Where have all the chemicals gone?
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: City of Culture
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't oil classified as a Weapon of Mass Destruction? Im sure it is as I read it in one of Bush's speach sometime. If so they will probably find lots of it in Iraq and will probably have to stay for decades to remove all the nasty WMD's and transport it back to the old US of A for safekeeping 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just watched BBC News and was amazed to see US forces at the latest WMD 'Site' - isolated, surrounded by barren desert, no hidden bunkers nor even so much as a cammo-net in sight, never mind adjacent to a school, mosque or hospital.
The rusty abandoned vehicles, storage tanks and container drums would aslo indicate that this 'site' has been in situ for some time.
How can it be that after years loooking for such sites, (And mobile Scud launchers), and in the process having photographed and scrutinised every inch of the country from both of satelite and recon-a/c 'intel', it takes a bunch of grunts to find what looks from the news footage to be about as covert as a boil on the end of your nose?
Politically convenient? - absolutely!
Credible? - you be the judge!
Rgds
T3
The rusty abandoned vehicles, storage tanks and container drums would aslo indicate that this 'site' has been in situ for some time.
How can it be that after years loooking for such sites, (And mobile Scud launchers), and in the process having photographed and scrutinised every inch of the country from both of satelite and recon-a/c 'intel', it takes a bunch of grunts to find what looks from the news footage to be about as covert as a boil on the end of your nose?
Politically convenient? - absolutely!
Credible? - you be the judge!
Rgds
T3
It was never the Americans responsibility to find WMD's.
According to the UN, it was Saddams responsibility to account for them. The function of the inspectors was simply supposed to be an auditing exercise to see if his account was true, they were never meant to have to search through every cupboard in Iraq trying to find them.
We know he had them (ask the Kurds).
So far he has.
1) Given UN inspectors the run around for year after year, thereby violating the UN resolution which ended the 1991 war.
2) Then, after the threat of renewed war, produced a document saying in effect; "yes I did have some, but I got rid of them while the inspectors weren't looking and I didn't make any notes of what I did with them."
3) Given inspectors the run around yet again.
Some might find his document plausible, but I certainly don't.
As for being no immediate threat to anyone except his own people!
1) Why don't his own people deserve consideration?
2) Should we really delay taking action until he is an immediate threat, until he can fight back with nukes for example?
According to the UN, it was Saddams responsibility to account for them. The function of the inspectors was simply supposed to be an auditing exercise to see if his account was true, they were never meant to have to search through every cupboard in Iraq trying to find them.
We know he had them (ask the Kurds).
So far he has.
1) Given UN inspectors the run around for year after year, thereby violating the UN resolution which ended the 1991 war.
2) Then, after the threat of renewed war, produced a document saying in effect; "yes I did have some, but I got rid of them while the inspectors weren't looking and I didn't make any notes of what I did with them."
3) Given inspectors the run around yet again.
Some might find his document plausible, but I certainly don't.
As for being no immediate threat to anyone except his own people!
1) Why don't his own people deserve consideration?
2) Should we really delay taking action until he is an immediate threat, until he can fight back with nukes for example?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: A PC!
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes - the UN were responsible for getting the Iraqis to tell them where the WMD were - but the Septics stopped them doing so by launching an invasion.
Hans Blix (who must know more about the inspections than all of us put together) says that he is "inclined to think that there were none" and that the "US intelligence was shakey" (no comment!!!!)
George and Tony told us they knew where they were - but we have yet to see any. So were W and Tone telling fibs to get us all on-side?
Yes he had them when he used them on the Kurds (obviously!) but everyone said "if he has them, he will use them on us during an invasion - guaranteed". But he didn't.
I will believe it when I see it, and so will just about everyone with whom I have discussed this matter. And no-one I know will believe that any finds are genuine if they are uncoverd by the Septics without UN verification. Please note, UN verification works both ways, in my eyes.
