Weapon evidence not needed says Hoon - Page 2

Dauphin · January 19, 2003, 23:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
Erm, at least those of us who aren't only exposed to CNN or FoxNews

I'll change my mind when the US/UK will be kind enough to give their super duper proofs to the UN (after all, it will save much time, since the UN is clearly looking for what the US and UK know for suuuuuch a long time)

The super duper proof is that they sold them to them. The smoking gun will be the copy of the invoice they sent them.

DuncanK · January 20, 2003, 00:19

Do any of you honestly believe that he doesn't have WoMD, or that he is not trying to get them? Please answer with a 'yes ' if you do?

KrazyHorse · January 20, 2003, 00:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Edan

Well, he was within 6 months of having one before the Gulf War.

Was he now?

KrazyHorse · January 20, 2003, 00:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Edan
You misspelled reconnocense flights. Those images weren't taken by satellites.

Oh, the irony....

KrazyHorse · January 20, 2003, 00:36

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK
Do any of you honestly believe that he doesn't have WoMD, or that he is not trying to get them? Please answer with a 'yes ' if you do?

I don't hold a firm belief one way or the other. The more pertinent question is whether or not we believe that he is, and what the basis of that belief is.

Spiffor · January 20, 2003, 00:37

DuncanK : NO
It is obvious Saddam would love to have a full arsenal of WMD, if only to have a dominant bargaining position, and being the #1 regional power. Well, it's almost sure Iran, Syria, Egypt and Turkey would love it as well, since all really would like to become a significant power, and WMD bring power (notice how much less gung-ho we are against North Korea now ?

)
However, I highly doubt there is a working and threatening WMD arsenal in Iraq. I also don't think there is any serious industry to produce them in the near future.

Bush et al. wanted to scare the American and other western people with the threeat of "Evil saddam and his nukes", but the UN inspections make it more and more of a joke every day. The Iraqi threat is nothing but a laughable excuse to go to war for the administrations' own interests.

Plenty of nations have WMD or are researching them. Most WMD-equipped nations have done many bad things in the past (like Pakistan for example). However, we clearly will never attack them, for they could fight back, now or in the future.

KrazyHorse · January 20, 2003, 00:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Tripledoc
The lamest casus belli in the history of mankind?

I wouldn't quite say that. The pig war takes the cake, in my opinion.

KrazyHorse · January 20, 2003, 00:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
Saddam! Saddam! Saddam! Saddam! Saddam!

*cheers*

Put more thought into your responses. It's not clear who this is directed towards or what the basis for the sarcasm is. It should cut like a knife, not attempt to batter the recipient into submission.

KrazyHorse · January 20, 2003, 00:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Edan

No, it's not as easy as slapping a bunch of stuff together, but neither is it as hard as you make it out to be.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain to me how they'd managed to acquire 10 kgs of Pu or U235? And what your source for your belief that they'd done so is?

If the Iraqis had been 6 months from building a nuke then they could easily have bluffed the US into thinking they already had one. And that would have stopped Bush senior dead in his tracks.

Edan · January 20, 2003, 00:51

Quote:

Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain to me how they'd managed to acquire 10 kgs of Pu or U235? And what your source for your belief that they'd done so is?

I said once they obtain those materials it would be (relatively) easy for Iraq to build the bomb. I have not said that they have obtained them.

Quote:

If the Iraqis had been 6 months from building a nuke then they could easily have bluffed the US into thinking they already had one. And that would have stopped Bush senior dead in his tracks.

Only if they knew they were only 6 months away. And they didn't at the time. (Also, how do you bluff it (especially when the CIA thought he was 3-5 years away?)? the only way I can see of showing another country you have nuclear weapons is testing one, and you can't do that unless you have one.)

ABCnews article

Quote:

Before the Gulf war in 1991, the CIA estimated Iraq was three to five years away from being able to build a nuclear bomb. After the war, U.N. weapons inspectors discovered — much to their horror — that Iraq was just six months away from the goal.

KrazyHorse · January 20, 2003, 01:09

I'd like to see the background for that claim. Iraq, to my knowledge, did not have a functioning nuclear reactor outside a period of a few weeks (months?) in 1981 between its completion and its destruction by Israeli jets. So if they were 6 months from building a bomb, where were their materials?

