to complex geopolitical calculations that had been discussed by right-wing thinkers (many now in, or connected closely with, the Administration) since the early 1990s: it involved questions of general regime-change in the Middle East; more viable American military bases in the Middle East and generally securing a region that is strategically and economically important to the U.S.; and asserting the independence of American foreign and military policy from international constraints.
Conservative thinkers make little effort to hide these arguments ? except in Presidential speeches to ?Mom and Pop? America ? and they, indeed, are not ashamed of the arguments. I therefore don?t know why some otherwise bright people here on AO insist on reiterating arguments about WMD. Whether or not any viable WMD actually existed in Iraq when the decision to go to war was finally made, they were not the reason for going to war.
We now know, of course, that the policy reason for going to war with Iraq had little or nothing to do with any imminent threat of WMD (and perhaps no threat at all) and was rather due to complex geopolitical calculations that had been discussed by right-wing thinkers (many now in, or connected closely with, the Administration) since the early 1990s: it involved questions of general regime-change in the Middle East; more viable American military bases in the Middle East and generally securing a region that is strategically and economically important to the U.S.; and asserting the independence of American foreign and military policy from international constraints.
Conservative thinkers make little effort to hide these arguments ? except in Presidential speeches to ?Mom and Pop? America ? and they, indeed, are not ashamed of the arguments. I therefore don?t know why some otherwise bright people here on AO insist on reiterating arguments about WMD. Whether or not any viable WMD actually existed in Iraq when the decision to go to war was finally made, they were not the reason for going to war.
????? Your point about hiding with deadly weapons is very weak. Presumably Saddam and/or his sons would have provided themselves with, and hidden in, one of the bunker complexes without the weapons, or, if in the same complex, at least in another wing of these supposedly enormous and advanced bunkers. Presumably he would have wanted to have one with escape routes, equipment, and some comfort. Unless, of course, none of this really existed, for him or the weapons.
Presumbably...
Then again, who are you to presume? Are you a professional weapons bunker contractor? Maybe they would do this, maybe not. Just because you can imagine that would be the best utilization of said hypothetical bunker, doesn't mean that is how others will logically implement theirs. You and I are simply guessing at this point. The difference is that I'm saying that either scenario is equally plausible. Hence you cannot really make an issue from it that WMD's absolutely do not exist.
Quote:
I was actually willing to believe, up until about summer 2002, that the weapons existed and that it was necessary to go to war to remove them. Although I am a peacenik liberal, I was supportive of the pressure that was being put on Saddam.
I became more and more suspicious however,...
I'll take note that we went from talking about how a bunker may or may not be designed back to the more comfortable liberal vs. conservative rhetoric.
These bunkers were not designed to hide WMD from invading armies. They were designed for people to shelter in. They certainly do have exits though getting in without permission from the inhabitants may be tough.
...yes, because there is absolutely only one kind of bunker design you can use, as one would buy from "Iraqi Home Depot"... Obviously, a hypothetical dedicated weapons bunker would not have to follow the same design. "Bunker" is a generic term. It could mean just about any sort of storage structure. Logically, the design will follow from what it is storing, the desired protection, the desired security, and the intended access.
Yeah, sure...cuz I took a snapshot with my cellphone. I also have reviewed documents that you will never have access to, would take you years to digest if you did, and is impossible to link to in a forum topic.
Comments
Originally posted by Randycat99
Come to think of it, I don't think I ever substantiated her sex for sure. It's always just the feeling I got that she was a female.
Do you think a female would say, "Bastards keep moving those underground bunkers..."?
That sounds more like a guy to me.
Originally posted by Carol A
And finally, since I am talking about chemical and biological materials as weapons, I have to point out how easy it would be to give a half a barrel of anthrax to a terrorist. Think of the damage a few people could do in a city with that much anthrax.
Yeah, take Japan for example. Oh wait, they weren't able to hurt anyone with anthrax....
Originally posted by Carol A
Re people: barrels of chemicals are moved to Syria and elsewhere, a few at a time, in pickup trucks or vans, stored in locked warehouses, five people left in Syria to guard the warehouses. Some barrels go by ship to Yemen/Sudan. The few people needed for this operation stay in the towns where the supplies are stored. They don't go back to Iraq. No surprise that we don't have them in custody.
This is speculation which is fully contradicted by any and all information regarding Iraq and biological and chemical programs.
Originally posted by Carol A
As far as scientists not knowing stuff, a murderous dictator gives no one any more informantion than they must have to do their job. That's the way criminal regimes operate - only a few people know all the information. Everyone else just knows their own little part.
