StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Day of the armchair warriors

Iraq Invasion: The Road to Folly
Ignorant of Iraq, void of strategic vision, and viewing the Mideast through the neoconservative prism, Bush steers America toward a quagmire.
by Eric S. Margolis

Maj. Gen. J.F.C. Fuller, Britain’s leading military thinker of the 20th century, wrote that the object of war is not victory, but peace. A war that fails to achieve clear political objectives is merely an exercise in violence and futility.

In its headlong rush to invade Iraq, the Bush administration is violating Fuller’s simple yet immensely important strategic dictum. Britain’s Prime Minister Anthony Eden committed the same grave error in 1956 when he launched an ill-conceived invasion of Egypt which, like modern Iraq, had the audacity to defy a great power. The Suez operation was a military success that turned into a political fiasco.

The Bush administration is clearly obsessed with Iraq, but it has no clear plan on what to do with this Mideast version of ex-Yugoslavia once America’s military might overthrows Saddam Hussein’s regime. Nor is there understanding of how invasion and occupation will affect the Fertile Crescent, America’s client Arab regimes, Turkey, indeed, the entire Mideast.

There is also the dearth of reliable political information on Iraq from human sources that has long plagued U.S. Mideast policy. Much of the Bush administration’s current view of the region has been fashioned by neoconservatives, who hold key policymaking positions in White House, Pentagon, and vice president’s office. Equally significant, the administration’s non-electronic human intelligence on the Mideast and terrorism relies heavily on self-serving data supplied by foreign intelligence services and Iraqi exile groups.

The ideologues and Pentagon hawks driving administration policy recall the Roman senator Cato, who ended every oration with, “Carthage must be destroyed!” Few of these armchair warriors have even been to Iraq; less have ever served in U.S. armed forces, yet all are eager to send American soldiers to fight a potentially bloody war whose benefits to the United States are doubtful.

Lust for destruction is not policy, no matter how much Pentagon hawks and neoconservative media trumpets may yearn to plow salt into the fields of Iraq. Nor is the piratical proposal that the U.S. “liberate” Iraq and plunder its great oil reserves to bring “civilization and democracy” to that benighted nation.

If Washington were truly concerned about democracy and human rights in the Arab World, it could long ago have promoted democracy in the military dictatorships and feudal sheikdoms over which the U.S. exercises paramount influence: Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf emirates. Instead, under the banner of a war on terrorism, the U.S. has been buttressing autocracy and despotism, most recently in Central Asia and Pakistan.

The first question, of course, is why should the U.S. attack and invade Iraq, a nation that has not committed any act of war against America? The rest of the world will rightly see such an act as naked aggression, a return to British and Soviet-style imperialism, and a personal vendetta by George Bush against Saddam Hussein.

According to President Bush, Iraq must be destroyed because Saddam Hussein might possess some hidden chemical or biological weapons (WMDs), or because Iraq might one day develop nuclear weapons, or might slip WMDs to anti-American terrorists, or simply because he is “evil.” The Bush administration’s insistence on the right to preemptively intervene anywhere on earth recalls the old Brezhnev Doctrine of Soviet days.

Why Iraq alone is a danger among the 18 nations that possess weapons of mass destruction – including India whose new ICBMs will be able to deliver nuclear weapons to the U.S. – remains a mystery. Why Saddam’s ravaged, hermetically bottled up Iraq would be more of a danger to the US than 1.5 billion Muslims enraged by America’s perceived persecution of Iraqis, Afghans, and Palestinians also remains unclear. Terrorists don’t need Iraq to concoct germ weapons, as Japan’s Aum Shinrikyo showed, and Saddam Hussein is too intelligent to invite nuclear attack by the United States or Israel by slipping germ weapons to terrorists. If Saddam had wanted to do so, he had ample opportunity from 1991-2001.

Equally unclear is why the U.S. refuses to seek diplomatic accommodation with Iraq rather than war. Saddam Hussein has repeatedly shown himself a wily survivor willing to deal with the devil, when necessary. The United States was a close ally, financial backer, and provider of arms and intelligence to Saddam in the 1980s. He is certainly not eager to face an American invasion that would bring his own demise, and would therefore welcome a diplomatic escape from the dire fate he faces.

