Beating a dead horse, but further pre-invasion evidence - NO WMD

[sclone]

"[The source] told us that there were no active weapons of mass destruction programs," Drumheller is quoted as saying. "The [White House] group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they were no longer interested. And we said 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change.' "

Drumheller said the administration officials wanted no more information from Sabri because: "The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/23/cia.iraq

[LiddyRules]

Not true, I read on this board that there was a video that no one's ever seen that some guy translated saying that Saddam thought about buying weapons of mass destruction. I trust that vaguery more than your facts.

[MrBogey]

Ho hum... I guess if you take "Saddam has no nukes but he does have Chemical and Biological weapons" as "Saddam has no WMD" then I guess you're right. They were warned there were no WMDs.

[sclone]

Oh, yeah. Wait, what? So I guess you didn't read the article? Because it's about how intelligence from high-ranking officials indicated (before invasion) that there were no chemical or biological weapons in Iraq. So please explain what you're referring to.

[MrBogey]

Yea the problem is the article is wrong. Sabri did not say Iraq had no WMD.

I'm sure it's a small error on the part of those rabid conservatives at CNN. What liberal media...yada yada yada.

And before you even doubt me..

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11927856/
<i>On the issue of chemical weapons, the CIA said Saddam had stockpiled as much as "500 metric tons of chemical warfare agents" and had "renewed" production of deadly agents. Sabri said Iraq had stockpiled weapons and had "poison gas" left over from the first Gulf War.</i>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/22/AR2006032202103.html
<i>Privately, the sources said, he provided information that the Iraqi dictator had ambitions for a nuclear program but that it was not active, and that no biological weapons were being produced or stockpiled, although research was underway.</i>

[Smokezilla]

So fucking what. . . we were after the fucking oil. We just had to have a "reason" to go in there. Unfortunately, Iraq is blowing-up in our fucking faces and the rest of the world is kicking us in the nuts with the price of crude oil at an all-time high. We just got a little arrogant. That's all.

[frankjg]

The argument that we went into Iraq for the oil is probably the stupidest ever. What the fuck were we going to do, take over and ship the oil to the US free of charge? Get fucking real.

Has anyone ever thought Bush went into Iraq to get rid of a piece of shit dictator that massacared his own people, USED WMD's, holds no regard for his neighbors sovrienghty, harboured terrorists and terror training camps, etc..?

[MrBogey]

Yea, meanwhile we have oil rich Saudi Arabia and Iran with an even bigger list of grievances and we don't touch them. If we're going after oil we're doing it quite poorly. Fuck, we could take out Chavez and use the resulting civil war to fleece their oil supplies dry.

Why the fuck haven't we? Tell me why, MAAAANN.

[sclone]

Yea the problem is the article is wrong. Sabri did not say Iraq had no WMD.

I'm sure it's a small error on the part of those rabid conservatives at CNN. What liberal media...yada yada yada.

And before you even doubt me..

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11927856/
<i>On the issue of chemical weapons, the CIA said Saddam had stockpiled as much as "500 metric tons of chemical warfare agents" and had "renewed" production of deadly agents. Sabri said Iraq had stockpiled weapons and had "poison gas" left over from the first Gulf War.</i>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/22/AR2006032202103.html
<i>Privately, the sources said, he provided information that the Iraqi dictator had ambitions for a nuclear program but that it was not active, and that no biological weapons were being produced or stockpiled, although research was underway.</i>

What Sabri said in the meeting (just as you quoted) was that Saddam did not have an active nuclear program. In fact, according to the MSNBC article you cited, even if Saddam did have enriched uranium, it would take much longer than the year the US estimated (assuming he could purchase enriched uranium) to make a nuclear weapon. And again, as you cited in the WP article, Sabri makes no mention of the 500 tons of chemical warfare agents that US intelligence proposed. "Sabri said Iraq had stockpiled weapons and had 'poison gas' left over from the first Gulf War."

So both articles that you linked in fact DID quote Sabri as asserting that Iraq had no WMD. I'm confused... Are you agreeing with me? I think you need to clarify your point.

[LiddyRules]

His point is that Saddam had full scale nuclear weapons including a fully functional atomic bomb but that the liberal media because all they care about is destroying Bush refuses to publish that information. It's the same school of thought that gives us "All the troops love being in Iraq but once they watch two seconds of CNN they become anti-war protesters because CNN is just that powerful." Then he ends all his faux-political statements with MANNNN because that's what Jimmy and Ant do.

