Taken from http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/24/sprj.irq.wrap/index.html

"Meanwhile, senior Pentagon officials said that the U.S. military is prepared to seize Iraq's oil fields to prevent Saddam Hussein from destroying his country's oil industry."

I just don't understand. How are they not complying? Yes, the reports were probably inaccurate, and they did find a few empty chemical warhead shells (although they're practically older than Saddam). But still, inspectors haven't really found a thing.

What do you mean "just about oil"?

In reply to:

---

I just don't understand. How are they not complying?

---

Possibly by firing upon U.S. planes patrolling the 'No Fly' zone? Pissing on the Safwan Treaty for 11 years? Not allowing Iraqi scientists to be interview without Iraqi intelligence being present? Iraqi military posing as scientists to answer U.N. investigator's questions in a 'politcally correct' fashion? Not reporting dozens of fully-functional chemical warheads?

Just a guess, but sooner or later, the U.S. is going to decide that they have put up with enough.

You would not believe the list of things that haven't been accounted for yet. Here's a quick sample:

Approximately four tons of VX nerve gas.
Growth media for over 20,000 liters of biological agents.

And the list goes on and on. The estimation is that with the unaccounted materials, Iraq can get a sizeable stockpile of biological weapons within weeks. It would only take them months to get the chemical weapons ready (hint: think nerve agents like tabun, VX and sarin), that is if they need more than the 360 tons that are still unaccounted for as of 10 Jan 2003.

If you have seen some of these lists and the numbers involved, it because very scary, very quickly. Add to that the fact that they have already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons, and it becomes even more scary.

Edit: Fixed the date (from last week, to 10 Jan), and changed because to becomes.

That makes sense... I wasn't aware of the VX gas or anything like that. Maybe if Bush made more of the public aware of these facts people would support him a bit more..

By the way Tim, where did you grab that info? I'd like to take a look...

I'm not sure how much of that info is out there floating around in the public. The numbers I grabbed were from a briefing that was put together by the British military/intelligence in preparations for an invasion, should it occur.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/

I have read the briefing that is outlined on the right side of that page (A Decade of Defiance and Lies), which is where those numbers were lifted from.

Here is a paper on it, presented 12 Sep 2002. If the briefing I saw was written from this paper, then the date above may be incorrect. I can't find the briefing online, but I'm still looking.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/iraqdecade.pdf

I have read the briefing that is outlined on the right side of that page (A Decade of Defiance and Lies), which is where those numbers were lifted from

I remember reading a poster in a barracks in Germany in 1973. It read something like: "Your enemy! The Russian soldier! He is highly motivated, has steel teeth and can bench-press 600 pounds! His T-72 was built with technology provided by aliens! He can drive here from East Germany in 14 minutes, slip into your room undetected, and cut out your liver before you are even awake!"

Well, it went something like that... but the point is that subsequent revelations showed "My Enemy" to be chronically depressed, not overly well fed, and often soused on vodka.

When I look at today's potential big Wag the Dog, I can't help but think of the major deceits by U.S. administrations (both Republican and Democrat) in wars big (Vietnam) and small (Grenada). The ever-tightening grip of the military on press coverage of conflicts doesn't give me any confidence that we will find it easy to evaluate what is going on if and when war breaks out. I mean, lots of folks still think that Patriot missiles are accurate!! Amazing how fabrications take on a life of their own.

A major irony (to me) is the amazing amount of bombast and indignation heaped upon poor old Saddam now that he is no longer our murderous poison-gas-wielding dictator.

Fundamentally, I feel like Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, et al are in pursuit of a war because they are feeling their oats. They are in the drivers seat, and they *can*. Short of Saddam fleeing, I'm not sure what could have happened in the way of UN inspectors' discoveries that would have derailed the administration's fixed interest in exercising their newfound, jolly power. I mean, they are redefining the word "unilateral". Invading Iraq fits in nicely, thank you.

Hmmmm, I guess I would be less suspicious of this adventure if *everyone* got to play --- if we reinstituted the draft as proposed recently (Rangel/Hollings) and with *no* exemptions -- and no sneaking your son into the Texas Air National Guard. Maybe then Iraq war flag wavers would think a little harder about the possible extended consequences of this imminent war, which I think will be prolonged but hard to predict. Oh, I suppose we can just load up the transports once we've burned down Baghdad, pull everybody back to Fort Hood and just leave the remaining Iraquis to murder each other.

Interesting to me was a recent interview that included a former US Ambassador to Iraq (Peck). His "long and short" on the looming war: "So we gain nothing and lose potentially a lot." I agree. I mean, even on a plain-and-simple, US-centric, self-interest basis, I don't think that the broader outcome of this will be good for the old U.S. of A. I don't get the sense that the administration is thinking that through. They just want to do it. Make more enemies? Bomb 'em.

