US/UK Downing St memo confirms war lies?

[Arcadiac]

Appears to confirm the fabrication of lies that led to war,
story not being reported in US:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

Related editorials:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/051105H.shtml

Read first then Discuss..........

ARCADIAC!

[JB]

No wonder it's not being reported in the US. They can't make copies for the US reporters.
...
What? I always find it amusing when stuff like "do not copy" makes it into copies.

[Arcadiac]

C'mon guys, we've been lied to, concrete proof is presented and this is a "non-story"?  WTF?

ARCADIAC!

[CheffoJeffo]

C'mon guys, we've been lied to, concrete proof is presented and this is a "non-story"?  WTF?

I'm still puzzled how this is a grand revelation ... it seemed pretty clear from the beginning (even from the 1980s with the "neutral" position in the Iran/Iraq war) ...

Heck, if our last Prime Minister (I'm Canadian) was dialed in enough to avoid joining the great "coalition" (don't forget about Poland), you have to wonder ...

Cheers.

[DrewKaree]

C'mon guys, we've been lied to, concrete proof is presented and this is a "non-story"?  WTF?

Seems you weren't even able to convince yourself that this is "concrete proof"

Appears to confirm the fabrication of lies that led to war,
story not being reported in US:

It's probably not being reported because it reads as if everyone believes they have WMD's, and it might be pretty hard to say you were lied to while proving that you weren't

Let us know when those new crop circles appear.

[Arcadiac]

You almost "Drew"  me in there with the crop circles nonsense. 

(Insert picture of bunny with pancake here)

How about some honest discussion on the topic, the memo, instead of all the quotation marks, assumptions and distractions?

ARCADIAC! 

[Tailgunner]

C'mon guys, we've been lied to, concrete proof is presented and this is a "non-story"?  WTF?

OMG, a president lied!

Honestly, which one hasn't at some point?

That we invaded Iraq on the flimsiest of excuses was apparent from the start. What exactly does this supposed proof change?

[DrewKaree]

How about some honest discussion on the topic, the memo, instead of all the quotation marks, assumptions and distractions?

I trust the source of your "memo" about as much as the crop circle reports, you telling us they're "keeping it quiet" in the U.S. speaks volumes of the validity of it, the "quotation marks" are to denote the seriousness with which I view your "concrete proof", your "concrete proof" is something you yourself weren't willing to say, which SHOULD be realized by you, but you think you've found something and are willing to run with it in order to get yourself the internet pulitzer , the "assumptions" have been nothing other than yours which you've tried to turn into "concrete proof" in the matter of less than a handful of posts, my "distractions" are nothing more than laying out to you a simple case of WHY nobody cares.

In the end, you remain fixated on this like a dog on a T-bone just outside of his reach.  Discuss?  Your blockbuster find is so unworthy of discussion, people who believe as you do can't even muster up the effort to do so, and you continue onwards as if this is so airtight, there isn't any usefullness to be gained by treating this "story" as anything other than page 3 filler.

That the kinda stuff you're looking for?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I trust the source of your "memo" about as much as the crop circle reports...

Well, let's just get some clear some things up then...

FACT 1: (From the Memo) "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

FACT 2: British officials do not dispute the document's authenticity.

But that is beside the point of my post. I can't, for the life of me, imagine you'd even care if the memo is rock solid...it's unfortunate, but it seems that you (and most rabid Bush supporters) are perfectly ok with the very real possibility that Bush knowingly fabricated the "need" to go to war with a country based on fabricated evidence.

Your need to dispel evidence like this without *EVER* addressing the ramifications of the behavior it alleges shows a real disdain for critical thinking. I've seen it before from war supporters, as the quote from one freeper below demonstrates:

"I frankly don't care whether "the facts" were "fixed" or fixed, or true or false, or exaggerated or overblown.

Because the actual fact is that Saddam was sitting on top of the world's second largest oil reserve, which happens to be the property of Western economies despite the unfortunate accident of geography.

That alone justifies our actions."

Then there is this rhetorical Coup de Gr

[DrewKaree]

That's about all the meaningful discussion you're going to get on this, Arcadiac.

 

Face it, some things, for whatever reason, are or will fall off the list of order of importance of things for people.  You just happened to find one.  Now see if you can put an end to that pesky "Waldo" thing I've heard so much about.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

That's about all the meaningful discussion you're going to get on this, Arcadiac.

You sicken me sometimes. Don't post anymore if you don't care. No one wants to hear how irrelevant you may feel the topic to be. Either debunk it, or sit down.

Face it, some things, for whatever reason, are or will fall off the list of order of importance of things for people.

So sayith the man who determines the authenticity and importance of information based on where it resides in corporate owned "news" outlets. Thinking for yourself sure is "hard work", so I guess I don't blame you.

Based on your truly apathetic and irrelevant argument, we should all base our reality on what is spoon fed to us by the media. This is exactly why state run propaganda machines under totalitarian regimes are so effective.


mrC

[DrewKaree]

You sicken me sometimes.

 

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Anyhow, Arcadiac...it seems that this is the only meaningful discussion you'll get on the topic because the majority of the American public on contented sheep who have no room in their lives for distressing information, and the media establishment has been so boxed into submission by the current administration that they refuse to question Dear Leader and his regime.
ABCnews, for example, has already publically admitted that, while the Iraqi war could be the "biggest story every day", they just care enough to report about it, because the American people care more about runaway brides. So it's really a case where the media is more "entertainment" than news...

"Brides gotta run, planes gotta stray, and cable news networks gotta find a way to fill a lot of programming hours as cheaply as possible. (CNBC gets to talk about the booming April retail sales numbers, and the NRA's television network will replay the Secretary of State on Larry King over and over.)

We say with all the genuine apolitical and non-partisan human concern that we can muster that the death and carnage in Iraq is truly staggering.

And/but we are sort of resigned to the Notion that it simply isn't going to break through to American news organizations, or, for the most part, Americans.

Democrats are so thoroughly spooked by John Kerry's loss --- and Republicans so inspired by their stay-the-course Commander in Chief --- that what is hands down the biggest story every day in the world will get almost no coverage. No conflict at home=no coverage."


mrC

[danny_galaga]

hey, and you cant blame me anymore for your glossy news- i sold my newscorp shares to found my 'holiday'. i now have a (relatively) ethical portfolio 

[quarterback]

That we invaded Iraq on the flimsiest of excuses was apparent from the start

Apparent to some, denied by far too many.

