Iraq had plans of building its arsenal


Blog For Free!

Archives
Home
2007 April
2005 February
2005 January
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
2003 November
2003 October
2003 September

My Links
My essay: The Immorality of Marriage
The Onion
SelectSmart
Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas!
Tom Robbins Quotes
Funny Name Analysis
Bushisms
Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain
Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell
Life, Liberty, Logic
Wasting My Time
RedTigress's Blog
Jimmytherighteous's Blog
Octo6er's Blog
Nivek's Blog
Magicjoejoe's Blog
Littlemrmahatma's Blog
Kurtmaddox's Blog
Winstonsmith's Blog
Drforbush's Blog
Juniperflux's Blog
Iron Blog Religion!

tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images


Sponsored
Blog
Iraq had plans of building its arsenal
01.07.04 (3:45 pm)   [edit]
An article worthy of your perusal:
[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com...]Iraq's Arsenal Was Only On Paper[/url]

An excerpt:
An engineering PhD known for outsized energy and gifts, [Modher Sadeq-Saba] Tamimi, 47, designed and built a new short-range missile during Iraq's four-year hiatus from United Nations arms inspections. Inspectors who returned in late 2002, enforcing Security Council limits, ruled that the Al Samoud missile's range was not quite short enough. The U.N. team crushed the missiles, bulldozed them into a pit and entombed the wreckage in concrete. In one of three interviews last month, Tamimi said "it was as if they were killing my sons."

But Tamimi had other brainchildren, and these stayed secret. Concealed at some remove from his Karama Co. factory here were concept drawings and computations for a family of much more capable missiles, designed to share parts and features with the openly declared Al Samoud. The largest was meant to fly six times as far.

"This was hidden during the UNMOVIC visits," Tamimi said, referring to inspectors from the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission. Over a leisurely meal of lamb and sweet tea, he sketched diagrams. "It was forbidden for us to reveal this information," he said.

Tamimi's covert work, which he recounted publicly for the first time in five hours of interviews, offers fresh perspective on the question that led the nation to war. Iraq flouted a legal duty to report the designs. The weapons they depicted, however, did not exist. After years of development -- against significant obstacles -- they might have taken form as nine-ton missiles. In March they fit in Tamimi's pocket, on two digital compact discs.

The nine-month record of arms investigators since the fall of Baghdad includes discoveries of other concealed arms research, most of it less advanced. Iraq's former government engaged in abundant deception about its ambitions and, in some cases, early steps to prepare for development or production. Interviews here -- among Iraqi weaponeers and investigators from the U.S. and British governments -- turned up unreported records, facilities or materials that could have been used in unlawful weapons.

But investigators have found no support for the two main fears expressed in London and Washington before the war: that Iraq had a hidden arsenal of old weapons and built advanced programs for new ones. In public statements and unauthorized interviews, investigators said they have discovered no work on former germ-warfare agents such as anthrax bacteria, and no work on a new designer pathogen -- combining pox virus and snake venom -- that led U.S. scientists on a highly classified hunt for several months. The investigators assess that Iraq did not, as charged in London and Washington, resume production of its most lethal nerve agent, VX, or learn to make it last longer in storage. And they have found the former nuclear weapons program, described as a "grave and gathering danger" by President Bush and a "mortal threat" by Vice President Cheney, in much the same shattered state left by U.N. inspectors in the 1990s. [LINE]
What are the ramifications of the evidence given in this article that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction? If President Bush's reason for preemptively striking Iraq was because he felt that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to the United States, it seems as though this would be a faulty reason, as Hussein had no access to WMD. So this leads us to the question of what justification Bush truly based the war on. I would like to give Bush the benefit of the doubt and assume that perhaps he was simply misled by information that he and those giving it truly thought to be real. However, even if that is the case and it was simply a problem of misinformation, going to war is not something to be so casually decided upon that there would not have been the necessity to validate those claims prior to declaring a unilateral war. This leads us to the question of Bush's true motives in Iraq. I am not going to speculate on what these motives are, but only say that the best explanation for Bush would be that there were a number of factors that went into the decision to attack Iraq, not only the prospect of Saddam's so-called immenent threat.