It may be material for a different kind of thread, but I think much of my lack of support for this mortal adventure comes down to gut level feelings. Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, and friends? Well, they're dicks! Why on earth would I feel inclined to support the drum beating of that morally righteous, super-uptight, incurious bunch of jerks?

I know that is not much of an intellectual, factual argument, but it is real to me. Sort of "if yer agin my friends then your agin me" only in a different way. I get the same feeling if ever I hear the local talk radio outlet with Rush and all of the lesser Rushs. Essentially, I think all of those folks are dicks. I think if it was they who proposed something like clean drinking water, I would have to view the proposal with suspicion. I probably don't have to worry about that, though!

Something topical just arrived in my inbox...enjoy

*Sung to the tune of: "If You're Happy And You Know It Clap Your Hands"
[Try it in your mind - it really works]

If we cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.
If the markets hurt your Mama, bomb Iraq.
If the terrorists are Saudi And the bank takes back your Audi
And the TV shows are bawdy, Bomb Iraq!

If the corporate scandals growin', bomb Iraq.
And your ties to them are showin', bomb Iraq.
If the smoking gun ain't smokin'
We don't care, and we're not jokin'
That Saddam will soon be croakin', Bomb Iraq!

Even if we have no allies, bomb Iraq.
From the sand dunes to the valleys, bomb Iraq.
So to hell with the inspections Let's look tough for the elections
Close your mind and take directions, Bomb Iraq!

While the globe is slowly warming, bomb Iraq.
Yay! the clouds of war are storming, bomb Iraq.
If the ozone hole is growing
Some things we prefer not knowing
(Though our ignorance is showing), Bomb Iraq!

So here's one for dear old daddy, bomb Iraq,
From his favorite little laddy, bomb Iraq.
Saying no would look like treason
It's the Hussein hunting season
Even if we have no reason, Bomb Iraq!

I agree. Let's blast the fucker.

Is it not the case, according to a young American lady on BBC Radio 5 up all night, that this has nothing to do with oil, but Bush's membership of the Skull and Bones order at Yale, which fosters a warmongering approach and allegedly had connections with German ideals associated with Nazism.

Is it not, furthermore, the case that Bush failed to meet the requisite grades out of 800 for acceptance at Yale, but was admitted on the strength of his father's influence and the fact that more than half the selection board were Skull and Bones members.

I only quote, these do not necessarily reflect my views as, allegedly, I may find the finance for my Boxer breeding and better central heating programmes curtailed.

I don't know if any of these facts are true, but I do know that "secret societies" (of which Skull and Bones is the most well-known) do have a strong grip on university politics in America. I would imagine this hold is even greater on the Ivy League institutions like Yale. I went to a state school (albeit a very large and prominent one) and there were three secret societies that basically controlled EVERY significant office at the student government level. They also existed at the university administration level, though only at the lower levels. I can totally believe that at a more traditional school like Yale, members of these societies would have found their way into more prominent university positions.

Having said that, the idea of Bush being able to persuade his entire cabinet to go to war with Iraq just because he was in a secret society with alleged ties to Nazism seems far-fetched. Makes for good radio, though.

Incidentally I read somewhere that they're going to declassify a bunch of evidence which will supposedly prove that Iraq is hiding something. I can't imagine they'll have enough to convince me that war is necessary right now, but at least it'll be something.

My problem with this forthcoming evidence is that there was no reason to hide it before. It's not as if we're trying to keep our forthcoming attacks secret, so why would we need to hide the evidence that supports it? The only reason I can come up with is that it took this long to fabricate it.

the idea of Bush being able to persuade his entire cabinet to go to war with Iraq just because he was in a secret society with alleged ties to Nazism seems far-fetched

Ah, but what if a significant proportion of his cabinet belonged to the same society?

Be clear, I'm not, paranoid, nor suggesting that these are my views, but it's fun being agent provacteur

Maybe the reason they wanted to keep the evidence hidden was to protect their sources (probably Iraqi citizens) inside Iraq from being linked to the released evidence and then killed (as in tortured to death) by Sadaam Hussein. Being tortured to death is generally considered to be not a good thing.

Well... Classified documents tend to remain classified. The concern is that releasing any documents or evidence which result from covert operations gives the outside world some idea of the mechanisms we're using to uncover that evidence. I'm guessing that what they have was obtained via channels that the government would rather not bring to light. I honestly doubt there's any fabricating of evidence here. I am sure Iraq is doing enough bad things under the covers that we don't ened to go around fabricating evidence... But I still don't think military options are, at this point, the answer.

My problem with this forthcoming evidence is that there was no reason to hide it before. It's not as if we're trying to keep our forthcoming attacks secret, so why would we need to hide the evidence that supports it?