[Dexter]

Ah yes,

Its ok to go to war on flimsy evidence and slaughter 100,000 people, but show the same people documented evidence on the lies that brought the invasion about and they demand something more concrete.

american double standards again, picking and choosing what information is relevant to their ends

[ChadTower]

Heck, if our last Prime Minister (I'm Canadian) was dialed in enough to avoid joining the great "coalition" (don't forget about Poland), you have to wonder ...

Dude, Canada couldn't join the coalition... the Canadian Army goes home at 5pm like everone else.  He's not on call 24/7.

[fredster]

I don't know what you guys thought you read, but these documents don't support your claims.

They are position memos on how to deal with the press. Big freaking deal.

We say with all the genuine apolitical and non-partisan human concern that we can muster that the death and carnage in Iraq is truly staggering.

I guess we don't consider the 100,000 iraqi's that Saddam killed on his own without our help okay.  I guess we should write off all the other people he would have killed and other countries his government ran by him or his crazy ass sons would have been okay.

talk about a "double standard"

[ChadTower]

No one ever tries to calculate how many of the dead Iraqis while we have been there have been killed by other Iraqis.  I would be surprised if it's not at least half.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

They are position memos on how to deal with the press. Big freaking deal.

Wrong. They are minutes from a meeting between U.S. and British officials. Written well *before* the War.

It points to a collaborative effort to game the evidence and fool the American/British populace into supporting an illegal war. And it worked.

mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I LOVE the body count game!!

I have a question though, does this mean if the U.S. can keep the body count to a number lower than that which occured under Saddam...do we "win"?

No one ever tries to calculate how many of the dead Iraqis while we have been there have been killed by other Iraqis.  I would be surprised if it's not at least half.

Never mind that they are being killed during an insurgent uprising brought about by the presence of U.S. military. But that doesn't count I guess. (EDIT: I, of course, don't think the U.S. troops are responsible for the killings, but certainly, U.S. policy, as dictated by the current administration is directly part of an undeniable, causal relationship which is leading to these deaths.)

killed by other Iraqis

Wait, I thought they were foreign fighters streaming in from surrounding Axis of Evil countries, led by the notorious and dastardly Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi? The new "Bin Laden", since Bush can't be bothered  to talk mention him anymore (or catch him for that matter). How are you so sure they are local Iraqis? What report are you reading?


mrC

[fredster]

Wrong. They are minutes from a meeting between U.S. and British officials. Written well *before* the War.

It proves nothing, they should have talked shouldn't they?  That way they unify their position, pretty important if you are going to war. 

It points to a collaborative effort to game the evidence and fool the American/British populace into supporting an illegal war. And it worked.

It points to a meeting to unify and sound out the policy.

The idiotic position you are taking is that they KNEW there was no WMD.  That they WANTED for some reason to just go to war for some payback.  That they DELIBERATLY skewed the data.

I don't believe that for a second.  If Bush didn't act, we wouldn't have known would we? We'd be discussing how he DIDN'T act.  We'd say he didn't do anything when he had the chance.   The only reason we knew Saddam didn't have WMD was by going in.  Otherwise, we'd still be guessing and Saddam would still be in power, and likely out of the sanctions by now.

Then we'd be talking body count.

Never mind that they are being killed during an insurgent uprising brought about by the presence of U.S. military. But that doesn't count I guess.

No, it doesn't.  The insurgents are there for a lot of reasons. It's a power struggle brought on by the vaccum of power caused by Saddam's collapse.  Some of them are Iraqis displaced by the change, and most are from the surrounding countries.

It happened in Eurpope after WWII.  It's a natural response.  We are holding it off.  We only hear about the ones that got through.  We rarely hear about the ones we stopped.

Wait, I thought they were foreign fighters streaming in from surrounding Axis of Evil countries, led by the notorious and dastardly Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi? The new "Bin Laden", since Bush can't be bothered  to talk mention him anymore (or catch him for that matter). How are you so sure they are local Iraqis? What report are you reading?

Because OBL isn't as viable a threat as he was.   I don't believe that we have stopped looking.  Find any report that says "we have given up the search"??  Zarqawi is an active threat. 

Let me ask you a couple of questions Mr. C.

1) What would have been Blair's motivation for going to war with Iraq if he knew the intel was false?

2) What was Bush trying to gain by taking down Saddam if he knew the intel was false?

[ChadTower]

duh, it was all about the oil, right?  I mean, we HAVE taken billions of barrels of oil, right?

Didn't we?   

[CheffoJeffo]

I guess we don't consider the 100,000 iraqi's that Saddam killed on his own without our help okay.

talk about a "double standard"

Pretending that the Western world (I'm not going to lay all of this on the USA) did not help Saddam Hussein is just silly.

Who do you think gave him his weapons of mass destruction in the first place ?   Screwed him, then helped him during the Iran/Iraq war ? Turned down Kuwait's request for help during that same time period, until the Soviets volunteered, then changed their mind ?

Do you really believe that the purpose of the invasion is to spread democracy in a region where most of "our" allies are not democratic (and, perhaps not coincidentally, our allies are home to more hatred of the West than our enemies) ?

Do we forget that, during the Clinton era, many members of the current administration signed a letter indicating that an invasion of Iraq was going to be required and that WMD could be used as an excuse (and if that failed, then the need to remove Saddam would also serve that purpose) ?

We in the West have to recognize that our ongoing contributions/interference elsewhere in the world have had a profound effect on the situation of the world today. We can't just point to the people that we once aided and say "He is evil. We need to protect ourselves.".  It's just not that credible.

We may be conditionned to accept today's soundbites as the truth, but much of the rest of the world remembers those things what we would choose to forget.

Cheers.

[ChadTower]

Do we forget that, during the Clinton era, many members of the current administration signed a letter indicating that an invasion of Iraq was going to be required and that WMD could be used as an excuse (and if that failed, then the need to remove Saddam would also serve that purpose) ?

Erm, that would be so stupid a thing to do, that unless I were to see it from a credible source, I cannot believe it happened.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

duh, it was all about the oil, right?  I mean, we HAVE taken billions of barrels of oil, right?

Didn't we?   