[MrBogey]

How the hell can you quote a man as saying Iraq had chemical weapons and then say he clearly says Iraq has no WMD. What type of disconnect do you have to possess to be able to draw that conclusion?

To reiterate: US says Saddam has 500tons of certain chemical agents left unaccounted for from before the Gulf War. Sabri says "Saddam has chemical weapons left over from before the Gulf War" and then you stand up and declare "see! He says Iraq has no WMD".

Really where does that type of disconnect come from?

[MrBogey]

Jesus Christ, can you at least get it right. The administration argued that Saddam had reconstituted his nuclear program and was trying to build a bomb. Not that they had one. Sabri's contribution was that they hadn't reconstituted their nuclear program but they really wanted to after sanctions ended. Get it right before you make yourself look foolish. It's all in print right before you.

Seriously, how far left does a person need to get before they lose their ability to read?

[LiddyRules]

Seriously, how far left does a person need to get before they lose their ability to read? I don't know but I think you missed the exit to sarcasm road.

And of course since I question the government and information presented in the news clearly I'm a pinko commie left. And because I'm left, clearly I know nothing about anything since all people who are left are useless imbeciles who have no thoughts whatsoever. You've been trained well Bogey!! Good boy!

[MrBogey]

'And because I'm left, clearly I know nothing about anything since all people who are left are useless imbeciles who have no thoughts whatsoever.'

No, I didn't say it's because you're a lefty. I said it because you have the article right in front of you including all the pertinent facts and you still can't get the facts straight.

I'd gladly retract the assertion if you know.. could prove to me you actually know some facts.

[The Lurker]

The argument that we went into Iraq for the oil is probably the stupidest ever. What the fuck were we going to do, take over and ship the oil to the US free of charge? Get fucking real.

I really don't give a shit about politics, right vs. left, or any of that stuff, but the notion that we "went into Iraq for oil" is idiotic. Only a true fucking moron with no understanding whatsoever of the war would say something like that. If you really believe that, do yourself a favor and do some fucking research. The "we are in Iraq for oil" argument carries about as much weight was when an idiotic anti-abortion activist says that abortions go "against God's will", or when somebody says a gay person is "sinning".

There are so many better arguments for why we should or should not be in Iraq. The "oil" argument is a cop-out for people who just don't get it, and when it's used, those people end up sounding like retards.

[Diceman Cometh]

we were after the fucking oil. We just had to have a "reason" to go in there.

Source?

[Diceman Cometh]

Sclone, in light of this, why do you think Bush went to war?

Please don't fucking say oil. I'm finally with you on not liking this war anymore...but please don't fucking say oil.

[sclone]

I think oil is a very important part of it, but I think it is more about power and stability, and the oil issue stems from that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A18841-2002Sep14

[Mommadeez4u]

Has anyone ever thought Bush went into Iraq to get rid of a piece of shit dictator that massacared his own people, USED WMD's, holds no regard for his neighbors sovrienghty, harboured terrorists and terror training camps, etc..?

You scare me dude. Really. You are truly frightening if you believe any of the above assertions.

Dude, the US helped INSTALL and MAINTAIN Saddam's regime. Put another way, the US CIA helped Saddam overthrow a 'soveriegn' government in favor of his own.

'Used Weapons of Mass Destruction'-- yeah, just like the United States of America. And, the US Government SOLD the weapons to him.

'Hold no regard to his neighbor's sovereignity': here I just have to laugh right in your face. 1. The US Government gave the green light to Sadaam's invasion of Kuwait. 2. What the FUCK to you call the invasion of Iraq? Why is it acceptable for the US to invade and overthrow a nation but no one else may?

And lastly, do you REALLY believe Sadaam was behind the terrorist attacks on 9/11?

[sclone]

MrBogey -

It's funny, you keep saying that there were WMD, even though the Iraq Survey group says there were no WMD, just the capability and desire to make them. Do you have information that the rest of us don't?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3722144.stm

[YourAmishDaddy]

Oh oil was definitely part of the entire thing. Anyone that's followed the people involved in our foreign policy the last ten years knows this. There were many supposed factors. Yes oil was one of them, WMD was another, "middle east stability" (lot of good that did" were the top three.

Being the second and third didn't pan out, what's left?

The Paul Wolfowitz story in Vanity Fair, though spun and since clarified was more telling even after the controversy. Although the media spun it to look like oil was the main reason, it's still a reason and Wolfowitz still said "for bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue - weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."