There are many, many detailed and corroborated accounts, accounts that are supported by large amounts of extremely detailed and specific evidence.
Originally posted by Carol A
I'm speaking of chemical (and biological) weapons.
What chemical weapons would these be? Iraq's production of VX was always limited to making a quickly degrading product. All of the g-agent degrade even more rapidly (meaning there is no possibility at all of any viable stocks existing even 10 years ago much less today) as well as corrode metal making them extraordinarily difficult to store.
Note that we also now know that the Gulf War and subsequent inspection process halted new production, and also that this did not change following the removal of inspectors in 98.
Originally posted by Carol A
botulism
But here's the reality of the situation:
UNMOVIC further downgrade the quantity of growth media that Iraq could have retained for the production of botulinum toxin. UNMOVIC reached the following assessment:
"it seems unlikely that significant undeclared quantities of botulinum toxin could have been produced, based on the quantity of media unaccounted for."
("Unresolved Disarmament Issues", 6 March 2003, p.125).
Clostridium botulinum (botulinum toxin) consists of anaerobic bacilli, which have a short shelf life. As a result, UNMOVIC record:
"Any botulinum toxin that was produced and stored according to the methods described by Iraq and in the time period declared is unlikely to retain much, if any, of its potency. Therefore, any such stockpiles of botulinum toxin, whether in bulk storage or in weapons that remained in 1991, would not be active today."
("Unresolved Disarmament Issues", 6 March 2003, p.101).
According to a CIA briefing of 1990 on the threat from Iraq's biological weapons facilities:
"Botulinum toxin is nonpersistent, degrading rapidly in the environment. [...] [It is] fairly stable for a year when stored at temperatures below 27c."
"Iraq's Biological Warfare Program: Saddam's Ace In The Hole", August[?] 1990, at:http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/cia/960702/73924_01.htm
The "strategic dossier" of the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) of 9 September 2002 assesses the likelihood of Iraq retaining a stockpile of biological weapons:
"Any botulinum toxin produced in 1989-90 would no longer be useful" (p.40).
http://middleeastreference.org.uk/ir...b.html#bexistb
Originally posted by Carol A
ricin
As also pointed out:
Iraq states that a single static field test was conducted in November 1990, that it was considered to be a failure and that the project was abandoned. While UNMOVIC finds it probable that this test occurred, the project was probably abandoned due to the onset of war rather than the failure of the test. Apart from this static field test using 155mm artillery shells, there is no evidence to suggest that Iraq weaponized ricin for military purposes."
("Unresolved Disarmament Issues", 6 March 2003, p.116).
And this is all just the very beginning. The fact is the situation with Iraq WMD is not about finding weapons. The issue isn't about scientists being compartmentalized. All of the individuals with the technical ability are known. The structure of the various program groups are known. It's not like there are 100,000 individuals that could do this work. Not only do we know exactly who did what, most of them that aren't in US custody have spoken to the press and given accounts that are supported by all available evidence. Those in custody are stating that no WMD exist.
All available evidence points in one direction, and the only thing pointing in the other one is simply speculation. Superstition is a belief unsupported by fact, and the specter of Iraqi WMD is pure superstition.
Originally posted by giant
The fact is the situation with Iraq WMD is not about finding weapons.
Oops! ***Strawman alert***
"Finding weapons" is simply a possible outcome (out of many). The real situation is to confirm that any/all weapons do or do not exist, in the face of inadequate documentation by a careless dictator. Given the nature of such devices/materials, it pays to physically verify rather than just take SH's word for it or just to assume that none exist since we don't see any lying out in the open.
Originally posted by Randycat99
***Strawman alert***
I like this warning system you are adopting for your posts.
The real situation is to confirm that any/all weapons do or do not exist,
And the only way to demonstrate that they do not exist is to compile a mountain of evidence supporting that. This is has already been done many times over. All physical evidence points to this. All remotely credible (meaning non-INC) accounts support this. When all available evidence points in one direction, it is simply ignorant to continue to hold beliefs contradicting it.
There is nothing wrong with discussing the possibilities within the context of fact. But discussions ignoring the cold hard reality of the situation (notably, Iraqi chemical weapons) are just fantasy.
And apparently the strawman you are referring to in your post is this:
rather than just take SH's word for it or just to assume that none exist since we don't see any lying out in the open.
Interesting.
Originally posted by Randycat99
Come to think of it, I don't think I ever substantiated her sex for sure. It's always just the feeling I got that she was a female.
LOL..What a lame attempt at a personal insult.