Hans Blix (who must know more about the inspections than all of us put together) says that he is "inclined to think that there were none" and that the "US intelligence was shakey" (no comment!!!!)
George and Tony told us they knew where they were - but we have yet to see any. So were W and Tone telling fibs to get us all on-side?
Yes he had them when he used them on the Kurds (obviously!) but everyone said "if he has them, he will use them on us during an invasion - guaranteed". But he didn't.
I will believe it when I see it, and so will just about everyone with whom I have discussed this matter. And no-one I know will believe that any finds are genuine if they are uncoverd by the Septics without UN verification. Please note, UN verification works both ways, in my eyes.
"Yes - the UN were responsible for getting the Iraqis to tell them where the WMD were - but the Septics stopped them doing so by launching an invasion."
On the contrary, it was only the threat of invasion that got the inspectors back into Iraq in the first place. You can only give someone so many last chances to cooperate before the threat loses credibility.
"I will believe it when I see it, and so will just about everyone with whom I have discussed this matter. And no-one I know will believe that any finds are genuine if they are uncoverd by the Septics without UN verification. "
Now who's trying to cover themselves both ways?
On the contrary, it was only the threat of invasion that got the inspectors back into Iraq in the first place. You can only give someone so many last chances to cooperate before the threat loses credibility.
"I will believe it when I see it, and so will just about everyone with whom I have discussed this matter. And no-one I know will believe that any finds are genuine if they are uncoverd by the Septics without UN verification. "
Now who's trying to cover themselves both ways?
I don't want to believe the obvious implication.
Can anyone offer a credible, lucid, compelling reason why both Bush and Blair have explicitely ruled out participation by the UN Weapons inspectors in finding and verifying Iraqi WMD?
Can anyone offer a credible, lucid, compelling reason why both Bush and Blair have explicitely ruled out participation by the UN Weapons inspectors in finding and verifying Iraqi WMD?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: A PC!
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dr Jekyll - I agree, the threat of invasion made the Iraqis let the inspectors back in.
Then, as they were making progress (their words, not the Iraqis) the Yanks (and Tony the poodle) declare war and force them to pull out.
Of course, allowing the inspectors to complete their work may have run the risk of taking away the excuse for a war........................
Then, as they were making progress (their words, not the Iraqis) the Yanks (and Tony the poodle) declare war and force them to pull out.
Of course, allowing the inspectors to complete their work may have run the risk of taking away the excuse for a war........................
Come on, come on. Someone out there believes that it's right to exclude the UN arms inspectors. Why?
Failing that, can someone do a good job at devil's advocacy?
I really want to understand that point of view....
Failing that, can someone do a good job at devil's advocacy?
I really want to understand that point of view....
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hans Blix has stated publicly, including on TV, that he believes the USA faked their submission to the UN showing evidence of WMD in Iraq.
Right now Iraq is being run by the USA who feel they have been badly let down by the UN and accused of being cheats and liars by Hans Blix - The UN inspectors are not necessarily the best or most experienced, they just happen to work for the UN. Why should the USA let the UN inspectors back into Iraq?
Right now Iraq is being run by the USA who feel they have been badly let down by the UN and accused of being cheats and liars by Hans Blix - The UN inspectors are not necessarily the best or most experienced, they just happen to work for the UN. Why should the USA let the UN inspectors back into Iraq?
OK Genghis, thanks. But I'm not quite clear. Is it that the UN and UNSCOM need to be punished for their past misdeeds (to whit casting doubt on the US's pre-war 'evidence'), or is it that the US fears that UN inspectors would somehow deliberately cover up evidence of any WMDs that were found, or would maliciously deny any US WMD finds?
In this 'statement of the anti-UN case' we're naturally excluding the possibility that it might be that UN inspectors would prevent, or might refuse to verify, any 'bogus' WMD find or any planted evidence.
Is there any recognition of the need (or desirability) for any WMD finds to be independently validated and verified?
In this 'statement of the anti-UN case' we're naturally excluding the possibility that it might be that UN inspectors would prevent, or might refuse to verify, any 'bogus' WMD find or any planted evidence.