Just before the 1991 Gulf War, this writer discovered a group of British scientific technicians in Baghdad who had been “seconded” to Iraq by the British Ministry of Defense and the Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, to help Baghdad develop biological weapons. The British technicians were based at the secret biowarfare complex at Salman Pak where they were developing anthrax, botulism and possibly Q-fever for Saddam’s military – with the full knowledge and support of the British and American governments. Other British scientists were developing poison gas for Iraq. They showed me documents confirming that the feeder stocks for Iraq’s germ weapons had been supplied by the United States.

In other words, it was fine for Iraq to shower poison gas – and potentially germs – on Muslim Iranians and Kurdish rebels during the Iran-Iraq War. But once Iraq invaded Kuwait, a protectorate inherited by the U.S. from the British Empire, and once Israel felt threatened by Saddam WMDs, then it was time to destroy Iraq. But Iraq did not use its WMD arsenal during Gulf War I, though U.S. troop concentrations at crowded Saudi ports would have made ideal targets.

No matter, answer administration critics, Saddam might have some gas or germ weapons hidden away. Yes, he might. But as former UN arms inspector Scott Ritter has observed, all leftover WMDs from the 1980s have a shelf-life of only 3-5 years and are no longer lethal. Iraq may have developed a few toxins since then, but it has no delivery systems for these complex, unstable, clumsy weapons. Britain, France, Israel, Syria, Egypt, Iran, Libya, India and Pakistan, Ukraine, Russia, Serbia, China, Taiwan – and Cuba – also have chemical weapons; some have biological weapons. Castro’s are only 90 miles from Miami.

Then, there is North Korea. Amidst cries for war against Iraq, it’s fascinating to consider Stalinist North Korea, a nation that, unlike Iraq, well and truly threatens Americans. The 37,000 U.S. troops in South Korea are within range of North Korea’s huge numbers of heavy guns, rocket batteries, and Scud missiles that can deliver tons of poison gas and biowarfare toxins. U.S. bases in South Korea, Japan, and Okinawa are prime targets for North Korean WMDs and attacks by its 100,000-man commando force, the world’s largest. North Korea has at least two nuclear devices and has repeatedly threatened to “burn” Seoul and “slaughter” American troops in South Korea. The North continues to work on an ICBM capable of reaching Japan and the U.S. mainland.

Surely on the scale of threats to Americans, aggressive, sinister and wholly unpredictable North Korea should demand more urgent attention than demolished Iraq? On the contrary, both the Clinton and Bush Administrations chose to negotiate with Pyongyang and bribe it to be good with $ 4.6 billion worth of light water nuclear reactors, oil, food, and cash. American aid feeds starving North Koreans while the US denies Iraq chlorine to purify its contaminated drinking water, the main cause of death for hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children.

Why indulge North Korea while scourging Iraq? First, oil. Iraq’s oil reserves are second only to those of Saudi Arabia. Considering that the Bush administration has embarked on a long-term campaign militarily to dominate and exploit the oil of Central Asia’s Caspian Basin, it is not a stretch of imagination to believe that control of the more proximate oil of Iraq is also high on the administration’s petro-agenda.

Second, Iraq, unlike North Korea, poses a potential threat to Israel’s regional hegemony and Mideast nuclear monopoly because of its oil wealth and – at least until 1991 – industrial base. For Administration hawks who view the Mideast mainly through the lens of Israel’s strategic needs, crushing Iraq is a high priority. A shattered Iraq, divided into Kurdish, Sunni, and Shia regions, would permanently terminate any future challenge to Israel.

Iraq’s northern oil fields could then be annexed by Israel’s new strategic ally, Turkey, which has no oil. Turkey’s generals have long eyed Iraq’s oil-rich Mosul and Kirkuk regions, once part of the Ottoman Empire. Oil would transform Turkey from a financial cripple into a major political and military power, and assure its role as America’s regional gendarme.