The controversy sparked from that interview back then led to Wolfowitz clarifying his words"
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030528-depsecdef0222.html

"Wolfowitz: The truth is, we've always had all three of those reasons, and in fact, if you look at Powell's presentation, there have always been all three. There has been a tendency to emphasize the weapons of mass destruction issue. But, as I said in the fuller quote, the real thing that has concerned the President from the beginning and which I think is even the "axis" that's referred to in the "axis of evil" is the connection between terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. So in a way, that's always been the main thing."

Was oil the main thing in Iraq? I say no, it's a convenient side move though, being nothing else has panned out in Iraq but that, one still has the right to be suspicious.

But easily one could read the documents in their past history, before gaining power, like the PNAC documents, and several press statements and briefings.

Like in 1992 Paul Wolfowitz said “In the Middle East and Southwest Asia , our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil.”

" I get so tired of hearing chants of, ‘No war for oil.’” Feb. 27, 2003 U.S. House Budget Committee testimony.

“The guidance states that the defense of Middle Eastern oil fields ‘ranks above South America and Africa in terms of global wartime priorities.’” “Defense Planning Guidance,” Feb. 13, 1990


This is what these wars end up being, a racket. A way of enrichment of people who are connected. Just like Kosovo ultimately was a racket to get a pipeline across the Caspian.

Whether or not it's "the" reason, it is a reason. And being the other two reasons don't seem to have resulted in much, what's left?

[YourAmishDaddy]

"Has anyone ever thought Bush went into Iraq to get rid of a piece of shit dictator that massacared his own people, USED WMD's, holds no regard for his neighbors sovrienghty, harboured terrorists and terror training camps, etc..?"


None of those reasons are Constitutionally valid reasons to launch a "war"

The American military exists to protect the American mainland from invasion. They are there to secure our sovereignty, not to defend anyone else's sovereignty. Not to defend anyone else's borders, and definitely not to be a nation building (anyone remember this from the 90s?) Meals on Wheels program.

I could rattle off plenty of valid reasons to oppose Iraq, but I'll just use the main one.

It's unconstitutional, and undeclared, and thus under the Constitution, illegal.

Congress declares war, not the executive branch.

[sclone]

YourAmishDaddy -

If I ever forget an accidentally try to bash you in another thread because I disagree with one of your positions, please remind me of how much I truly heart you...

[YourAmishDaddy]

Haha, thanks. Just trying to be "fair and balanced." I just look at it as these are the reasons they give us for Iraq, None of them pass the test. Assuming everything the administration has given us, Iraq did not attack us on 9-11.

This is labeled a "war on terror" which is nonsense, terror is a tactic used by an enemy. Launching a war on terror is as useful as a global campaign against jealousy.

[MrBogey]

Dude, the US helped INSTALL and MAINTAIN Saddam's regime. Put another way, the US CIA helped Saddam overthrow a 'soveriegn' government in favor of his own.

'Used Weapons of Mass Destruction'-- yeah, just like the United States of America. And, the US Government SOLD the weapons to him.

'Hold no regard to his neighbor's sovereignity': here I just have to laugh right in your face. 1. The US Government gave the green light to Sadaam's invasion of Kuwait. 2. What the FUCK to you call the invasion of Iraq? Why is it acceptable for the US to invade and overthrow a nation but no one else may?

And lastly, do you REALLY believe Sadaam was behind the terrorist attacks on 9/11?

1- The CIA didn't install Saddam. He was the socialist choice. At the time the US wasn't keen on socialists.

2- The US sold Iraq few conventional arms and absolutely no WMD.

3.The US gov't didn't greenlight the invasion of Kuwiat. They asked us and we said ya gotta do what ya gotta do.

<quote=sclone>It's funny, you keep saying that there were WMD, even though the Iraq Survey group says there were no WMD, just the capability and desire to make them. Do you have information that the rest of us don't?</quote>

You gotta stay consistent man. You just posted quotes from a guy who said there were WMDs. Now you're saying there are no WMDs. Are you calling Sabri a liar? Come on, help me out. You're making no sense.

[Fendbass22]

You scare me dude. Really. You are truly frightening if you believe any of the above assertions.

Dude, the US helped INSTALL and MAINTAIN Saddam's regime. Put another way, the US CIA helped Saddam overthrow a 'soveriegn' government in favor of his own.

'Used Weapons of Mass Destruction'-- yeah, just like the United States of America. And, the US Government SOLD the weapons to him.

'Hold no regard to his neighbor's sovereignity': here I just have to laugh right in your face. 1. The US Government gave the green light to Sadaam's invasion of Kuwait. 2. What the FUCK to you call the invasion of Iraq? Why is it acceptable for the US to invade and overthrow a nation but no one else may?