You go on believing we went over there to "free" the Iraqi people Chad, and that oil had absolutely *nothing* to do with it. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

No matter that we haven't gotten the oil yet because Bush "misunderestimated" the resistance we've been facing.



mrC

[CheffoJeffo]

Do we forget that, during the Clinton era, many members of the current administration signed a letter indicating that an invasion of Iraq was going to be required and that WMD could be used as an excuse (and if that failed, then the need to remove Saddam would also serve that purpose) ?

Erm, that would be so stupid a thing to do, that unless I were to see it from a credible source, I cannot believe it happened.

While the letter itself was removed in 2003 [EDIT: I had 1993 ... sorry ... missed a decade]  (or I completely imagined the whole thing, visited the website at random, then imagined that I went back to look for the same letter later and found it missing), it appeared on the website of the Prject For A New American Century.

http://www.newamericancentury.org

I originally visited the website specifically because it was reported that members of the Bush (W) administration had long been advocating an invasion of Iraq.

There is still a clear indication that the invasion has been a long time coming, but I can find no mention of the letter as originally reported on the current site, nor on the Wayback Machine. I could be that I imagined it (or, as some people will believe, that I am making it up), but I really do recall reading the letter and thinking "man, these guys have brass cohones".

Cheers.

[CheffoJeffo]

http://www.newamericancentury.org

I originally visited the website specifically because it was reported that members of the Bush (W) administration had long been advocating an invasion of Iraq.

I should have mentionned that these same folks were highly critical or both the Clinton AND Bush administrations regarding their strategies on Iraq ... prior to the invasion, that is. Thought it was interesting, particularly with Michael Moore characterizing the Bush family as having it in for Iraq (odd, when George Sr indicated that invading Iraq would turn out much as it has and declined to invade).

Cheers.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Wrong. They are minutes from a meeting between U.S. and British officials. Written well *before* the War.

It proves nothing, they should have talked shouldn't they?  That way they unify their position, pretty important if you are going to war.

From the MEMO: "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." . Sure it doesn't prove anything, but it sure as hell should led to some investigations.

It points to a meeting to unify and sound out the policy.

From the MEMO: "There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

Sure sounds like some sound policy, and given the current quagmire in Iraq, it sounds about right.

The idiotic position you are taking is that they KNEW there was no WMD.  That they WANTED for some reason to just go to war for some payback.  That they DELIBERATLY skewed the data.

That's certainly what the memo seems to portend. You are completely forgetting the fact that U.N. Weapons Inspectors were already saying there was no WMD. So once again, you conveniently forget things that don't fit your world view.

I don't believe that for a second.

Ok. See above for statement about world view.

If Bush didn't act, we wouldn't have known would we? We'd be discussing how he DIDN'T act. 

Dumbest thing I EVER heard. How can we be sure Zimbabwe doesn't have WMD?!?!? We must attack!!! And NO, I wouldn't be discussing how Bush didn't act...I've been against the idea of a war in Iraq since the Bush admin started to falsely link Al-Qaeda w/ Saddam during the mid-point of the Afghan War*. (*Which I supported from the beginning, and still support, mind you)

Never mind that they are being killed during an insurgent uprising brought about by the presence of U.S. military. But that doesn't count I guess.

No, it doesn't.  The insurgents are there for a lot of reasons. It's a power struggle brought on by the vacuum of power caused by Saddam's collapse.  Some of them are Iraqis displaced by the change, and most are from the surrounding countries.

Lots of reasons? So you are saying the insurgents would have been blowing people up had the U.S. never attacked? So you are saying that the U.S. isn't responsible for Saddam's collapse, and that this administration short-sighted post-war planning hasn't led to a power vacuum that is currently facilitating a violent insurgency? Can I have some of what you are smoking?

It happened in Eurpope after WWII.  It's a natural response.  We are holding it off.  We only hear about the ones that got through.  We rarely hear about the ones we stopped.

This is *not* WWII. The Iraqis never bombed Pearl Harbor, and they never had anything to do with 9-11. If you think they did, please point me to your evidence.

Because OBL isn't as viable a threat as he was.   I don't believe that we have stopped looking.  Find any report that says "we have given up the search"??  Zarqawi is an active threat. 

Fine. Once there's another attack (which is most likely inevitable) we can finish the debate as to OBL's threat level. I believe that the man responsible for the deaths of 3000+ Americans and untold billions of dollars of economic damage, not to mention the incalculable emotional trauma to our collective national psyche, remains a f*ckin' threat until he is captured, and or killed. Consequently Bush has *not* mentioned his name since he won reelection. Funny how he was supposed to be a menace beforehand, now...not so much. Zarqawi is being marketed as an "active threat" because he presents a ghoulish fiend and we can pin all the attacks in Iraq on him to further justify our continued campaign of destruction.

1) What would have been Blair's motivation for going to war with Iraq if he knew the intel was false?

I wish I knew. The memo leads me to believe that we should CERTAINLY begin investigating this question?

2) What was Bush trying to gain by taking down Saddam if he knew the intel was false?

Get the guy that tried to kill his daddy. Secure a large oil reserve for the United States. Obtain untold billions in no-bid contracts for administration cronies. Create a wartime atmosphere conducive to securing national re-election (ie: "You can't change horses in mid-stream). Bring about Armageddon and the second coming of Jesus Christ...I'm not sure, you'd have to ask Bush... AGAIN, this memo presents enough reason to actually begin on investigation into finding out the truth. Which, if you actually read the memo, is an idea you should support; unless, of course, you feared the outcome of such an investigation.

Unlike you, I don't believe I have all the answers. Just the notion that this memo warrants further investigation into the run-up to Bush/Blair's War in Iraq.


mrC

[CheffoJeffo]

Just to throw some fuel on the fire, since some folks question "What was to gain by invading Iraq if it wasn't to remove SH and find WMD ?"

From the 2000 NAC Report "Rebuilding America's Defenses":

'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Link can be found on:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defensenationalsecurity.htm

Quote is on page 26.

I'm not trying to bash George W (particularly since I don't think he went down this path willingly and there is plenty of blame to share on both sides of the aisle) as point out the fact that we are increasingly becoming a society polarized into "left/liberal" and "right/conservative" factions and virtually none of us make any reasonable attempt to ascertain the truth, then make up our own minds.

 We're all too happy to watch CNN/Fox News/CBS (pick your poison!) and just believe/reject what they're saying

We're behaving like sheep ... we need to change that before we all end up hawking matresses in claymation commericals.