Anybody can build a damn bomb if you give them enough weapons-grade material. I probably could. So could half a dozen others at this site given a couple of textbooks, a computer and a stocked-out machine shop. What I couldn't do, without a goddamn great deal of effort by hundreds of technicians and years in which I was left alone to do it is produce, either by isotopic separation or by transmutation through neutron bombardment enough weapons-grade fissile material to build a bomb. It's not child's play to do it, and it's exceedingly difficult to do it when people are intently watching everything you do and buy.

There's a qualitative difference in the technical capabilities of a nation like NK and a nation like Iraq. That translates into one being able to build a bomb and the other probably not.

Edan · January 20, 2003, 01:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger
I'd like to see the background for that claim. Iraq, to my knowledge, did not have a functioning nuclear reactor outside a period of a few weeks (months?) in 1981 between its completion and its destruction by Israeli jets. So if they were 6 months from building a bomb, where were their materials?

....

What I couldn't do, without a goddamn great deal of effort by hundreds of technicians and years in which I was left alone to do it is produce

They had 10 years and lots of scientists and technicians.

From what I remember hearing, when inspectors first started their work after the gulf war, they were expecting a handful of facilities for the nuclear program - they ended up uncovering on the scale of 50 or 60 such facilities, IIRC.

KrazyHorse · January 20, 2003, 01:32

Where were their nuclear facilities, sweetheart? What sort of facilities were they? Research or production? Isotopic separation or breeder reactors? Why haven't I heard of the inspectors ever uncovering mass quantities of weapons-grade fissile material?

That 6 months figure is full of crap, unless there was a full-fledged production facility (or many) already in operation and chugging out finished product by the kilogram.

What it might refer to is the time it would take Iraq to assemble a bomb if given the materials. Which is a meaningless figure, since most countries could do it in 6 months without hassle. The Iraqis got as close as they ever have in 1981.

Edan · January 20, 2003, 01:48

Quote:

That 6 months figure is full of crap, unless there was a full-fledged production facility (or many) already in operation and chugging out finished product by the kilogram.

Frankly, I'll take the UN inspectors word over yours.

DuncanK · January 20, 2003, 01:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
DuncanK : NO
It is obvious Saddam would love to have a full arsenal of WMD, if only to have a dominant bargaining position, and being the #1 regional power.

Spiffor,

Saddam has already used chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iranian soldiers. He has also invaded Kuwait. He doesn't behave rationally. That is why he's in the trouble that he's in. If he were a rational leader I would assume, along with you, that he would only use WoMD as a bargaining chip. Unfortunately, he has already shown otherwise.

Spiffor · January 20, 2003, 02:25

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK
Saddam has already used chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iranian soldiers.

France and Germany used chemical weapons against each other in WW1 as well, and Iran - Iraq was really as horrendous as WW1. As for cheming the Kurds : yes, he did do it, but many dictators killed their civilians, and sometimes with a much higher efficiency than Saddam's chem weapons. I'm not saying his weapons are harmless. I'm saying his weapons are in no way as threatening and fearsome to America (naturally, it is different if you're a Kurd) as the Bush admin says.

Quote:

He has also invaded Kuwait. He doesn't behave rationally.

Invading Kuwait was pretty rational when he did it : Kuwait would have allowed a much bigger coastal coverage, huge amounts of oil and wealth. At the time, he was the champion of the west against islamic fanaticism (Iran), and could expect to be "allowed" to invade Kuwait by his patrons. Furthermore, he had an army significant enough to conquer Kuwait extremely easily. The only problem is that he didn't imagine it would bring so much attention on his country. It was a mistake, but it wasn't irrational at all.

Quote:

That is why he's in the trouble that he's in. If he were a rational leader I would assume, along with you, that he would only use WoMD as a bargaining chip. Unfortunately, he has already shown otherwise.

It is "rational" for dictators to kill civilians, as it reinforces the terror on which their regime lies. Dictators simply take the most efficient weapons they have at disposal to do this. Chemicals were satisfying to Saddam in this view, as many Kurds died with low costs, and 'pure' Iraqi were almost unharmed in the operation.