Overthrowing Saddam Hussein and splintering Iraq would certainly be beneficial for Israel, but there are a host of arguments to be made why such aggression would be inimical to America’s interests. First and foremost, the substantial loss of American lives, unless there is a surprise coup against Saddam, in what inevitably would be a conflict fought out in urban areas where U.S. firepower and technology would be attenuated.

During the 1973 war, the crack Israeli army was forced to withdraw from Suez City in the face of stubborn resistance from dug-in Egyptian troops and irregulars. Though U.S. forces could quickly defeat Iraq’s regular army in the field, there is a high risk of prolonged urban guerilla warfare and great numbers of civilian casualties.

If Saddam does have any active chemical or biological weapons hidden away, he might well use them against American troops concentrations in the Gulf, unlike 1991. A cornered Saddam facing death might fire a few Scud missiles with chemical warheads at Israel in a Mideast Gotterdammerung. Israel warns it will retaliate with nuclear weapons if Iraq attacks with WMDs.

Virtually the entire world is against an invasion of Iraq, save Israel and Britain, and Tony Blair’s Labour Party is deeply split over the issue. Waves of anti-Americanism would intensify across the Muslim world, jeopardizing American diplomats, businessmen, and tourists. The costs of an invasion of Iraq using at least 100,000 troops would begin at $75 billion and soar from there. Reserves will have to be mobilized.

This huge cost, born entirely by American taxpayers, would come just as the Bush administration has created a yawning deficit that will inevitably trigger rising inflation. The faux war in Afghanistan, where some 12,000 US troops are chasing shadows, is costing $5 billion each month. The U.S.-installed Karzai regime rules only Kabul, and that only with the bayonets of western troops.

But the most important practical reason not to attack Iraq comes from General Fuller. What will the US do with this Mideast Yugoslavia once it conquers Iraq?

Consider Iraq’s bloody history: Britain created Iraq after World War I to acquire its oil, and put a puppet king, Faisal I, on the throne. Iraqis and Kurds rebelled in 1920 and were crushed by British troops and bombers. Iraq’s second king, Gazi, vowed to “liberate” Kuwait and died mysteriously soon after, murdered, Iraqis say, by British intelligence.

Faisal II, another British puppet, was overthrown in a 1958 military coup by Col. Kassem. The Kurds rebelled again. Kassem massed troops in invade Kuwait but was stopped by British forces, then murdered in a military coup led by Col. Aref. Two years later, Saddam Hussein seized power. The Kurds rebelled once more, aided by the U.S., Israel, and Iran. In 1979, the U.S. and Britain armed and financed Saddam to invade Iran and overthrow its Islamic regime. In 1990, Washington gave Saddam what he took as a green light to invade Kuwait.

This chronically unstable “Pandora’s Box,” as Jordan’s King Abdullah calls it, is the nation the U.S. plans to rule. When Saddam falls, Iraq will almost certainly splinter. This is the very reason why Bush père wisely decided against marching on Baghdad in 1991. President Bush Sr. and his Arab allies concluded Iran would annex southern Iraq. The only leader who could hold the nation together was the iron-fisted Saddam. Interestingly, one night in 1942, Hitler observed, “The only person who knows how to deal with Russians is Stalin. When I take over Russia, I will put him back in power.”

A gelded, isolated Saddam is far less of a danger than a geopolitical maelstrom in Iraq that might force US troops to put down Kurdish rebels seeking their own state, or battle Shias, Iraq’s religious majority. War in Iraq may spark an anti-western revolution in Turkey or reignite the Kurdish uprising there. Will the Arab world explode, as Egypt warns?

What about Iran? The same rationale advanced by neoconservatives to invade Iraq also applies to Iran, a nation of 68 million, and a greater challenge to Israel than Iraq. Will the U.S. face a lengthy guerilla war in the cities of Iraq or the lush valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates, where the British were defeated by the Turks in 1916. The cost of permanently garrisoning Iraq will strain America’s already overstretched armed forces and make them less effective in responding to a genuine threat elsewhere, notably the Korean Peninsula.