The implications of Iraq having plans for building its arsenal are also important to look at. One could argue that since Hussein had these plans, he must have intended to use them and build Iraq's arsenal, thus perhaps Bush was justified in his attack after all- maybe Saddam didn't pose an imminent threat, but in the future he could have. This is similar to Democratic presidential candidate Joe Lieberman's stance on Saddam. Lieberman has supported the Iraq war on the basis of ousting Saddam in order to protect America and the rest of the world from future attacks. This makes some sense; however, it does not justify a preemptive unilateral war. This sort of preventive action makes the war based on opportunity. In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush needed to act in a way to ensure America's safety and to qualm fears at home of future terrorist attacks. When the situation in Afghanistan seemed bleak, Bush was afforded the opportunity to shift the focus on Iraq and its brutal dictator. Everyone agrees that it is a good thing Saddam is gone, but I don't think the ends justify the means in this case.

To offer an opposing view, on Fox News they said that it would be premature to say that all of Iraq's weapons were just conceptual. I'll agree with that but also point out that it was premature to suggest that Iraq's weapons were not merely conceptual and to go to war based solely (supposedly) on the fact that these weapons made Hussein an imminent threat.
 

posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 01.07.04 (6:55 pm)

Bush never said Iraq poses an imminent threat. His State of the Union Address in 2003 specifically outlines the reasons for going to war because the threat wasn't imminent. Look it up.

Secondly, the groups saying that Hussein had all of these weapons were the inspection teams from the UN, that's the United Nations, over a 12 year period, in Iraq. As Bill Clinton did when he bombed Iraq in 1998, the threat was believed to be real and substantial, and, whether they were real or not, were a violation of the UN cease-fire.

It is not the US's fault, if it turns out that there were no weapons. The US merely relied on the intel that its CIA, through various inspection regimes at the UN culled. Not only that, but if Hussein had upheld his promise regarding the cease-fire UN teams would have been there to verify the disarmament, not go on hunts for banned weapons.

How many times can people recycle and digest the lies that a)the US made up an excuse for war and b)that Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat?

Those things just don't mesh with reality. It's like "we hate Bush, so we'll believe anything instead of the truth."

Be educated. Don't let your prejudices define your reality.


posted by: whoisjohngalt (reply)
post date: 01.07.04 (7:07 pm)

James, is that you?


posted by: jimmytherighteous (reply)
post date: 01.07.04 (7:30 pm)

Reply to: newbie

Ok, then just what was Shrub's justification? We've heard the gamut of excuses from imminent threat to WMD to humanitarian issues to thoughts of maybe making WMD to Saddam had bad taste in music.

Maybe the administration should pick a story and stick with it. Americans are so dumb as to not realize we get a different story every week.


posted by: DragonBait22 (reply)
post date: 01.07.04 (8:06 pm)

Reply to: newbie
You're right- I'm not educated at all and my opinions are solely based on an intense hatred for Bush.

I sat through the inane babble that was the 2003 State of the Union Address and that was more than enough for me.

Bush said Saddam posed a threat, not Iraq. The war in Iraq was justified by Bush as a war on terror, a step towards ensuring freedom for both Iraqis and Americans. The only problem with this is that the claim that Hussein had WMD and posed an imminent threat was not accurate, and thus negates the urgency of the war. Though I don't think the US should have entered this war at all, I certainly don't think we should have started a war without support from the UN or most of our allies. It was a mistake.

"UN, that's the United Nations"

Wow, thanks for clarifying that for me, I had no idea what UN stood for.

"As Bill Clinton did when he bombed Iraq in 1998"

Hmm, you seem to think that because I'm not a Bush supporter, I must think of Clinton as God. While I certainly think Clinton was a good president, he did make mistakes as well.

"if Hussein had upheld his promise regarding the cease-fire UN teams would have been there to verify the disarmament, not go on hunts for banned weapons."

The UN basically equates to a substitute teacher- they have no real power or authority. According to this, Hussein didn't have any WMD, nor was he working on building Iraq's arsenal, unless you count these drawings that are not entirely realistic as working towards building weapons. I don't like Saddam, I'm glad he has been captured, but there is more proof that he did not have any WMD than there is that he did and was a major threat.

"How many times can people recycle and digest the lies that a)the US made up an excuse for war and b)that Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat?"

As many times as it takes before we are given a real explanation.


posted by: question (reply)
post date: 01.07.04 (8:47 pm)

Bush meant to say that the weapons of mass destruction

were here: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2316.htm




posted by: question (reply)
post date: 01.07.04 (9:41 pm)

Reply to: newbie
Speech, public appearance, October 7, 2002
President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat
Remarks by the President on Iraq at the Cincinnati Museum Center -
Cincinnati Union Terminal, Cincinnati, Ohio. See third paragraph :
“The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.”

See the seventh paragraph:
“Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people.”