Cheers.


EDIT for typo.

[fredster]

I'm sure that if we did our job then a plan for re-invasion after the first Gulf War was made right after we pulled out.

[CheffoJeffo]

Pretending that the Western world (I'm not going to lay all of this on the USA) did not help Saddam Hussein is just silly.

  I don't think anybody said that Saddam wasn't helped.  But let me ask, why did we help him early on, say in '79 and '80?  What was going on at that time?  Remember?  At that time nobody realized what an idiot he would be with the weapons he was aided with. Nobody.   Hindsite is 20/20.

I do remember ... thanks ... and am glad that you indicate that you do.

I never passed judgement on the aid that was given at the time, only pointed out that failing to recognize that we provided such aid damages the credibility of actions against that man.

Is it coincidence that the two men cited in the past few years as the greatest threats to the United States were both armed, trained and supported by the United States ?

We need to stop for a second and think about that.

I think both men are monsters. BUT, I am able to see that the rest of the world remembers our role in creating these monsters. 

Cheers.

[CheffoJeffo]

Do we forget that, during the Clinton era, many members of the current administration signed a letter indicating that an invasion of Iraq was going to be required and that WMD could be used as an excuse (and if that failed, then the need to remove Saddam would also serve that purpose) ?

Oh, and you have proof of this?  That's big news.  Where is that proof?  Does in your vocabulary "excuse = reason" ?

OK ... no need to get nasty ... I completely disclosed my sources and the lack of immediate substantiation. If, however, you read similar documents prepared by the same group around the same time, there is *some* (not complete, by any stretch, but enough that you *should* consider it) indication that the sentiment I report did indeed exist.

I have no idea why you are getting so riled up at me ... as I have said, there is plenty of blame to go around and I am willing to take some upon myself, despite the fact that I do not live in the United States, but do enjoy the protection that comes with being your neighbour.

There is still a clear indication that the invasion has been a long time coming, but I can find no mention of the letter as originally reported on the current site, nor on the Wayback Machine. I could be that I imagined it (or, as some people will believe, that I am making it up), but I really do recall reading the letter and thinking "man, these guys have brass cohones".

Have another beer dude.

OK ... twist my arm ... although I suspect that you may need it more than I do ... I am only saying that we need to "fess up" and let the rest of the world know that we've fouled things up in the past.

It has been a long time since we've said what we mean and done what we said.

Cheers.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Sure it doesn't prove anything, but it sure as hell should led to some investigations.

Yep, doesn't prove anything.  So lets have an investigation to prove it doesn't prove anything.

You really don't understand how a 'chain of evidence' works do you? I agreed with you that the memo, in and of itself, doesn't prove the claim that Bush/Blair went to war knowingly based on falsified and/or "fixed" evidence, but it does alledge this. Thusly, further investigation is warranted to uncover further evidence proving the claim. That's how the justice system is *supposed* to work. Don't assume that, simply because I may agree with one point of yours, that it's logical I must agree with the conclusion you draw from it.

How about it was the duty of the President of the United States to protect the people of the country by removing threats.  You are the first voice that says he should have "used a tougher policy on the North Koreans".

The question of WMD's could have been solved through continued inspections. Saddam was not a threat to the United States, and independent analysts and a multitude of weapons inspectors agreed that his WMD capabilities were most likely non-existent and that further inspections could answer this question for certain. Bush kicked them out too soon.

It's also been shown that this administration's poor planning in the initial stages of the Iraq War led to the looting of highly lethal material. Did you forget about the 500 tons of weapons-grade explosives that were looted from unsecured bunkers around Iraq? The very-same explosives that are most likely being used against our troops on a *daily* basis. So in other words, where once we actually HAD destructive materials cataloged, we've now got a highly equipped, armed insurrection?

If we didn't know Saddam didn't have WMD by going in, then what would we know now?  You'd know that Bush should have went in!

I know Bush should have allowed further inspections and save billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives. Btw, I didn't know that you didn't have a weapon capable of killing me, and that if you *did*, that you wouldn't use it against me sometime, so please disregard the guy I sent over to your house to kill you and your family*. Sorry!

(*fredster, this is the basis of your argument...do you see how absurd it is?)

You are the first voice that says he should have "used a tougher policy on the North Koreans".

Funny that they actually CLAIM to have nukes, yet we're not marching over there to "spread freedom". I actually advocate an initial two party talk, with the agreement of multi-lateral talks afterward. I just don't understand Washington's refusal to sit at the table with NK alone. Because they demanded it? Whatever happened to acting like the better country? Asserting our power by actually facing a threat head-on through diplomacy?
mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

OK ... twist my arm ... although I suspect that you may need it more than I do ... I am only saying that we need to "fess up" and let the rest of the world know that we've fouled things up in the past.

First let me say, I enjoy your posts. Very level-headed and thorough.

Second, 56 million people in this country are most likely incapable of admitting mistakes, just like there leader. So don't hold your breath.

mrC

[CheffoJeffo]

I'm sure that if we did our job then a plan for re-invasion after the first Gulf War was made right after we pulled out.  Plans like that exist for many countries.  If any of you whimps had ever joined the forces and served your country then you'd realize that.

Plans like that exist for EVERY country, including my own beloved Canada. Not that I am overly worried ... just confirming your point. Planning for something does not mean that it is policy. (see, I agree with you).

Why is it that you must assert, without any information, that those who offer alternative viewpoints must be "whimps" who haven't served.

You have no idea who I am.

You have no idea to what extent I, or anybody else here, have served.

Do you even know whether or not I was in favour of the US military going in to Iraq ? (the answer might surprise you, but isn't relevant to the point).

I am not arguing for or against the military action in Iraq. I am simply pointing out that there are very good reasons why the rest of the world is suspect of the motivation for such actions.

All you know is that I made a presentation that you didn't like or agree with. All I did was point to a letter that I had read on a website and mention that we had supported Saddam Hussein in the past. I didn't condemn the current administration nor the invasion itself. Certainly not the troops who are there.

It is a perfect example of the point I am trying to make ... we're too quick to accept/reject information, based solely on a couple of news reports and ideological affiliations.


Cheers.

[CheffoJeffo]

[First let me say, I enjoy your posts. Very level-headed and thorough.