Basically, any information we release gives insight into our methods of data collection. Remember a few years ago with the "Oh yeah, Osama, we've been listening to your satellite telephone conversations." That worked out real well when we told him we were listening in. By revealing this information, we are revealing a lot of how Echelon works and could possibly even compromise human sources in Iraq or other countries.

The only reason I can come up with is that it took this long to fabricate it.

There have been instances in the past where the U.S. government has lied to its people (think John Poindexter), but most of us hope that is behind us. Anyway, I don't think they could get away with lying about this if they wanted to. Other countries have their own intelligence and sophisticated tools to check the data. If it is invalid, somebody will pitch a fit to everybody and the U.S. government would lose all credibility here and abroad.

It is pretty obvious to anybody who has looked at international politics that Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction. Everybody knows this, even the governments of France, Germany, China, etc. This was apparent even before the weapons inspections and Hans Blix's reports. Still, this may not change your mind, since there are compelling reasons not to go to war. For instance, the first time we will be able to prove Saddam has Nuclear, Chemical, or Biological weapons is when he uses them. There will be civilian casualties, especially since Hussein is mounting SAM sites on top of appartment buildings. We may also anger other Arab countries even more than they already hate us. Finally, we will further lose international support for ourselves and for the U.N. as the U.S. is increasingly seen as a meddling belligerent. If you subscribe to these views, then I don't think merely proving that Iraq is lying is going to be enough for you.

There are also compelling reasons to go to war. After all, Iraq is a rogue government with dangerous weapons, intent on acquiring more. They have at least two conflicts that they used chemical weapons in the past. Last time we fought them, after an unprovoked invasion of Kuwait, they bombed Israel, a noncombatant. They have ruthlessly oppressed many in their own country, including the Kurds in the north and the Shia (?) Muslims in the south. Saddam has let his own people starve while building himself ever grander palaces and letting his son kidnap, rape, torture, and then murder any women he fancied. If we let Iraq get away with this, we undermine all the non-proliferation agreements and accords and open the door for every two bit despot out there to get his own super-powerful weapons.

With this kind of conflict, we have a 95% chance of complete and immediate total victory. 19 times in a row, we can go to war with Iraq or similar and just destroy their armed forces. It is that 20th time that we need to worry about. The ancient Spartans knew this. As the Greek military Superpower, they tended to avoid using their military since there was always that slight chance of losing. If they ever lost, all the rest of the Greeks would have smelled blood, and they would have found themselves in a very uncomfortable position.

I'll support the war, so long as the government proves to me that it is worth that risk. I'm surprised Bush really hasn't made their case yet, instead letting others, both in the States and elsewhere, argue both sides for them. Maybe he will rectify that starting tonight. As far as Iraq possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction, anyone who believes otherwise is deluding themselves and shouldn't be surprised if it is proven. As far as whether we should go to war, that could be argued either way.

-Biscuits

Being tortured to death is generally considered to be not a good thing.

Watch it, there, buddy, we don't like controversy around here.

My problem with this forthcoming evidence is that there was no reason to hide it before. It's not as if we're trying to keep our forthcoming attacks secret, so why would we need to hide the evidence that supports it?

The United States knows that Saddam Hussein has chemical weapons because they kept the till receipts when they sold them to him in the first place. That's why they know, and why they don't want people to know why they know.

Peter

I know we sold them a lot of their conventional weapons. We also improved their training techniques and military tactics. A lot of the stuff they used to fight us in the last Gulf War, and then again in this war, will be our own equipment.

However, I hope you were joking about giving them chemical and biological weapons. That would violate so many treaties and agreements that it isn't even funny. No country is allowed to have most of these weapons (except for testing for defences), let alone distribute them, even to their allies. I don't think we would give chemical warheads to Britain, much less Iraq.

-Biscuits

However, I hope you were joking about giving them chemical and biological weapons.


Well, the UK has to share some blame too - in the mid '80s Iraqi scientists were regular visitors to Porton Down.

However, I hope you were joking about giving them chemical and biological weapons.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that the US gave them to Iraq. I'm sure they obtained full market price.

Washington Post: "The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague."

Glasgow's Sunday Herald: "Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Snr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene."

Peter

Iraq: We don't have no steenkin' chemical warheads.
Blix: So, you told us in 1992 that you had 80 thousand chemical warheads loaded with Sarin gas.
Iraq: Oh... those.... We, errrr, used them for fertilizer....
Blix: Do you have any records of that? If you tell us where you used them, we can take soil samples.
Iraq: Ummmm, the problem is.... the dog ate them. You can search these 10,000 square miles of desert though. If you don't find them, we don't have them, right?
France: SEE! They don't have any weapons of mass destruction! I don't see what the big deal is. Just like in World War II, when we KNEW that the Germans wouldn't invade through the Ardennes, like they did in.... nevermind.... Think of the children?