Is there any recognition of the need (or desirability) for any WMD finds to be independently validated and verified?
Interesting points -
1) Someone in the coalition (probably MI6) faked a set of documents purporting Saddam was buying Uranium from the government of Niger. One of the Niger officials named in the documents had actually been kicked out of office 2 years prior to the "purchase". The IAEA state the documents are complete fakes with no basis in reality. This did not stop the UK and USA providing them as evidence of Iraq's continuing WMD programs
2) Tariq Aziz is, according to Rumsfeld, refusing to cooperate with the US/UK about the location and progress of the Iraqi WMD programs post 1991.
Do I personally think the Iraqi's were still conducting large scale production of bio and/or chemical weapons? No - simply because if they had been deployed ready for use they would have turned up by now in the Iraqi army ammo dumps. There would have been junior and not so junior officers dragging US and Brit officers to gaze upon them - in the hope of not finding themselves in a nice hot tin shed in Cuba.
I suspect the Iraqis were probably keeping research teams together so that if the international community ever did give up sanctions they could go back into the WMD business from a running start. Certainly that in itself would be a breach of the UN resolution, but such theoretical reserch is almost impossible to prove.
The real problem that has come from this fiasco is that unless the US/UK can VERIFIABLY provide evidence of a active deployed WMD neither the elctorate or the international community can ever trust either the UK or the USA ever again. Even were the belief that Iraq possessed such weapons sincerely held, there are more cynical people who will suspect it was all a "fit up".
The only way that anyone is going to believe in a Iraq WMD program is if the UN says there was one - the only possible reason that the US refuses to allow the UN back must be that they don't want it verified.
1) Someone in the coalition (probably MI6) faked a set of documents purporting Saddam was buying Uranium from the government of Niger. One of the Niger officials named in the documents had actually been kicked out of office 2 years prior to the "purchase". The IAEA state the documents are complete fakes with no basis in reality. This did not stop the UK and USA providing them as evidence of Iraq's continuing WMD programs
2) Tariq Aziz is, according to Rumsfeld, refusing to cooperate with the US/UK about the location and progress of the Iraqi WMD programs post 1991.
Do I personally think the Iraqi's were still conducting large scale production of bio and/or chemical weapons? No - simply because if they had been deployed ready for use they would have turned up by now in the Iraqi army ammo dumps. There would have been junior and not so junior officers dragging US and Brit officers to gaze upon them - in the hope of not finding themselves in a nice hot tin shed in Cuba.
I suspect the Iraqis were probably keeping research teams together so that if the international community ever did give up sanctions they could go back into the WMD business from a running start. Certainly that in itself would be a breach of the UN resolution, but such theoretical reserch is almost impossible to prove.
The real problem that has come from this fiasco is that unless the US/UK can VERIFIABLY provide evidence of a active deployed WMD neither the elctorate or the international community can ever trust either the UK or the USA ever again. Even were the belief that Iraq possessed such weapons sincerely held, there are more cynical people who will suspect it was all a "fit up".
The only way that anyone is going to believe in a Iraq WMD program is if the UN says there was one - the only possible reason that the US refuses to allow the UN back must be that they don't want it verified.
Wolf,
You summarise what appears to be completely obvious to me ("The only way that anyone is going to believe in a Iraq WMD program is if the UN says there was one"), but in view of the official UK and US Government position on participation by the UN arms inspectors there must be a counter argument and/or justification for this position. They can't just be thinking that they'll do it and simply ignore the painful questions, surely? There must be an argument - even if such an argument is only a cynical excuse or a fig leaf to cover an unwillingness to expose the lack of evidence of any Iraqi WMD. Such a counter argument can't simply be that they're punishing the UN, surely, nor even that UN participation is not necessary or desirable?
Can no-one elucidate this 'official' counter argument?