Not always so level-headed ... just ask Joystick Jerk (sorry again!).

Cheers.

[ChadTower]

You go on believing we went over there to "free" the Iraqi people Chad, and that oil had absolutely *nothing* to do with it. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

No matter that we haven't gotten the oil yet because Bush "misunderestimated" the resistance we've been facing.

You're putting words into my post and it makes you look foolish.

[CheffoJeffo]

I have made my opinions very clear in other threads and won't restate them.  They also happen to be the only rational explanation for why we went over there as they make perfect sense.  Are they moral?  Not really, but at least they are explainable.

There *IS* no real resistance over there.  It exists because we allow it to exist.  If we wanted to end the insurgency we would do it and we would do it faster than we ended Saddam's government.  Their rebellion is not the reason we didn't take any oil and oil is not the primary reason we are there.  We are there to install permanent military presence on that continent (hello, Iran).  Iraq just happens to be the most logical place to put that military presence.

I have to respect a man who doesn't accept what we're spoon-fed by the media, makes up his own mind and presents his views without apology (and I am NOT implying that an apology is required).

There are too few folks who look beyond the veneer and, agree with them or not (and I'm not saying!), I certainly respect those who do.

Cheers.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

There *IS* no real resistance over there.  It exists because we allow it to exist.  If we wanted to end the insurgency we would do it and we would do it faster than we ended Saddam's government.  Their rebellion is not the reason we didn't take any oil and oil is not the primary reason we are there.  We are there to install permanent military presence on that continent (hello, Iran).  Iraq just happens to be the most logical place to put that military presence.

Ok, here we differ greatly as well. Not saying you are wrong, but allow me to state my case anyhow.

How does continued instability in the country help the goal of establishing a permanent base there? Are you suggesting that's the "cover"? And, if the insurgency continues after a base is established, how is that good for the long-term security of America? We haven't stopped Iran/NK from developing nukes, why would a base keep them from using them? They already know we have inter-continental ballistic missiles.

I, in no way, believe we are *allowing* the resistance to exist, rather we are incapable of destroying it, since by there very nature, rebel insurgencies are next to impossible to destroy outright (Colonists V. England, Afghan V. Russians, Korea V. Japan, French in Algeria, U.S. V. Viet Cong, Castro in Cuba) and "victory" in these situations is only ever achieved through diplomacy and/or geographic isolation of the insurgents (IRA, The British in Malaya, Dhofar rebellion, Morocco V. Polisario). Neither of which I see happening in regards to the insurgency in Iraq.

Sure, we could level the entire country and effectively quash the "insurgents", but to what end? Global warfare once Iran decides to launch nukes?

The situation in Iraq is a bit more complex than previous examples of insurgency, in that, it is quite possibly a steady stream of foreign-based agitators, coupled with a large faction of disenfranchised locals, working to stimulate a broad civil war fueled by religious fundamentalism.

I understand your allegation that the War in Iraq is primarily about establishing a "permanent military presence" in the Middle East. However, where we disagree is on the logic, legalities, and moral cost/benefit analysis for the global U.S. image when it's perceived we are lying about doing so.

This memo points to the lie behind the cover, and provides enough evidence to facilitate an investigation, because I also believe whatever short-term gains our administration thinks we will gain by establishing a military presence in the Middle East will be offset by the image of Western Imperialism. After all, 9-11 was carried out by religious extremists angered by (although not exclusively) our limited presence in Saudi Arabia. What might a perceived, full-on "occupation" bring about in the future?

I'd agree with you that a huge military base in the Middle East makes sense, *if* we were fighting against a large standing army, but we are not. The more serious and immediate threat to our continued existence is small, highly mobile bands of religious extremists with broad-based support across a huge swath of the Middle East. Stamping out a large footprint, smack-dab in the center of their "crib", to me, doesn't seem like the best idea.

It's important to note that the Soviets controlled all the major cities of Afghanistan up to their withdrawal in 1988, and Kabul itself did not fall until 1992, four years after the last Soviet troops withdrew.

mrC

[ChadTower]

I have to respect a man who doesn't accept what we're spoon-fed by the media, makes up his own mind and presents his views without apology (and I am NOT implying that an apology is required).

There are too few folks who look beyond the veneer and, agree with them or not (and I'm not saying!), I certainly respect those who do.

Coolness!  Thanks for the words.

[ChadTower]

I'd agree with you that a huge military base in the Middle East makes sense, *if* we were fighting against a large standing army, but we are not. The more serious and immediate threat to our continued existence is small, highly mobile bands of religious extremists with broad-based support across a huge swath of the Middle East. Stamping out a large footprint, smack-dab in the center of their "crib", to me, doesn't seem like the best idea.

Then let me present another, tangential scenario.  All we've heard all along is that "we must get the terrorists".  Well, we really haven't, have we?  What we did do is stage ourselves permanently next to what could be a much larger threat:  a nuclear Iran.  The US military is not thinking about the loss of 3000 people here.  They are thinking about the loss of 3,000,000.  What this presence gives us is the credible capability of sending in special forces to remove ANYTHING in that region without notice.  That is what sets our capabilities apart from anyone in the world.  If our leaders felt it asbolutely necessary we could send in people who could seize every one of those facilities in the same day.  We'd only do that if we felt launch was imminent and immediate, but that is pretty much our only option short of the type of Star Wars defense system Reagan used to talk about.

The instability in Iraq really isn't part of this goal, but neither is it a hindrance.  It's like the neighbor's kid that messes with the stuff in your yard... he's a pain in the ass and you could slap him around, but you don't bother because you have more important things to worry about.

We ARE staging to fight a large standing enemy here, and it's not in Iraq.  I wouldn't be surprised at all if part of this is to cut our ties with Israel, now that we don't need to support them in return for a no questions asked ally on that continent.  That's half the reason these people have always hated us, right?  Our support of Israel?

[CheffoJeffo]

I wouldn't be surprised at all if part of this is to cut our ties with Israel, now that we don't need to support them in return for a no questions asked ally on that continent.  That's half the reason these people have always hated us, right?  Our support of Israel?

Now THAT is an interesting thought ...

Cheers.

[ChadTower]

Now THAT is an interesting thought ...

Now, imagine what would happen among the Jewish population of the US if we started to pull away from Israel... and also imagine the type of open season on Israel that Israel's enemies would declare.