I would've thought you'd be smart enough to figure out I'm a guy. Especially after I said things like:
I don't know about you, but I was taught to respect women
Sorry Randy, class doesn't "go out". Class is respecting women no matter what. I'm sorry there's troglodytes like you around who think otherwise. What would you do if a woman slapped you? Kick her ass cause " that shit went out n the 70's"???
on another thread in reply to some of your gems like:
Originally posted by Randycat99What do I do if a woman slaps me? The answer is, "she would never get far enough to make contact". I'd catch it, lock her hand in mid-air, stare assertively into her eyes, and say, "Don't ever do that again unless you are ready to take some of it back."
Carol: I'm all male. By the way, we need to get you to Iraq as soon as possible. God, you seem to know more about the "missing" WMDs than the WMD team!!
Your arguments have a lot of holes and I have a feeling we would just go in circles if I keep replying to you Re: your hypotheticals. I could think of $millions of reasons why anyone who knows about those "mysterious" bunkers and the WMDs would love to come forward. Now be careful with Randy. He appears to have a short fuse when it comes to women.
Thanks.
Originally posted by Carol A
Gilsch - Warehouses in Syria, and 60-80' bunkers in the desert of IRAQ. (He wouldn't build bunkers for his own safety in another country.) If the bunkers were built for Saddam's safety, which they were, he's not going to be announcing where they are located. He probably swore the engineers to silence, and though they might have communicated plans, I doubt they would give locations. Or, more probably, they might not even have known the locations. They might have been driven there at night, and didn't even know where they were when the sun rose. Easy to do that in a desert.
Re people: barrels of chemicals are moved to Syria and elsewhere, a few at a time, in pickup trucks or vans, stored in locked warehouses, five people left in Syria to guard the warehouses. Some barrels go by ship to Yemen/Sudan. The few people needed for this operation stay in the towns where the supplies are stored. They don't go back to Iraq. No surprise that we don't have them in custody.
As far as scientists not knowing stuff, a murderous dictator gives no one any more informantion than they must have to do their job. That's the way criminal regimes operate - only a few people know all the information. Everyone else just knows their own little part. Standard operating procedure for the KGB and other delightful groups.
Barrels are put in bunkers out in the desert, down 60-80', and NO ONE is needed to "mind" them. The bunkers are re-concealed with whatever desert camouflage works best, and the WMD are left there by themselves, in storage.
Maybe you don't know much about what deserts are like, with blowing sand obscuring what was once a road, and the whole unvariegated surface of hundreds of square miles that all look the same. Easy to get lost out there, with no landmarks, or with dunes shifting in appearance after every windstorm. Deserts would be a perfect place to dig deep bunkers and disguise the surface entrances. Easy to do.
Saddam was so paranoid about being assassinated that he slept in a different place every night, probably for the last twenty years. No one knew ahead of time where he would sleep. And I read that he was driven around in modest cars so no one would know it was he going by. So it stands to reason that if he built bunkers for his safety during bombardment, they would be well-concealed, and few people would know their location. They would be scattered around in the desert, probably in places unlikely to get bombed.
[...]
No insult intended Carol, but if Saddam had such advanced methods of moving and concealing all manner of things, it does make you wonder why he himself was found in such a pathetic little hole....
Originally posted by Randycat99
Not really, IMO. He had luxurious palaces, too, you know. Clearly Iraqi builders have advanced beyond the art of digging holes in the ground.
Perhaps, but it does make you wonder why, if the advanced hiding places are there, Saddam did not take advantage of them...and neither did his sons. Clearly they would have been difficult or impossible to find, based on the inability, to date, to find the weapons. And with all that advanced capability, the Iraqi regime could have stocked the underground vaults with advanced communications technology...multiple escape tunnels...food enough for years..the basics for mixed drinks...Waring blenders....
But I guess that Saddam saved his best spots for the weapons that were never used...although apparently we were to believe that they could be deployed on a few minutes notice. Maybe the weapons were too busy enjoying the fine facilities to bother to come out.
Hide in bunker full of deadly weapons? Hmmm...not my first choice. It's not likely these "underground bunkers" would be built with something as simple as a door you could use to enter and exit. Ideally, they would be inaccessible to anyone w/o some heavy machinery. Hence you have Saddam and his simple hole in the ground- accomodations fit for a single human with easy/low-tech accessibility. No...I can see such a premise pretty easily.
These bunkers were not designed to hide WMD from invading armies. They were designed for people to shelter in. They certainly do have exits though getting in without permission from the inhabitants may be tough.
Originally posted by Randycat99
As posted earlier, no, it doesn't make me wonder why.