And lastly, do you REALLY believe Sadaam was behind the terrorist attacks on 9/11?

:clap:

[Diceman Cometh]

You scare me dude. Really. You are truly frightening if you believe any of the above assertions.

Dude, the US helped INSTALL and MAINTAIN Saddam's regime. Put another way, the US CIA helped Saddam overthrow a 'soveriegn' government in favor of his own.

'Used Weapons of Mass Destruction'-- yeah, just like the United States of America. And, the US Government SOLD the weapons to him.

'Hold no regard to his neighbor's sovereignity': here I just have to laugh right in your face. 1. The US Government gave the green light to Sadaam's invasion of Kuwait. 2. What the FUCK to you call the invasion of Iraq? Why is it acceptable for the US to invade and overthrow a nation but no one else may?

And lastly, do you REALLY believe Sadaam was behind the terrorist attacks on 9/11?

MrBogey is right. The CIA never installed Saddam's regime, and the U.S. never sold him WMD's. They sold him conventional arms that he used as a delivery system for his own WMDs - of Soviet origin I'm guessing.

And yea, the U.S. was friendly with Saddam at one point. So what? Things change sir. People change. Friends become enemies, enemies become allies. Big fucking deal. Simply pointing out that the U.S. and Iraq were once friendly means absolutely nothing.

This is the problem with so many anti-war activists - so often you are barking up the wrong tree. Your conclusion is correct (the war should not have happened) but you mislead and make up facts to convince others, and you end up looking like a shmuck. That is exactly the problem with Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11....he could have made a compelling case against Bush and the War without resorting to misleading bullshit.

[Mommadeez4u]

1- The CIA didn't install Saddam. He was the socialist choice. At the time the US wasn't keen on socialists.

2- The US sold Iraq few conventional arms and absolutely no WMD.

3.The US gov't didn't greenlight the invasion of Kuwiat. They asked us and we said ya gotta do what ya gotta do.


a short history lesson:

1. 1959: After a failed attempt to kill then Iraqi President General Qassim, Sadaam Hussein flees to Egypt. In Cairo, Hussein repeatedly visits the US Embassy and meets with CIA operatives who are interested in overthrowing Qassim's regime. SOURCE: PBS Frontline

When Hussein returns to Iraq, the CIA installs Hussein in an apartment on al-Rashid St. directly opposite Qassim's office in the Ministry of Defense building. SOURCE: UPI

1963: President Qassim is assasinated in a Ba'athist coup d'etat. The United States is among the first contries to announce the recognition of the new government and arms shipments begin immediately. The day before the assasination, the CIA gives the Ba'athists a list of 800 Iraqi communists. Every one on that list was killed. Robert Comer, an aide to President Kennedy, calls the coup, 'almost certainly a gain for our side.' SOURCE: Roger Morris, NYT

Within 9 months the coup fails. Over the next five years there are two more CIA-backed coup attempts. Each time the Ba'athists regain control western business such as Mobil, Bechtel, and BP expand industries in Iraq.

1968: The final Ba'athist coup attempt works, and Ahmad Hassan al Bakr becomes president of Iraq. He immediately installs his cousin, Sadaam Hussein, in charge of State security. Please note that this entire time Sadaam was pulling a paycheck from the CIA.

1979: Sadaam Hussein seizes power in a 'palace coup' and orders everyone loyal to al Bakr murdered.

1980: The United States government, concerned with the growing islamic state of Iran, offers money, weapons, and intelligence to Iraq if Iraq will invade Iran. In addition to billions of dollars in arms, the US Government sells Iraq the following biologcal and chemical weapons (PLEASE PAY ATTENTION SIR):

Bacillus Anthracis (anthrax)
Clostridium Botulinum (botulism toxin)
Histoplasma Capsulatam
Brucella Melitensis
Clostridium Perfringens
Clostridium tetani

The US Government was well aware at that time of the oppresive nature of Hussein's regime and that he supported and funded Abu Nidal. One year after Iraq uses biological weapons THE US SOLD TO IRAQ, the US removes Iraq from the list of nations which support terrorism and resumes normal diplomatic relations.

The Iran Iraq War goes on for 8 years, over a million people are killed. Iraq is bankrupt. After the war ends, Kuwait (which was an ally to Iraq throughout the war) floods the petroleum market with oil. Prices fall throughout the world. Iraq cannot rebuild its economy (the country's infrastructure was almost completely destroyed). Hussein asks OPEC for help, they deny him any help. When Hussein tells the US Governement his plans to invade Kuwait, the US Governemnt responds, "We have no opinion on your border dispute with Kuwait. James Baker has instructed our official spokesman to EMPHASIZE this instruction."