-Biscuits

My problem with that sort of argument (the ``they've got WMDs, so we've got to nip it in the bud'' argument) is that the US (amongst many other countries, I'm sure) have the same things!

And before you go saying that they're likely to attack us, I'd urge you to look at who's getting ready to attack whom right now. It seems that the US is more likely to be an agressor than any other country in the world right now. And to worsen the point even more, GWB has implied that he's willing to use nuclear weapons against Iraq, or maybe North Korea. (Or his childhood bully; who knows?). Now who's using WMDs?

Now who's using WMDs?

But we use them responsibly...

There are a few countries that have weapons of mass destruction. Over the years, though, it has been decided that not every country should have them. Do we want to let Iraq have their nuclear stockpile? Syria? Iran? I'm sure Milosevich would have enjoyed his. Pol Pot would have put his to good use, so would a lot of those African dictators.

The problem is, Iraq has these things, in breach of UN resolutions. They are obvious about it and unrepetant. Everybody knows they have them, so if the world just backs down and leaves them alone, that just shows the rest of the world that we never were serious about enforcing our prohibitions. I don't want to go to war with Iraq, but with the current situation (largely manufactured by Bush), we almost have to. Failure to convince Iraq to disarm peaceable, if possible, or forcibly, if necessary, could be devastating to World Peace, opening the doors for genocide and mayhem everywhere. Any dictator could just say he was going to rain down a "sea of fire" on any country that wanted to stop him.

I know the U.S. has the same weapons. I know our government has not always been responsible. We have not, however, used Nuclear Weapons since 1945. Nor have we been using chemical or biological weapons. The Iraqis cannot make that claim. I'm pretty sure that GWB was only implying the use of nukes to deter the Iraqis from using theirs first. There was some discussion at one time of using small nuclear warheads as bunker busters, but I think that idea was scrapped.

Stopping nuclear, chemical, and biological proliferation is, in my view, a fairly powerful argument. Iraq and GWB have created a situation where we cannot just ignore it and pretend like we did not know. The world needs to take a stand now or just accept proliferation as inevitable.

-Biscuits

I'm sure they obtained full market price.

It looks like it might have been a mistake to sell them to Iraq (if it happened). It appears President Bush is going rectify that mistake.

Yeah, but who decided that other countries shouldn't have them? While I understand the idea that the popular image of Saddam Hussein shouldn't have them, as he's likely to use them, I'm not so sure that the popular image is correct. It's been stated that he has them to deter other countries from attacking him, and, while that might seem paranoid, guess what? Other countries are getting ready to attack him.

I just don't know that it's ethical or moral for the US to say that other countries can't have them when it does. And while Iraq certainly has been a bully over the years, so has the US.

While your statement that we haven't used nuclear weapons in 58 years seems nice, don't forget that the US is the only country to ever use nuclear weapons in combat. And I'd like to believe that we don't use chemical weapons, but I'm not sure that's the case. I'd be inclined to say, however, that we actually haven't used biological weapons, but we sure do keep a lot of them around.

We have 3 major threats to the weapons control regime: countries that illegally obtained nuclear weapons (Pakistan, India, North Korea), countries that are on the verge of obtaining nuclear warheads (Iraq), and countries that are seeking to acquire nuclear weapons (Iran, Syria, Libya).

India and Pakistan left the door open for everybody else. When the world did not take action, instead deciding theirs was a singular incident (and balanced), it undermined every nonproliferation agreement ever signed. Now that North Korea has gone nuclear (sort of), there really isn't much we can do to stop them, except appeasement, which does not work. Iraq is at the last stage before obtaining a full-fledged arsenal. The other countries can still be dealt with under the table, since there is no immediate hurry, assuming we keep the accords intact. However, if we don't stop Iraq and North Korea, expect half a dozen other countries to follow their example in the next few years, and the rest of the world shortly thereafter.

Letting Iraq be will dismantle these agreements. There will still be a deterant, but not enough to stop the Taliban or Iranians. If we stop Iraq (peaceably or forcibly) but leave North Korea with their weapons, then that just shows the world that they will be fine if they just don't get caught until they already have their weapons. If we stop both of them, we leave everything intact until the next crisis in a few years.

Part of this crisis was manufactured by Iraq by failing to comply with UN resolutions. However, they had been slowed down to a crawl by embargoes. Without GWB making a big deal out of it, Iraq would not have been a problem for another decade under sanctions, or 5 years or so without. The other part was created by North Korea as a way to get concessions and money from the rest of the world. If we pay them enough, they'll leave us alone for another year or so, until they ask for another handout, and so on, indefinately.

I'm angry at GWB, angry because he took a situation that did not need a war, and has done his damnedist into creating one where war is the only solution.