Saddam is a megalomaniac and power hungry dictator, but he is pretty rational as one. I'm not saying he's a good guy at all, but it is wrong to say he's an unpredictable madman.

cinch · January 20, 2003, 02:26

Quote:

Saddam has already used chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iranian soldiers.

As many people have pointed out: we gave him those chem weapons and showed him how to use them to max effect. We shouldn't be so elitist about this.

Quote:

He has also invaded Kuwait. He doesn't behave rationally.

They were slant drilling, and he got mad and decided to go after them. He didn't think the US would do anything because the Americans hadn't been too gung ho about major-level "wars" since Vietnam.

Those things he did were atrocious and horrible, but he wasn't really acting like a "woop-woop-I'm-irrational" crazy man.

Or something.

KrazyHorse · January 20, 2003, 02:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Edan

Frankly, I'll take the UN inspectors word over yours.

Frankly, I'd have a look at the context from which that "fact" was pulled. I wouldn't be surprised to know that he'd put a few provisos before saying that, which ABC news in that shining piece of journalistic integrity which you quoted neglected to include...

DuncanK · January 20, 2003, 03:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
France and Germany used chemical weapons against each other in WW1 as well, and Iran - Iraq was really as horrendous as WW1. As for cheming the Kurds : yes, he did do it, but many dictators killed their civilians, and sometimes with a much higher efficiency than Saddam's chem weapons. I'm not saying his weapons are harmless. I'm saying his weapons are in no way as threatening and fearsome to America (naturally, it is different if you're a Kurd) as the Bush admin says.

Rhetoric. The fact that others have used chemical weapons doesn't make an argument against taking Saddam out of power.

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
Invading Kuwait was pretty rational when he did it : Kuwait would have allowed a much bigger coastal coverage, huge amounts of oil and wealth. At the time, he was the champion of the west against islamic fanaticism (Iran), and could expect to be "allowed" to invade Kuwait by his patrons. Furthermore, he had an army significant enough to conquer Kuwait extremely easily. The only problem is that he didn't imagine it would bring so much attention on his country. It was a mistake, but it wasn't irrational at all.

Do you really think that he thought the world would let him keep Kuwait? I don't. I think he behaves irrationally.

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor

It is "rational" for dictators to kill civilians, as it reinforces the terror on which their regime lies. Dictators simply take the most efficient weapons they have at disposal to do this. Chemicals were satisfying to Saddam in this view, as many Kurds died with low costs, and 'pure' Iraqi were almost unharmed in the operation.

Saddam is a megalomaniac and power hungry dictator, but he is pretty rational as one. I'm not saying he's a good guy at all, but it is wrong to say he's an unpredictable madman.

He's either irrational or dumb, but the point remains that he could very well use WoMD in the future.

C0ckney · January 20, 2003, 06:28

Quote:

I wouldn't quite say that. The pig war takes the cake, in my opinion.

i think the soccer war is a pretty strong contender

Az · January 20, 2003, 06:50

Quote:

Put more thought into your responses. It's not clear who this is directed towards or what the basis for the sarcasm is. It should cut like a knife, not attempt to batter the recipient into submission

I've already passed my thought quota for yesterday when I posted it. might actually think today.

Spiffor · January 20, 2003, 08:01

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK
Rhetoric. The fact that others have used chemical weapons doesn't make an argument against taking Saddam out of power.

The whole point of taking out Saddam because of his chem weapons is rhetoric. I just wanted to point out that Iran - Iraq war was absolutely vicious, and it was pretty normal for any warring power to use its full weapon potential. Trust me, if a war involving many foot soldiers would happen to a major democracy, this democracy would use whatever way it has to get rid of the foot soldiers of the enemies with minimum cost, and maximum kills. That's why I don't think Iraq possessing chem weapons means Saddam is crazy, and I actually think it was the most normal thing to do considering what Iran-Iraq war was.

Quote:

Do you really think that he thought the world would let him keep Kuwait? I don't. I think he behaves irrationally.