Hide in bunker full of deadly weapons? Hmmm...not my first choice. It's not likely these "underground bunkers" would be built with something as simple as a door you could use to enter and exit. Ideally, they would be inaccessible to anyone w/o some heavy machinery. Hence you have Saddam and his simple hole in the ground- accomodations fit for a single human with easy/low-tech accessibility. No...I can see such a premise pretty easily.
????? Your point about hiding with deadly weapons is very weak. Presumably Saddam and/or his sons would have provided themselves with, and hidden in, one of the bunker complexes without the weapons, or, if in the same complex, at least in another wing of these supposedly enormous and advanced bunkers. Presumably he would have wanted to have one with escape routes, equipment, and some comfort. Unless, of course, none of this really existed, for him or the weapons.
I was actually willing to believe, up until about summer 2002, that the weapons existed and that it was necessary to go to war to remove them. Although I am a peacenik liberal, I was supportive of the pressure that was being put on Saddam.
I became more and more suspicious however,
- when the U.S. and the U.K. ratcheted up the rhetoric even as reported intelligence assessments started to downplay the level of threat;
- when the U.S. and the U.K effectively rejected weapons inspections;
-\twhen the U.S specifically put forward a doctrine ascribing itself the right to take unilateral action, undermined the role of the U.N., and scorned many of its allies.
We now know, of course, that the policy reason for going to war with Iraq had little or nothing to do with any imminent threat of WMD (and perhaps no threat at all) and was rather due to complex geopolitical calculations that had been discussed by right-wing thinkers (many now in, or connected closely with, the Administration) since the early 1990s: it involved questions of general regime-change in the Middle East; more viable American military bases in the Middle East and generally securing a region that is strategically and economically important to the U.S.; and asserting the independence of American foreign and military policy from international constraints.
Conservative thinkers make little effort to hide these arguments ? except in Presidential speeches to ?Mom and Pop? America ? and they, indeed, are not ashamed of the arguments. I therefore don?t know why some otherwise bright people here on AO insist on reiterating arguments about WMD. Whether or not any viable WMD actually existed in Iraq when the decision to go to war was finally made, they were not the reason for going to war.
Originally posted by Chinney
We now know, of course, that the policy reason for going to war with Iraq had little or nothing to do with any imminent threat of WMD (and perhaps no threat at all) and was rather due to complex geopolitical calculations that had been discussed by right-wing thinkers (many now in, or connected closely with, the Administration) since the early 1990s: it involved questions of general regime-change in the Middle East; more viable American military bases in the Middle East and generally securing a region that is strategically and economically important to the U.S.; and asserting the independence of American foreign and military policy from international constraints.
Conservative thinkers make little effort to hide these arguments ? except in Presidential speeches to ?Mom and Pop? America ? and they, indeed, are not ashamed of the arguments. I therefore don?t know why some otherwise bright people here on AO insist on reiterating arguments about WMD. Whether or not any viable WMD actually existed in Iraq when the decision to go to war was finally made, they were not the reason for going to war.
Thank you for this post!
Originally posted by Chinney
????? Your point about hiding with deadly weapons is very weak. Presumably Saddam and/or his sons would have provided themselves with, and hidden in, one of the bunker complexes without the weapons, or, if in the same complex, at least in another wing of these supposedly enormous and advanced bunkers. Presumably he would have wanted to have one with escape routes, equipment, and some comfort. Unless, of course, none of this really existed, for him or the weapons.
Presumbably...
Then again, who are you to presume? Are you a professional weapons bunker contractor? Maybe they would do this, maybe not. Just because you can imagine that would be the best utilization of said hypothetical bunker, doesn't mean that is how others will logically implement theirs. You and I are simply guessing at this point. The difference is that I'm saying that either scenario is equally plausible. Hence you cannot really make an issue from it that WMD's absolutely do not exist.
Quote:
I was actually willing to believe, up until about summer 2002, that the weapons existed and that it was necessary to go to war to remove them. Although I am a peacenik liberal, I was supportive of the pressure that was being put on Saddam.
I became more and more suspicious however,...
I'll take note that we went from talking about how a bunker may or may not be designed back to the more comfortable liberal vs. conservative rhetoric.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
I think you're confused.
These bunkers were not designed to hide WMD from invading armies. They were designed for people to shelter in. They certainly do have exits though getting in without permission from the inhabitants may be tough.
...yes, because there is absolutely only one kind of bunker design you can use, as one would buy from "Iraqi Home Depot"... Obviously, a hypothetical dedicated weapons bunker would not have to follow the same design. "Bunker" is a generic term. It could mean just about any sort of storage structure. Logically, the design will follow from what it is storing, the desired protection, the desired security, and the intended access.