I can see the giant Hollywood engine already jumping on the Save Israel bandwagon now... 

[fredster]

It's important to note that the Soviets controlled all the major cities of Afghanistan up to their withdrawal in 1988, and Kabul itself did not fall until 1992, four years after the last Soviet troops withdrew.

It's also important to note we did it Less than a month.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if part of this is to cut our ties with Israel, now that we don't need to support them in return for a no questions asked ally on that continent

Totally against the stance the USA has taken since the creation of Israel.  This, like all of the things you dream up, shows just how naive and superficial your "world view" is.

[ChadTower]

Uh, dude, you quoted two separate people there without denoting it. 

Soviet comment - Mr C.

Israel comment - Me.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

We ARE staging to fight a large standing enemy here, and it's not in Iraq.  I wouldn't be surprised at all if part of this is to cut our ties with Israel, now that we don't need to support them in return for a no questions asked ally on that continent.  That's half the reason these people have always hated us, right?  Our support of Israel?

Interesting theory indeed. I believe we should have cut ties w/ Israel a long time ago. They've shown, time and again, a complete abuse of power. Anyhow, sure, the Arab fundamentalist hate us, primarily, for our support of Israel, but it's much deeper than that, and goes back to a mistrust through vilification born out of the brutal 11th-13th century Crusades. So, ironically, the mere act of having a footprint in the Middle East would completely offset our pull-back from Israel. So it'd be a stalemate really. Moot. Quite possibly even more infuriating for the region.

In total, I really think you overestimate the potential success of U.S. capabilities. Sure, we've got a lot of power, but so did Goliath before he was clonked with the stone. Remember, these renegade fundamentalists brought our economy to it's knees with 19 men and a few box cutters.

Furthermore, you also seem to completely disregard the will of the American public, with support for the Iraq war below 50% and absolutely NO support for war against Iran, might we begin to factor in the potential for a Democratically elected president in 2008, acting on the will of the people to *not* support this goal of permanence in Iraq?

Are we talking complete and total 'black-ops' here? And/or do you know something about voting machines that you'd like to share? 

mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

It's important to note that the Soviets controlled all the major cities of Afghanistan up to their withdrawal in 1988, and Kabul itself did not fall until 1992, four years after the last Soviet troops withdrew.

It's also important to note we did it Less than a month.

Yet, somehow, you didn't think to factor in the fact that 25 years of BRUTAL fighting against the Russians might have softened them up? Maybe just a little?

You might want to research that conflict a little before you comment again.

EDIT: PLUS, your comment totally belies the fact that the Taliban STILL exists and is STILL a threat in Afghanistan...and our "man in Afghanistan" Hamid Karzai is dodging bullets on an almost daily basis. Geez...a pretty skewed sense of "winning". We should have had 150,000 troops in Afghanistan rather than Iraq, rebuilding that country and establishing our presence where it would have been justified (as Al-Qaeda, who actually attacked us, is stationed there)

mrC

[ChadTower]

Interesting theory indeed. I believe we should have cut ties w/ Israel a long time ago. They've shown, time and again, a complete abuse of power. Anyhow, sure, the Arab fundamentalist hate us, primarily, for our support of Israel, but it's much deeper than that, and goes back to a mistrust through vilification born out of the brutal 11th-13th century Crusades. So, ironically, the mere act of having a footprint in the Middle East would completely offset our pull-back from Israel. So it'd be a stalemate really. Moot. Quite possibly even more infuriating for the region.

How is that a stalemate?

[fredster]

Chad, sorry. I was on a roll.

 MrC,

Yet, somehow, you didn't think to factor in the fact that 25 years of BRUTAL fighting against the Russians might have softened them up? Maybe just a little?

Did it occur to you that perhaps that the US led the best war campaign ever?  Did it occur to you that the people supported the US in this war because they needed us?  Give us credit.

The Nazi party still exists man.  Is it a big surprise we didn't kill every last one of them??

the mere act of having a footprint in the Middle East would completely offset our pull-back from Israel. So it'd be a stalemate really. Moot. Quite possibly even more infuriating for the region.

Looks like Lybia gave up arms and Syria pulled out of Lebannon just cuz they wanted to?  How about the palestinians electing a non arafat government?  Egypt is doing democratic elections.  This is progress, and this is what was needed to contain and change the middle east.

In total, I really think you overestimate the potential success of U.S. capabilities. Sure, we've got a lot of power, but so did Goliath before he was clonked with the stone.

You are quoting Biblical references?  Careful, you might go fundamentalist on us.

I'm not disregarding the will of the American public, I am basing my projections on actual documented election results rather than media polls

Wow, that's soooo smart.  Using numerology?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

How is that a stalemate?  That's a major strategic victory for the US.  Let's see how it was before:

Doing nothing to address the hatred and mistrust, and in fact, inflamming it further, only serves to make those nukes a more imminent threat.

You = believe we could swoop in and control the plants.
I     = believe we could not, and a base would only serve to continue to inflame the region and anti-U.S. sentiment.

1)  They hate us.

More so now because we've justified their fear of our imperialism.

2)  We have dozens of permanent military installations centrally located on the continent from which we can launch major military offensives if we deem it necessary to preempt nuclear launches.

Why couldn't we have done this in Afghanistan, where the world agreed we should be? Morally and legally we had every right to do so, yet, we've got less than a handful of troops on the ground? I'd agree with your scenario, were it in Afghanistan, since my concerns would be addressed, the Arab world accepted our invasion of Afghanistan, hell, a few Arab nations even supported it!

Why Iraq over Afghanistan? - If it's not about oil, and only about military presence, how is Iraq that much more strategic than Afghanistan? I'd think Afghanistan would be ideal, we would have had total control of the land, limited population, not surrounded by anti-american Arab nations on multiple sides.

3)  We can tell Israel to go pound their sand and don't have to defend a tiny region on the other side of the planet as if it were Puerto Rico.

They've got nukes and extremists too...unfortunately, without U.S. support, they'd probably even act more brash and irresponsible. The U.S., by having forces station in the region would be forced to join any conflict, should it escalate out of control. So permanence means, welcome to the family! Our "unjust" occupation is only going to make it harder to deal with this kind of ---steaming pile of meadow muffin---, which we're now going to have to deal with for the remainder of our nation's existence.

Seems like we're better off with the new way than the old way.