Then please back your belief with some kind of reasoning. We both aren't in the head of Saddam or his advisors, and we can only speculate on his motives. For your speculation to be more than a mere belief, you have to put some thoughts and facts behind. I already put mine : his army was extremely powerful in comparison with Kuwait, he had just been the most western-backed ME dictator after the Iran-Iraq war, and there were tremendous economic advantages to conquer Kuweit.

Quote:

He's either irrational or dumb, but the point remains that he could very well use WoMD in the future.

Same thing, please explain me what makes you think that he is more irrational or dumb than Bush or Blair.

mrmitchell · January 20, 2003, 09:33

I had a heated debate with someone recently about this.

They couldn't connect a war on Iraq with the deaths of thousands of civilians. In fact, when I tried to point out these deaths, she said I was taking sides with Saddam and I "shouldn't go out in public."

---Enough about that---

As for Saddam and his Weapons of Mass Destruction(which are probably in reality a rubber band and a toothbrush): Gimme the proof.

---
Also, the warmongers on a History Channel show I saw last night said themselves "Saddam is likely to do unexpected things" or something to that extent. Since most of the warmongers are expecting he develop and put on standby nuclear weapons...no! Wait! We expect him to do that! He can't do it!

CerberusIV · January 20, 2003, 11:37

Apparently there is now talk (Donald Rumsfeld and British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw following a Saudi suggestion) of allowing the Iraqi leadership to go into exile instead of having to invade Iraq.

Anybody hear the sound of straws being clutched?

uh Clem · January 20, 2003, 11:47

Makes sense.

"Just give us the oil and nobody gets hurt."

Edan · January 20, 2003, 11:48

Quote:

Originally posted by CerberusIV
Apparently there is now talk (Donald Rumsfeld and British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw following a Saudi suggestion) of allowing the Iraqi leadership to go into exile instead of having to invade Iraq.

There's been talk of this for some time - it's jusrt that few people seriously think Saddam will willingly step aside.

Edan · January 20, 2003, 11:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger

Frankly, I'd have a look at the context from which that "fact" was pulled. I wouldn't be surprised to know that he'd put a few provisos before saying that, which ABC news in that shining piece of journalistic integrity which you quoted neglected to include...

Fine, show me some evidence of that rather than ranting on that it's false.

DuncanK · January 20, 2003, 14:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
The whole point of taking out Saddam because of his chem weapons is rhetoric. I just wanted to point out that Iran - Iraq war was absolutely vicious, and it was pretty normal for any warring power to use its full weapon potential. Trust me, if a war involving many foot soldiers would happen to a major democracy, this democracy would use whatever way it has to get rid of the foot soldiers of the enemies with minimum cost, and maximum kills. That's why I don't think Iraq possessing chem weapons means Saddam is crazy, and I actually think it was the most normal thing to do considering what Iran-Iraq war was.

Then please back your belief with some kind of reasoning. We both aren't in the head of Saddam or his advisors, and we can only speculate on his motives. For your speculation to be more than a mere belief, you have to put some thoughts and facts behind. I already put mine : his army was extremely powerful in comparison with Kuwait, he had just been the most western-backed ME dictator after the Iran-Iraq war, and there were tremendous economic advantages to conquer Kuweit.

Same thing, please explain me what makes you think that he is more irrational or dumb than Bush or Blair.

Bush and Blair aren't about to lose it all. Save for the fact that they may be voted out of office. A dictator has to be pretty bad to get in the postion where Saddam is. Maybe he's not that irrational. He is very aggresive though. He isn't in any position to be aggresive, because he never was that strong. I'm just not believing that he's just another dictator. Saddam really is Super Evil and Super Dumb. It's a scary combination.

SlowwHand · January 20, 2003, 14:44

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp.../ts_nm/iraq_dc

Top Stories - Reuters

Iraq Promises to Help U.N. Hunt for Its Own Weapons
2 hours, 13 minutes ago
By Hassan Hafidh and Andrew Hammond

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq promised U.N. weapons inspectors more help Monday, saying it was even forming its own teams to search for banned weapons.