I must pause here to say, Dude: if you don't understand 'diplomatic speak' and try to reiterate that the US never endorsed the invasion of Kuwait, you're only making yourself look seriously uneducated on the subject.

With regard to 'a few conventional weapons' you mentioned, I'll leave the readers to decide whether or not over a BILLION dollars of arms are a 'few' or not.

Finally, Sadaam was never a 'Socialist'.

[Mommadeez4u]

ps: merely saying 'no, the CIA didn't help install Sadaam' is not a valid counterargument. I've given you dates, sources, and quotes. whether you chose to actually believe them or not I guess is up to you.

[MrBogey]

1980: The United States government, concerned with the growing islamic state of Iran, offers money, weapons, and intelligence to Iraq if Iraq will invade Iran. In addition to billions of dollars in arms, the US Government sells Iraq the following biologcal and chemical weapons (PLEASE PAY ATTENTION SIR):

Bacillus Anthracis (anthrax)
Clostridium Botulinum (botulism toxin)
Histoplasma Capsulatam
Brucella Melitensis
Clostridium Perfringens
Clostridium tetani

The US Government was well aware at that time of the oppresive nature of Hussein's regime and that he supported and funded Abu Nidal. One year after Iraq uses biological weapons THE US SOLD TO IRAQ, the US removes Iraq from the list of nations which support terrorism and resumes normal diplomatic relations.

The Iran Iraq War goes on for 8 years, over a million people are killed. Iraq is bankrupt. After the war ends, Kuwait (which was an ally to Iraq throughout the war) floods the petroleum market with oil. Prices fall throughout the world. Iraq cannot rebuild its economy (the country's infrastructure was almost completely destroyed). Hussein asks OPEC for help, they deny him any help. When Hussein tells the US Governement his plans to invade Kuwait, the US Governemnt responds, "We have no opinion on your border dispute with Kuwait. James Baker has instructed our official spokesman to EMPHASIZE this instruction."

I must pause here to say, Dude: if you don't understand 'diplomatic speak' and try to reiterate that the US never endorsed the invasion of Kuwait, you're only making yourself look seriously uneducated on the subject.

With regard to 'a few conventional weapons' you mentioned, I'll leave the readers to decide whether or not over a BILLION dollars of arms are a 'few' or not.

Finally, Sadaam was never a 'Socialist'.


Well I guess it'd be to much to ask for references from some sort of official document instead of taking your word that the CIA paid Saddam.

And I take it it's too much for you to actually post the nature of the deals. At no point did the Us sell Saddam any WMD. They allowed the sale of biological agents to Bagdad University and other research agencies. At the time Saddam was an ally so why would they deny them legitimate research items? Same goes for chemical agents. Why would the US prohibit the sale of chemical agents which have legitimate uses?

"We have no opinion on your border dispute with Kuwait. James Baker has instructed our official spokesman to EMPHASIZE this instruction."

translation: Ya gotta do what ya gotta do.

[sclone]

You gotta stay consistent man. You just posted quotes from a guy who said there were WMDs. Now you're saying there are no WMDs. Are you calling Sabri a liar? Come on, help me out. You're making no sense.

Which quotes are you reading? Why do I have to do this again? Sigh, I will cite your own articles, again.

Regarding chemical/biological weapons:

MSNBC
"For example, consider biological weapons, a key concern before the war. The CIA said Saddam had an "active" program for "R&D, production and weaponization" for biological agents such as anthrax. Intelligence sources say Sabri indicated Saddam had no significant, active biological weapons program. Sabri was right. After the war, it became clear that there was no program."

Washington Post
"...no biological weapons were being produced or stockpiled, although research was underway.When it came to chemical weapons, Sabri told his handler that some existed but they were not under military control, a former intelligence official familiar with the situation said."

Regarding nuclear weapons:

MSNBC
"The CIA said if Saddam obtained enriched uranium, he could build a nuclear bomb in "several months to a year." Sabri said Saddam desperately wanted a bomb, but would need much more time than that. Sabri was more accurate."

Washington Post
"Privately, the sources said, he provided information that the Iraqi dictator had ambitions for a nuclear program but that it was not active, and that no biological weapons were being produced or stockpiled, although research was underway."

The only agreement between the CIA and Sabri was the purported stockpiling of chemical weapons, which turned out to be a false assessment.