Again, we have to agree to disagree. You have a valid scenario, I just feel differently, that anything based on lies and subterfuge will not succeed in the long run.

mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Did it occur to you that perhaps that the US led the best war campaign ever?  Did it occur to you that the people supported the US in this war because they needed us?  Give us credit.

So, really, it doesn't factor in then, for you? 25 years of constant warfare? I'm suppose to be amazed that we walked over a scrap-yard? I would have given this administration credit had they *stayed* in Afghanistan, maintained a massive footprint and finished the job. Your Nazi party analogy makes no sense so I'm not going to address it other than to say it's absurd.

Looks like Lybia gave up arms and Syria pulled out of Lebannon just cuz they wanted to?  How about the palestinians electing a non arafat government?  Egypt is doing democratic elections.  This is progress, and this is what was needed to contain and change the middle east.

And all three of those examples have *nothing* to do with our presence in Iraq. Sorry. Not buying it. Lybia was already on the path to giving the weapons up, Arafat ---smurfin---' died, so your just crazy there, his party was nothing without him...and Eqypt has been moving toward democracy for a while. Yes, it is progress and very welcome progress at that. But to think that it has anything to do with Iraq shows a certain naivity and misunderstanding of history and current events. You might want to note that our continued plight in Iraq could possibly have the much ill-fated side-effect of actually destroying the embryonic demand for grassroots Democracy in Iran? Right? Read up on the student rebellion and how much is has cooled towards Iranian nationalism in the wake of our debacle in Iraq.

I'm not disregarding the will of the American public, I am basing my projections on actual documented election results rather than media polls

Wow, that's soooo smart.  Using numerology?

Uuuuuuhhh...Sorry, you're quoting Chad again. I wonder if half the time you are arguing with me you are confusing me with a bunch of people. I really have an effect on you, don't I? Makes me tingle! 

mrC

[fredster]

Again, Sorry Chad.

MrC,

So, really, it doesn't factor in then, for you? 25 years of constant warfare? I'm suppose to be amazed that we walked over a scrap-yard? I would have given this administration credit had they *stayed* in Afghanistan, maintained a massive footprint and finished the job. Your Nazi party analogy makes no sense so I'm not going to address it other than to say it's absurd.

No, they fought constantly for 25 years and had a break.  They were demoralized by the Taliban.  Extremeists are everywhere, they exist in every walk of life. there are still Nazis and whatever party you are from.  We still have the KKK. You can't kill'em all.  The comparison is valid.  Even small numbers of extermists cause big problems.  Remember Oklahoma city?  19 hijackers?

But to think that it has anything to do with Iraq shows a certain naivity and misunderstanding of history and current events.

I don't think so.  The presence of the US in Iraq and Afgahnistan caused free elections.  The idea of the elections and the motivation for the changes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc was driven from that example.  Lybia backed off because of fear of the US.  (fear = respect).

To say it isn't because of Iraq shows a man with blinders on trying anything he can to avoid giving credit where credit is due.

Read up on the student rebellion and how much is has cooled towards Iranian nationalism in the wake of our debacle in Iraq.

Read up on the events of 1979 and how Carter caused all this by not backing the Shaw.  I think we could make an historic argument on how all of this was caused by Carter's ineffective and destructive administration.  The Student rebellion hasn't stopped anything or changed anything to benifit US.

I wonder if half the time you are arguing with me you are confusing me with a bunch of people. I really have an effect on you, don't I? Makes me tingle!

Yeah, I gotta be more careful.  I gotta keep it smaller because I'm doing it in between meetings.  I'll love to make you tingle too sweetie.

[ChadTower]

Something I have to ask:

Why do we care at all who has free elections?  That's how we do things, what does it matter if 15 little places 10000 miles away do it differently?  Either these places pose a military threat or they do not...

[jbox]

Executive summary: People are people, and nations are simply big lumps of people. LCD theory means you will live with exactly the lowest form of average you can stomache. Feel free to skip the rest of this nonsense.

1) What would have been Blair's motivation for going to war with Iraq if he knew the intel was false?

Personally, I find that arguing over the Republicrat's motive is far more fertile ground. I've always assumed that Blair had the same reason that little Johnny did, which is that you get more scraps from the new Emperor's table by agreeing with whatever he says than trying (and failing) to be superior. Talking about the 'coalition' is a red herring, because it suggests that had the USA decided not to go the invasion still would have happened. It was a coalition in the same way that a company is a 'coalition', when the guy at the top of the food chain picks a target you either get on board or increase the odds that it will be you next time. 

I mean really people, what is this, Disney Land? In other words, I would damn well *expect* that every government in the world (and probably a couple of the larger militant groups too) had a meeting whose agenda was in effect: "Well, the USA is going to war, here are the Pro/Con analysis studies of joining them." I highly doubt any particular senior intelligence briefing was significantly different than any of the others (including the low probability of *actual* WMDs), but it was simply a question of what weighting they applied to each variable in the equation (eg. international standing, tensions with arab nations, relations with the USA, chance to get $$$/oil, etc...). Some countries helped, some interfered, some did both and some did neither presumably because that's what they thought was the right thing for *their* country to do. Ergo, as these different minutes get 'leaked' we already know which way the meetings ended based on whether or not they went already. I mean forget the UK, I bet Pakistan's briefing was far more interesting! 

All the people sticking to the notion of independant states must surely see that this goes hand-in-hand with the notion that those states are essentially self-serving, otherwise when would they ever disagree? We're not some kind of global family, we're competitors. How do you go from independant states to global unity in any reality that is still pre-Matrix? Don't get me wrong, I dislike Johnny's bigoted, greed-oriented agenda as much as the next 'wimp', not to mention this pathetically under-armed country simultaneously contains the largest uranium deposits in the world while sitting next to one of the largest Muslim nations, but surely this is all just International Politics 101 stuff? 

Look, if you really hate chewing through academic reports as much as I do, try reading any of the novels about the Discworld for some good layman's explanations of what "good government" is really going to look like. Contented people are just not going to care because people themselves are in the vast majority self-serving, which (surprise, surprise) is why they continue to elect *known* liers and cheats in the hope that it works out slightly better for them. I've not met a single person who voted for the hate-mongers in our latest election because they enjoyed hate-mongering (although some of them supported it), by far and away priority number one was the hope that their tax cut and/or mortgage would be slightly better off than under the other guys. This is where the real turf war for power is, the people who just don't give a rat's ass, and the Republicrats all over the world know it too.   