You summarise what appears to be completely obvious to me ("The only way that anyone is going to believe in a Iraq WMD program is if the UN says there was one"), but in view of the official UK and US Government position on participation by the UN arms inspectors there must be a counter argument and/or justification for this position. They can't just be thinking that they'll do it and simply ignore the painful questions, surely? There must be an argument - even if such an argument is only a cynical excuse or a fig leaf to cover an unwillingness to expose the lack of evidence of any Iraqi WMD. Such a counter argument can't simply be that they're punishing the UN, surely, nor even that UN participation is not necessary or desirable?
Can no-one elucidate this 'official' counter argument?
Guest
Posts: n/a
One thing I find a bit interesting, is that the US can only offer contracts regarding the rebulilding of Iraq to US companies.
I wonder how many of the oil related companies that have a cousin of old W in the board?
"The oil will be the basis of an free Iraq", bull***
It will be the basis of W's next therm in office.
I hear that Blair is getting a bit unpopular with some of his labour woters, I wonder why?
I wonder how many of the oil related companies that have a cousin of old W in the board?
"The oil will be the basis of an free Iraq", bull***
It will be the basis of W's next therm in office.
I hear that Blair is getting a bit unpopular with some of his labour woters, I wonder why?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If WMD are not found in Iraq within the space of 6 months to a year, then Bush and Blair will certainly have much to answer for in the eyes of the world---and rightly so. But given that France and others in the UN Security Council were willing to allow inspections to continue for at least that long (and in the minds of Blix and others as a bizarre, permanent sort of deterrent), it is unfair to pound the table so early regarding the US MET/XRT teams inability to unearth them. There are many different possibilites here---and one of them may indeed be that Bush is lying---including the stuff being spirited away to Syria, being extremely well-hidden, or existing as a production capability rather than a stockpile of weapons. It's simply too early to say.
That said, there is certainly a case to be made for restricting UN involvement in a postwar Iraq. For one, the Enron style accounting of the oil-for-food program which keeps billions of dollars of Iraqi money in French and Russian escrow accounts and keeps the UN flush with cash. The fact that Scott Ritter, George Galloway, various U.S. congressmen, and journalists from throughout the Arab and Western world have taken millions in Saddam's cash for their service to the regime indicates that perhaps UNMOVIC has been similarly 'penetrated' as the US has alleged in the past. Its clear the UN (and some countries in the UNSC) has a vested interest in maintaining sanctions, and the continued inspection process provides justifcation for the oil-for-food thievery to continue indefinitely. Even if Bush is lying, oil-for-food should be done away with as soon as is practicable.
In the final analysis, nobody will believe the US or subscribe to Bush's motives even if the weapons are found and found in huge quantity (that's clear enough from the tone of this thread). But Blix should be kept out, if only because he has publicly compromised his impartitality.
Just a humble Septic's opinion.
That said, there is certainly a case to be made for restricting UN involvement in a postwar Iraq. For one, the Enron style accounting of the oil-for-food program which keeps billions of dollars of Iraqi money in French and Russian escrow accounts and keeps the UN flush with cash. The fact that Scott Ritter, George Galloway, various U.S. congressmen, and journalists from throughout the Arab and Western world have taken millions in Saddam's cash for their service to the regime indicates that perhaps UNMOVIC has been similarly 'penetrated' as the US has alleged in the past. Its clear the UN (and some countries in the UNSC) has a vested interest in maintaining sanctions, and the continued inspection process provides justifcation for the oil-for-food thievery to continue indefinitely. Even if Bush is lying, oil-for-food should be done away with as soon as is practicable.
In the final analysis, nobody will believe the US or subscribe to Bush's motives even if the weapons are found and found in huge quantity (that's clear enough from the tone of this thread). But Blix should be kept out, if only because he has publicly compromised his impartitality.
Just a humble Septic's opinion.
OK:
So the two main reasons for keeping the UN out altogether (because most people were only asking for participation by the UN arms inspectors, not for total UN control of the process) are:
1) The UN has been penetrated by those interests who are served by the ongoing sanctions+oil-for-food regime, and is an inherently corrupt and untrustworthy organisation?