Are you suggesting that in light of this assessment, all of his other information regarding Iraq's weapons should be ignored and Hussein's stockpile of poison gas is enough justification for war?

Do you think there would be the same support for the war in 2003 if the administration had come out and said, "Saddam has stockpiles of poison gas and is years away from nuclear weapons?" The image of active WMD conveyed a threat to our security. Poison gas doesn't.

[MrBogey]

The only agreement between the CIA and Sabri was the purported stockpiling of chemical weapons, which turned out to be a false assessment.

See, Sabri said Saddam had WMD. They shouldn't have listened to him. So let me get this right. They should have listene to him about the other 2 but ignored him regarding the final one? So you're saying the US should have cherry-picked intel to support not going to war.

Good job. You've made yourself look sillier.

[sclone]

See, Sabri said Saddam had WMD. They shouldn't have listened to him. So let me get this right. They should have listene to him about the other 2 but ignored him regarding the final one? So you're saying the US should have cherry-picked intel to support not going to war.

Good job. You've made yourself look sillier.

You should have quoted the two paragraphs after that, where I made my point. Assuming Sabri's intel was legit, the US gov't realized that poison gas alone was not enough to justify the war to the public. So they chose to ignore all of his information, and instead rely on their own flawed intel which purported that Saddam had nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.

I'm pretty sure I'm not the one who is looking silly here. You're arguing semantics, while pretty much everyone else is arguing facts, like big boys.

[MrBogey]

You should have quoted the two paragraphs after that, where I made my point. Assuming Sabri's intel was legit, the US gov't realized that poison gas alone was not enough to justify the war to the public. So they chose to ignore all of his information, and instead rely on their own flawed intel which purported that Saddam had nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.

I'm pretty sure I'm not the one who is looking silly here. You're arguing semantics, while pretty much everyone else is arguing facts, like big boys.


And you get it wrong again. The admin argued he was pursuing nukes. Not that he had them.

You also ignore your assertion that Sabri was wrong. If he's wrong about chemical weapons he's not gong to be wrong about anything else? The CIA and the admin weighed what he said. They figured he lent credibility to the argument they had WMD's.

Look at it this way. If you had to sum it all up Sabri said Iraq had WMD... just not that much. That's a plus in Bush's column no matter how ya spin it.

[sclone]

And you get it wrong again. The admin argued he was pursuing nukes. Not that he had them.

I don't know whether this is true or not. A source would be nice.

You also ignore your assertion that Sabri was wrong. If he's wrong about chemical weapons he's not gong to be wrong about anything else?

I don't even understand your point here. This seems irrelevant since how right or wrong he was wasn't determined until after the war, and way after they had decided whether or not to take his intel as relevant.

The CIA and the admin weighed what he said. They figured he lent credibility to the argument they had WMD's.

Look at it this way. If you had to sum it all up Sabri said Iraq had WMD... just not that much. That's a plus in Bush's column no matter how ya spin it.

You keep accusing me of suggesting that the US should have picked and chosen which info to use from Sabri, when that's exactly what they did. They took the info that supported their argument and used it to justify invasion while discarding all the rest of the info.

Since I clearly address every issue that you put forth, please address this: Would Bush have gained the same support for war if the information presented by Sabri - namely that Iraq had a cache of poison gas and nothing else - was well known?

[MrBogey]

Look, at the CIA and admin when they met they laid it all out. We have various sources some are saying he has a little WMD some are saying none and some are saying he has a lot.

The admin pushed what he could have had based off of their sources. If you say, this guy may have enough weapons to kill a few million... or maybe a few hundred thousands. You're still talking about a lot of dead people. Sabri was in the "little but not a whole lot" camp. The admin used that as a basis that he had something. They don't know if he's right or wrong but they do know he lends credibility to the belief Saddam has something.

You're asking people to look in hindsight that Saddam had nothing. Keep in mind when this went down we didn't know what exactly Saddam had so we had to act upon what would be the best course of action. The reasonable position was that Saddam had something. You're asking us to ignore the intel that Saddam had something and cherry-pick intel which supports the assertion he had none.

You can't go solely off of what Sabri says in any intel aggregation. Which is why anyone would have been foolish if they ran with what Sabri said as their sole support.

[sclone]

Look, at the CIA and admin when they met they laid it all out. We have various sources some are saying he has a little WMD some are saying none and some are saying he has a lot.