Mathematically it's very simple: even the biggest magnitude scandal multiplied by a care factor of zero will come out to zero. And if shouting at people ever actually worked, then we'd be in even more trouble then we are now. The Republicrats didn't break your electoral system, because these guys are the advanced evolution of "representative government" (aka mob rule), some people just don't like the fact that their compassion puts them in the minority. If smear campaigns didn't work, why are they still used?   

[jbox]

Ugh, that was far too long. And somehow I *still* forgot to slip xenophobia and ego in there too, which are the two ajoining pillars to greed and revenge. Doh! 

[fredster]

Ah, sure.

xenophobia

sure.

Had to follow the crowd, needed to make money, kill the man who tried to kill his daddy.

You don't work do you jbox?

[jbox]

You don't work do you jbox?

Tsk, tsk. All that whaffle and that's the best attempt you can come up with? How about I pretend that was somehow insightful and give you marks for effort instead. 

I work. I vote. I pay my taxes. I obey the road rules. Hey, I even have savings! Maybe you can accuse me of kicking puppies instead if you think that will help rebut my argument. 

[DrewKaree]

You don't work do you jbox?

Tsk, tsk. All that whaffle and that's the best attempt you can come up with? How about I pretend that was somehow insightful and give you marks for effort instead. 

I work. I vote. I pay my taxes. I obey the road rules. Hey, I even have savings! Maybe you can accuse me of kicking puppies instead if you think that will help rebut my argument. 

You kick PUPPIES?!?!?

Do you tie Rottweiler's up in the back yard with goats for "play dates" and feign shock when the ASPCA (or your version over up yonder down under der hey is) comes a'knockin?

[jbox]

You kick PUPPIES?!?!?

Do you tie Rottweiler's up in the back yard with goats for "play dates" and feign shock when the ASPCA (or your version over up yonder down under der hey is) comes a'knockin?

Bah! I et a BABY once. That's right, the other other white meat! Ya can keep ya damn capitalism, and ya waw too, if I get ta et ya BABY!



(FYI: RSPCA - remember, we've got nob heads on our coins still)

[fredster]

Picking up quarters in a parking lot doesn't count for "working".

I obey road rules too when I'm on my bicycle....

[mr.Curmudgeon]

ChadTower,

You never answered my question in this thread regarding why, if the war in Iraq *wasn't* all about the oil (as you allege), and it was instead about establishing a U.S. base of operations in the Middle East, why pre-emptively attack (without the broad support of our allies) one of the most secular nations in the Middle East, at the ultimate risk of being dragged into urban guerilla warfare, ad infinitum? (and *please* don't say to "liberate" the Iraqi people from Saddam's oppressive clutches, as we all know that isn't why we are there, and it certainly wasn't the reason used to justify the war. Nor can you say WMD, because by your very own theory...that isn't the reason either)

Why not establish our base of operations in a much less "densely" populated and less modernized environment, like Afghanistan, that isn't surrounded by hostile nations on all sides, where we *HAD* a broad base of support from the local inhabitants and our global allies, where, with the amount of troops and money we have so far spent in Iraq we could have maintained total control over the entire country, rebuilt the region in our image and had our presence be complete justified (ie: harbored Al-Qaeda)?

In short, why Iraq over Afghanistan?


I'm just really curious about your answer...if you don't want to start a debate, feel free to PM your theory.
mrC

[ChadTower]

Why not establish our base of operations in a much less "densely" populated and less modernized environment, like Afghanistan, that isn't surrounded by hostile nations on all sides, where we *HAD* a broad base of support from the local inhabitants and our global allies, where, with the amount of troops and money we have so far spent in Iraq we could have maintained total control over the entire country, rebuilt the region in our image and had our presence be complete justified (ie: harbored Al-Qaeda)?

In short, why Iraq over Afghanistan?

The most likely answer, strategically, is right there in your text.  It's within immediate striking distance, both ground and air, of every one of the likely targets.  No more paying Turkey hundreds of millions just to fly over their country, no more coddling Israel like they actually mean anything to us.  Afghanistan simply wasn't suitable because we need a region we OWN, not just stage in.  Right now, for better or worse, Iraq is the 51st state.  We don't have to ask permission to build anything in any location, we just do it.  We don't have to cooperate with anyone because the gov't we are establishing there is ours to manipulate.  We have total reign there and no oversight.

How could we have achieved that type of freedom in Afghanistan?

[Dexter]

Afghanistan simply wasn't suitable because we need a region we OWN, not just stage in.

[ChadTower]

Oh, don't get me wrong... I firmly believe that there were and still are WMDs in the region.  If you can tell me that you could find a crate of mason jars in a desert region of thousands of square miles, you are a liar.  Every intelligence agency on Earth agreed that they were there... lack of proof is not disproof.  We just didn't find them.

[Grasshopper]

Oh, don't get me wrong... I firmly believe that there were and still are WMDs in the region.  If you can tell me that you could find a crate of mason jars in a desert region of thousands of square miles, you are a liar.  Every intelligence agency on Earth agreed that they were there... lack of proof is not disproof.  We just didn't find them.

I don't think the issue is whether there were/are chemicals or not. The issue is whether Saddam's weapons posed a credible threat to the west. I think the answer is clearly no.

Yes, if you keep looking for long enough and hard enough you might, just might, find some decayed chemicals buried somewhere in the desert. But so what? These chemicals have a limited shelf life and have to be stored carefully. You also need weapons to deliver them. All of this requires sophisticated infrastructure that is difficult to hide.

Most of Saddam's henchmen have been captured and interrogated for a couple of years now. Yet as far as we know, not one of them has spilled the beans about where Saddam hid his (alleged) WMDs. Don't you think that's a little odd? If one of them had spilt the beans, I'm sure Bush would be crowing about it.

The only country in the middle east that we definitely know has (nuclear) WMDs is Israel. Israel has also ignored countless UN resolutions but despite this still receives unconditional support from the US. It's no wonder that arabs complain about western hypocrisy and double standards.

[ChadTower]

You also need weapons to deliver them. All of this requires sophisticated infrastructure that is difficult to hide.

Chemical, yes.  Biological, you need no delivery mechanism.  All you need is a syringe and a host.