After two days of showdown talks with chief U.N. arms inspectors, held as U.S. and British leaders warned Iraq was on course for war, Baghdad's officials were eager to appear conciliatory.

President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s adviser Amir al-Saadi read a joint statement at a news conference in Baghdad with visiting inspection chiefs Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei.

It said Iraq had handed more documents to inspectors, was clarifying others and was forming its own teams to search for suspicious items. U.N. inspectors discovered empty chemical warheads last week which Iraq had failed to report to the United Nations ; Iraq said it had forgotten about them.

The statement said Iraq would also encourage inspections of "private sites" -- an apparent reference to places like the homes of leading scientists -- and to "private interviews" -- referring to talks between U.N. inspectors and Iraqi technical experts without the presence of Iraqi government minders.

A cautious Blix said he was "fairly confident" Iraq would honor its pledges. "We have solved a number of practical issues, not all," he told the news conference.

ANTHRAX AND NERVE AGENT

"On the substantive issues relating to anthrax, VX (nerve agent) and a number of Scud missiles, we have not discussed that. That is to be discussed some time in the future."

There was no mention in the statement of taking scientists outside Iraq for interviews, as Washington has demanded on the grounds that the interviewees need protection from reprisals.

The statement said Iraq would supplement a list of around 500 scientists involved in its past banned weapons programs.

Cypriot Foreign Minister Ioannis Cassoulides said later on Monday Cyprus had agreed to a request by weapons inspectors to provide facilities for interviews on the island if needed.

"We were officially contacted by the U.N. last week on such a possibility," he told Reuters.

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw of Britain, Washington's staunchest supporter on Iraq, said a November U.N. Security Council resolution, warning Iraq of "serious consequences" if it violates its obligations, was sufficient authorization for war.

"If there is evidence of a further material breach...(it) can only mean military action," Straw said.

Britain announced Monday the mobilization of some 30,000 troops to join the tens of thousands of U.S. troops already massed in the Gulf.

The U.N. inspectors demanded quick answers from Iraq before they report to the Security Council on January 27 on Iraqi compliance.

Teams of U.N. experts working in Iraq searched at least 10 more suspect sites across Iraq Monday.

"FOUL INTERFERENCE"

An Iraqi newspaper Monday accused the inspectors of going beyond their remit to gather information "about all of Iraq's scientific and technological capabilities...nothing to do with searching for weapons of mass destruction."

"There is direct, foul American interference in the affairs of the inspectors, continuous pressure from the American government," al-Thawra daily said.

President Bush (news - web sites)'s administration brushed aside anti-war protests by hundreds of thousands of people across the world at the weekend.

The United States' top general denied Monday he was impatient with Turkey over its failure to give clear support for any war in neighboring Iraq.

General Richard Myers, chairman of the U.S. Military Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in Ankara Turkey was being "very cooperative." Turkish Prime Minister Abdullah Gul said all should be done to avoid a conflict.

France signaled Washington and London would have their work cut out to build international support, particularly if no concrete evidence emerged against Iraq.

"If the United States decide to intervene alone, we will have to say that that will happen outside of the international community," President Jacques Chirac told Le Figaro daily.

Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan of China, like France a permanent member of the Security Council with a right to veto any further resolution, said the January 27 report should be regarded as a "new beginning" rather than an end to inspections.

A German government source said he expected the Council to grant inspectors more time to do their work after Jan. 27.

An Iraqi envoy dismissed the idea Saddam might be persuaded into exile to avert war. "Who appointed the idiot Bush as the world's police officer?" Ali Hassan al-Majeed said in Beirut.

"This is merely nonsense and one of the tactics of psychological warfare."

A U.S. envoy said in Beijing the crisis over North Korea (news - web sites)'s nuclear program should soon, like Iraq, be dealt with by the U.N. Security Council.

Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) Sunday shrugged off criticism of inconsistency in threatening Iraq with war while using softly-softly tactics against North Korea. He said Washington did not employ the same "cookie-cutter" policy in every situation.

DuncanK · January 20, 2003, 15:41

I think when Iraq says that they forgot about them they are telling the truth. They forgot to hide them. They realized the inspectors would find them so they turned them over for PR reasons