The admin pushed what he could have had based off of their sources. If you say, this guy may have enough weapons to kill a few million... or maybe a few hundred thousands. You're still talking about a lot of dead people. Sabri was in the "little but not a whole lot" camp. The admin used that as a basis that he had something. They don't know if he's right or wrong but they do know he lends credibility to the belief Saddam has something.

You're asking people to look in hindsight that Saddam had nothing. Keep in mind when this went down we didn't know what exactly Saddam had so we had to act upon what would be the best course of action. The reasonable position was that Saddam had something. You're asking us to ignore the intel that Saddam had something and cherry-pick intel which supports the assertion he had none.

You can't go solely off of what Sabri says in any intel aggregation. Which is why anyone would have been foolish if they ran with what Sabri said as their sole support.

Some sources would be nice to validate your claims.

[FreeTheCricket]

My poop smelled like oil this morning. Does that count for anything?

[sclone]

My poop smelled like oil this morning. Does that count for anything?

No war for Olestra!

Nothin'?

[YourAmishDaddy]

No war for Olestra!

Nothin'?

Couldn't resist...:action-sm

http://media.skoopy.com/misc/car_crash/03.jpg

[Smokezilla]

The argument that we went into Iraq for the oil is probably the stupidest ever. What the fuck were we going to do, take over and ship the oil to the US free of charge? Get fucking real.

Has anyone ever thought Bush went into Iraq to get rid of a piece of shit dictator that massacared his own people, USED WMD's, holds no regard for his neighbors sovrienghty, harboured terrorists and terror training camps, etc..?

Not trying to start an argument, but YES: it WAS all about the oil. . . there have been dictatorships who have slaughtered their own people and we did NOTHING but stand there and shake our collective finger at them and shake our collective head in disapproval. There is mass murder taking place in the African nations all the time. We don't go over there because there's nothing there we want. Don't get me wrong. I'm GLAD we put Saddam out of commission, but there were "other concerns" at work when we did it. And YES, Saddam was a big backer of terrorist activity. I did see a news report once that said he would pay the families of "suicide bombers" large sums of money and even give them a plaque of recognition for their family members' sacrifice for their "faith". I just don't see our efforts to liberate Iraq as the old Paladin riding-in on his snow-white horse to save the day for those people. That's all.

As for the WMD's, I do believe that they were there at one time. I don't believe anyone can seriously think that they never existed to begin with. Iran and Iraq both used some pretty evil shit on each other during their conflict back in the 80's. We didn't have a problem with that, though. Iraq was our pawn to bitch-slap the Ayatollah a little bit.

As for shipping the oil out for ourselves, WHY NOT??? It's called REPARATIONS. In WWI and WWII, the losers had to pay the victors for the materials used and the lives lost kicking their asses. "To the victor go the spoils.":icon_wink

[Ego]

Not that what I have to say matters or anything, but Saddam doesn't seem to be the unsmart type. He saw how severely the rest of the world could kick his ass. At the very least, if even for his own well being, I think he would have kept himself in check until sanctions were lifted.

We should have just waited for him to die in office. Nobody liked his sons, and they would have begged us to clean house then instead of letting them take over.

[YourAmishDaddy]

The fact remains hundreds of kids died for this garbage..

All I care about at this point is Robert McNamara's grave won't be the only one I plan on pissing on one day.

[Diceman Cometh]

All I care about at this point is Robert McNamara's grave won't be the only one I plan on pissing on one day.

What's your problem with McNamara exactly?


Not trying to start an argument, but YES: it WAS all about the oil. . . there have been dictatorships who have slaughtered their own people and we did NOTHING but stand there and shake our collective finger at them and shake our collective head in disapproval. There is mass murder taking place in the African nations all the time. We don't go over there because there's nothing there we want.

There could have been other reasons for going to war that don't involve oil. Those African countries you speak of aren't located in the heart of the Arab world, possibly the most unstable region on the planet. Bush might have intended to establish democracy in Iraq and hoped that it would become very successful and prosperous, thereby encouraging such change in the rest of the Arab world, wiping out most support for terrorism. He might have also intended to create a "terrorist magnet" in Iraq, forcing terrorists to migrate into Iraq rather than the U.S. and Europe.

Keep in mind I am not saying that these were good reasons for going to war - I am saying that there are many possible reasons he went to war that do not involve oil.

If Bush was interested in getting oil, there could have been easier ways of doing so that do not involve spending $300 billion and putting the lives of U.S. troops in jeopordy.

I do agree, however, that the reasons for going to war that Bush outlined for the American people were bogus. It wasn't about WMD's, and it sure as fuck wasn't about the Iraqi people. But I do believe he did have legitimate reasons in mind.