The world has tried limited military strikes to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities -- only to see them openly rebuilt, while the regime again denies they even exist.

See the thirtieth paragraph:
“After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.”

See third from last paragraph:
Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined,

and whose consequences could be far more deadly.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html





posted by: question (reply)
post date: 01.07.04 (9:43 pm)

Hey DragonBait22 - I think Newbie must be my "muse". Haha!


posted by: whoisjohngalt (reply)
post date: 01.08.04 (12:17 pm)

Reply to: jimmytherighteous
"We've heard the gamut of excuses from imminent threat to WMD to humanitarian issues to thoughts of maybe making WMD to Saddam had bad taste in music."

I hope Saddam didn't listen to Rush; I listen to Rush. Because if he did, that would make me a supporter of Saddam Hussein using some peoples' logic.


posted by: DragonBait22 (reply)
post date: 01.08.04 (3:38 pm)

Reply to: whoisjohngalt
Well, either way, Rush = Evil. You're screwed.


posted by: DragonBait22 (reply)
post date: 01.08.04 (3:45 pm)

Reply to: question
Well, we all need inspiration, I suppose. :)


posted by: question (reply)
post date: 01.08.04 (4:22 pm)

Reply to: whoisjohngalt
I listen to Rush to try and see if he sounds "High" that day. The other day he was talking unusually fast, and so-called listeners emailed him and asked him to slow down. He sounded like he was on Ephedra. I think he has Mad Cow or maybe Mad As*-hole disease. In fact, Rush is the poor man's newspaper. He is for the folks who are like Bush boy, that dont read the papers. They just have their advisors (Rush-Drug Man) tell them what to think. Gee, I am envious. I wish I didn't have to think for myself. If only my IQ was closer to the speed limit, like Bush.


posted by: jimmytherighteous (reply)
post date: 01.08.04 (5:48 pm)

Reply to: whoisjohngalt

Johngalt, you need to clarify the difference between Rush (Canadian terrorist musicians) and Rush (right-wing blowhard drug addict) and Rush (amyl nitrate inhalable club drug). People might get the wrong idea and think you're a communist.


posted by: DragonBait22 (reply)
post date: 01.08.04 (8:49 pm)

Reply to: jimmytherighteous
You mean whoisjohngalt isn't a communist?


posted by: MrsHap (reply)
post date: 01.08.04 (9:50 pm)

interesting viewpoint DragonBait...... Personally, I feel that the downfall of Hussein was none too soon , reguardless as to who was to make it happen. I don't feel that we, as Americans, have the right to go any where in the world needed to solve the problem of tyrancy. However, if it so happens, for whatever reason, we have made the world a better place for those who couldn't do it for themselves. We do have to defend our reasons for these actions, and I for one wouldn't want to be in that position. But long, bad story short... a lot of people had to die for this cause, but doing so, saved many more innocent lives.


posted by: Nivek (reply)
post date: 01.19.04 (5:11 pm)

Reply to: MrsHap
All-in-all, I believe there is an underlying reason for being in Iraq than what we know or are told. I know no details but I think about it. No one can argue that Saddam needed to go; and, at the base of the issue, for no other reason than to save those Iraqi citizens from torture, rape, and death. Maybe if that was the only key to go to war, then it would have been more acceptable to the American people--to have one, clear motive, rather than several. But then, why go to war when there is one person who could be "taken out", and limit the deaths that come with all-out war? If we killed Hitler and his close-nit group in 1938, I believe that WWII may not have been needed, or not to the extent to which it was waged. Maybe this would have been true in Japan, as well. Maybe Mao and Pol Pot, also. But history can not be changed in any way. There's always underlying reasons behind what every government does, but, as I wrote to DragonBait22, without honesty to the people of a nation--any nation--they will become skeptics, thus leading to apathy and hatred. Now, my main point is, (and sorry to run on so), I believe there may be a future war with China or allied Asian nations. It's just my theory, but if this were to come, we are in a prime spot in Western Asia and Eastern Europe. I am not saying that this is right--if that were the reason for being there, and if it were we could never know--but if a future war with China, or maybe even the CIS were to come, we can forget everything we know about the world, our nation, and our lives. Like I said, it's one opinion--and possibly only in my mind--but the way things are today, I can't rule it out. N

Your Name:


Your Comment:


Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
"Tragically, a nation that was created by intellectuals and visionaries has now been completely taken over by venal corporate gangsters, delusional Christian fruitcakes and hopelessly shallow Texas shit-kickers." -Tom Robbins