2) Hans Blix has 'compromised his impartiality' by stating that he believes that the USA may have faked its submission to the UN showing evidence of WMD in Iraq? (Some would suggest that this DEMONSTRATES his impartiality).
If this is the argument, don't those accusations need to be clearly set out? Isn't there some need for evidence, if not proof? (And is there proof that either Ritter or Galloway took Iraqi money? The balance of probability may support the accusation against Gorgeous George, I'll admit....)
And if the US is setting itself up as being a better moral authority than the UN, does it not need to be beyond reproach itself? Does the unwillingness to submit to scrutiny, and the corrupt way in which reconstruction contracts are being placed undermine what legitimacy the USA has in this area?
So the two main reasons for keeping the UN out altogether (because most people were only asking for participation by the UN arms inspectors, not for total UN control of the process) are:
1) The UN has been penetrated by those interests who are served by the ongoing sanctions+oil-for-food regime, and is an inherently corrupt and untrustworthy organisation?
2) Hans Blix has 'compromised his impartiality' by stating that he believes that the USA may have faked its submission to the UN showing evidence of WMD in Iraq? (Some would suggest that this DEMONSTRATES his impartiality).
If this is the argument, don't those accusations need to be clearly set out? Isn't there some need for evidence, if not proof? (And is there proof that either Ritter or Galloway took Iraqi money? The balance of probability may support the accusation against Gorgeous George, I'll admit....)
And if the US is setting itself up as being a better moral authority than the UN, does it not need to be beyond reproach itself? Does the unwillingness to submit to scrutiny, and the corrupt way in which reconstruction contracts are being placed undermine what legitimacy the USA has in this area?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like it or not, continued inspections legitmate the need for indefinite sanctions to remain in place on Iraq. I would contend that countries such as Russia and France (the two countries that did the most to erode sanctions against Saddam Hussein's dictatorship) are now joined at the pocketbook to use sanctions as leverage to get some kind of Iraqi recognition of their onerous debts and oil contracts from the Saddam era. If Iraqi redevelopment is held back in the meantime, so what. Of course, there's nothing wrong with a country persuing its legitimate commercial interests, but using the UN's unique legitimacy as a cloak of piety is very brazen indeed (and yes, the US is plenty guilty of this as well). Of course, the alternative argument is that the US wants the UN sanctions lifted simply so its own companies can profit from Iraq's reconstruction (which will be the case regardless of what happens).
Additionally, inviting the inspectors back allows Hans Blix (who is not trusted by anybody in the Bush administration) to have the final say-so regarding when sanctions can ultimately be lifted, and thus gives the UN a central role in the rebuilding and reconstruction of the country, after the US and UK spent blood and $100B+ in treasure to overthrow Saddam. This would be most unacceptable to the national security 'hawks'.
Personally, I don't believe Hans Blix was intellectually honest in the weeks prior to the war. He openly stated his desire that the inspection process serve as a permanent deterrent in Iraq, cast aspersions on the breadth of Iraqi WMD when his own investigations showed tons of unaccounted-for materiel, and failed to appreciate that UNMOVIC's mission was to verify disarmament, not serve as a detective agency of international sleuths. Once war had begun, he immediately announced that Iraq had no WMD in contrast to his earlier statements on missing anthrax and such. And now that WMD has not been unearthed in two weeks (he wanted 6 months and more), he publicly declares that Bush was a liar. Yes, some of the evidence was faked, and Bush and Blair should certainly be held to account (as they will be if WMD don't turn up soon) but Blix cannot claim to have approached the Iraq issue honestly. However, if WMD doesn't turn up soon, Blix will be vindicated and Bush and Blair will look like idiots. And that MAY happen, but they should be given at least as much time as the UNSC were prepared to let the weapons inspectors have to find the stuff.