[mascan42]

Just thought I'd lob a quick fact grenade into this brouhaha: the main sources of intel that told us that Saddam had WMDs were people tied to Shiite groups that wanted Saddam out of power, and thus then had reason to lie.

Oh, and BTW, if we went to war for oil, why did I just pay $3.19 for a gallon of regular un-fucking-leaded gas?

[YourAmishDaddy]

What's your problem with McNamara exactly?



Oh that's a very long story, but in short there are about 58,000 reasons I think the guy is a piece of shit, him and LBJ deserve to someday be rammed in the asses with flame dildoes in a shady part of hell.

And as for Iraq, once again I'll state this...

I wouldn't care if Saddam had nuclear missles crammed up his asshole and "terrorists" were announcing they were in Iraq with billboards saying "Here we are"

None of the reasons we went to Iraq were valid ones. Not a single one. If people want a war, go get Congress to declare a war, and I won't say another word.

But because you can't get a declaration of war against "terror" then we have this nonsense. Hasn't it been really odd to anyone since WW2 we haven't decisively won a "war" to that extent? Because the dirty little secret is you declare war as the Constitution states it, you go fight it, against a country, and then hopefully they surrender. That's how it's done. No undefined bullshit, no perpetual nonsense, no wide sweeping draconian bullshit, no excuses.

When you do illegal things, bad things happen. And to sit here like so many people do and say "well, we're there now, we gotta keep doing it" is idiotic.

When someone is pounding their head with a hammer, guess what? It hurts. To say if you just pound it harder it'll feel better is foolish. And this is what our entire foreign policy is. Insanity.

[The Lurker]

The oil excuse is used by morons who don't get politics. Don't you guys get how ignorant you sound when you say that? For god's sake, come up with some other reasons. If it REALLY was about oil, we would be in Venezuela, not the Middle East. Get your facts straight.

[sclone]

Oh, and BTW, if we went to war for oil, why did I just pay $3.19 for a gallon of regular un-fucking-leaded gas?

I hate when people say this. First of all, Exxon had record profits last year. These are not record profits for the gas industry either - I believe they had the highest profits of any corporation in history. So make no mistake, plenty of people are profiting from the situation in Iraq. I think it's naive to assume that this oil benefit will be for the consumer and not the corporations.

[Diceman Cometh]

I hate when people say this. First of all, Exxon had record profits last year. These are not record profits for the gas industry either - I believe they had the highest profits of any corporation in history. So make no mistake, plenty of people are profiting from the situation in Iraq. I think it's naive to assume that this oil benefit will be for the consumer and not the corporations.

Can you directly tie their profits to the war?

[sclone]

Can you directly tie their profits to the war?

Good point. Not exactly.

The only tidbit I can offer is that oil futures are purely speculative, and I believe that the unease in the Middle East might lead investors to speculate that our supply may shorten while demand climbs... Based on speculation, the oil companies continue to up the price of gasoline. I'm really not good with economics, so feel free to enlighten me...

[YourAmishDaddy]

Oil profits are nothing compared to the defense contracts. That's where the money is going.


I remember hearing from a real conservative back in the day "beware the military-industrial complex"

These days they love it. War truly is a racket

[sclone]

This is a little off-topic, but that just reminded me of something I read in Newsweek today. Apparently, the new US Embassy in Iraq is just slightly smaller than the Vatican City. I'm not exaggerating. It's being built by 900 Kuwaitis.

[Bill]

I remember hearing from a real conservative back in the day "beware the military-industrial complex"


That's what Eisenhower said as he was leaving office. With an ex-General turned president making such a statement, you'd think that someone would have listened to him.

[YourAmishDaddy]

That's what Eisenhower said as he was leaving office. With an ex-General turned president making such a statement, you'd think that someone would have listened to him.

Absolutely.

[Diceman Cometh]

Good point. Not exactly.

The only tidbit I can offer is that oil futures are purely speculative, and I believe that the unease in the Middle East might lead investors to speculate that our supply may shorten while demand climbs... Based on speculation, the oil companies continue to up the price of gasoline. I'm really not good with economics, so feel free to enlighten me...

CIA-staged terrorist attacks against strategic oil pipelines, tankers, and processing plants probably would have done the trick in less time, and without spending $300 billion, the lives of 2500 U.S. troops, and the President risking massive political fallout.

[Earth2murf]

Iraq helped Lybia build their wmd program.this way they could get WMD's under the UN's nose