These arguments are but a preview of the bitter sanctions fight that will take place at the UNSC in the next 2-3 weeks. The US hopes to put France and Russia on a moral backfoot by publicly daring them to keep sanctions on a destitute nation. Failing that, they will look for ways to bust the sanctions unilaterally.
Say what you will about American motives (and the US is certainly no paragon of moral authority), but the Oil-for-Food program (and the UN's Office of Iraq Programs) is a corrupt and thoroughly rotten organization indeed.
2.2% commission on $55 billion in oil sales, $21 billion in UN escrow accounts with no transparency or auditing whatsoever, surcharge-kickback deals and flat-out smuggling making Saddam filthy rich, and billions in transactions with French and Russian firms. To say the UN has a stake in the status quo is an understatement.
To an extent, these new "revelations" are designed to discredit France and Russia but these are some very shady deals nonetheless.
With regard to UN involvement, you cannot simply pick and choose which UN agencies go in and which do not. Russia and France will pursue their substantial business interests in Iraq by "reminding" the US that the lifting of sanctions must be tied to Iraq being certified free of WMD by the UN. Enter Blix for another round of inspections, with Oil-for-Food continuing indefinitely. Purchasing decisions will be made not by an interim Iraqi government or by the US administrators of Iraq, but by the UN bureacracy and the UNOIP.
High irony considering that prior to 2001 it was Russia and France demanding an end to sanctions and the US and UK refusing because Iraq had not been certified free of WMD.
Additionally, inviting the inspectors back allows Hans Blix (who is not trusted by anybody in the Bush administration) to have the final say-so regarding when sanctions can ultimately be lifted, and thus gives the UN a central role in the rebuilding and reconstruction of the country, after the US and UK spent blood and $100B+ in treasure to overthrow Saddam. This would be most unacceptable to the national security 'hawks'.
Personally, I don't believe Hans Blix was intellectually honest in the weeks prior to the war. He openly stated his desire that the inspection process serve as a permanent deterrent in Iraq, cast aspersions on the breadth of Iraqi WMD when his own investigations showed tons of unaccounted-for materiel, and failed to appreciate that UNMOVIC's mission was to verify disarmament, not serve as a detective agency of international sleuths. Once war had begun, he immediately announced that Iraq had no WMD in contrast to his earlier statements on missing anthrax and such. And now that WMD has not been unearthed in two weeks (he wanted 6 months and more), he publicly declares that Bush was a liar. Yes, some of the evidence was faked, and Bush and Blair should certainly be held to account (as they will be if WMD don't turn up soon) but Blix cannot claim to have approached the Iraq issue honestly. However, if WMD doesn't turn up soon, Blix will be vindicated and Bush and Blair will look like idiots. And that MAY happen, but they should be given at least as much time as the UNSC were prepared to let the weapons inspectors have to find the stuff.
These arguments are but a preview of the bitter sanctions fight that will take place at the UNSC in the next 2-3 weeks. The US hopes to put France and Russia on a moral backfoot by publicly daring them to keep sanctions on a destitute nation. Failing that, they will look for ways to bust the sanctions unilaterally.
Say what you will about American motives (and the US is certainly no paragon of moral authority), but the Oil-for-Food program (and the UN's Office of Iraq Programs) is a corrupt and thoroughly rotten organization indeed.
2.2% commission on $55 billion in oil sales, $21 billion in UN escrow accounts with no transparency or auditing whatsoever, surcharge-kickback deals and flat-out smuggling making Saddam filthy rich, and billions in transactions with French and Russian firms. To say the UN has a stake in the status quo is an understatement.
To an extent, these new "revelations" are designed to discredit France and Russia but these are some very shady deals nonetheless.
So the two main reasons for keeping the UN out altogether (because most people were only asking for participation by the UN arms inspectors
High irony considering that prior to 2001 it was Russia and France demanding an end to sanctions and the US and UK refusing because Iraq had not been certified free of WMD.
Last edited by Huh??; 8th May 2003 at 02:36.