The squabbling Iraqi opposition groups cultivated by the United States are sneered at even by their American paymasters, discredited because of their links to Israel, and most unlikely to form a stable regime. Whatever Iraqi general the US puts in power in Baghdad will, like all his predecessors, battle the rebellious Kurds, yearn to annex Kuwait, and inevitably seek nuclear weapons to counter Israel’s nuclear arsenal and Iran’s advantage in manpower. Iraq will be Iraq, no matter who rules. The best way to end the Mideast’s WMD arms race is to impose regional disarmament. This includes Israel, which continues to refuse nuclear arms inspection

However brutal and aggressive, Saddam Hussein has also been Iraq’s most effective ruler since 1957. It was Saddam who transformed Iraq into a modern, industrialized nation with one of the Arab world’s highest standards of education and income. Washington could yet rue the day it failed to keep this Arab Stalin in power.

America may seize and exploit Iraq’s oil in the short term, as neo-imperialists in Washington are urging, but in the long run, the cost of protecting oil installations and a puppet regime in Baghdad will exceed profits gained from pumping stolen oil. Bush is wrong if he thinks Iraq can be turned into another docile American protectorate, like Kuwait or Bahrain.

The Muslim world increasingly views George Bush’s America as set on a crusade against Muslims everywhere, a view reinforced by U.S. attacks on Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, and Afghanistan over past two decades.

There is simply no political benefit for the United States in invading Iraq.

On the contrary, such an act of brazen aggression would summon up a host of unforeseen dangers and unimagined consequences that could destabilize the Mideast and Turkey, create a world economic crisis, and, perhaps, cause the aggressive Bush Administration to commit an act of imperial overreach that permanently injures America’s geopolitical interests and, let us not forget, its moral integrity.

Ignorant of Iraq, void of strategic vision, and viewing the Mideast through the neoconservative prism, Bush steers America toward a quagmire.
by Eric S. Margolis

Maj. Gen. J.F.C. Fuller, Britain’s leading military thinker of the 20th century, wrote that the object of war is not victory, but peace. A war that fails to achieve clear political objectives is merely an exercise in violence and futility.

In its headlong rush to invade Iraq, the Bush administration is violating Fuller’s simple yet immensely important strategic dictum. Britain’s Prime Minister Anthony Eden committed the same grave error in 1956 when he launched an ill-conceived invasion of Egypt which, like modern Iraq, had the audacity to defy a great power. The Suez operation was a military success that turned into a political fiasco.

The Bush administration is clearly obsessed with Iraq, but it has no clear plan on what to do with this Mideast version of ex-Yugoslavia once America’s military might overthrows Saddam Hussein’s regime.

There is also the dearth of reliable political information on Iraq from human sources that has long plagued U.S. Mideast policy. Much of the Bush administration’s current view of the region has been fashioned by neoconservatives, who hold key policymaking positions in White House, Pentagon, and vice president’s office. Equally significant, the administration’s non-electronic human intelligence on the Mideast and terrorism relies heavily on self-serving data supplied by foreign intelligence services and Iraqi exile groups.

The ideologues and Pentagon hawks driving administration policy recall the Roman senator Cato, who ended every oration with, “Carthage must be destroyed!” Few of these armchair warriors have even been to Iraq; less have ever served in U.S. armed forces, yet all are eager to send American soldiers to fight a potentially bloody war whose benefits to the United States are doubtful.

Lust for destruction is not policy, no matter how much Pentagon hawks and neoconservative media trumpets may yearn to plow salt into the fields of Iraq. Nor is the piratical proposal that the U.S. “liberate” Iraq and plunder its great oil reserves to bring “civilization and democracy” to that benighted nation.

If Washington were truly concerned about democracy and human rights in the Arab World, it could long ago have promoted democracy in the military dictatorships and feudal sheikdoms over which the U.S. exercises paramount influence

The first question, of course, is why should the U.S. attack and invade Iraq, a nation that has not committed any act of war against America?

According to President Bush, Iraq must be destroyed because Saddam Hussein might possess some hidden chemical or biological weapons (WMDs), or because Iraq might one day develop nuclear weapons

Why Iraq alone is a danger among the 18 nations that possess weapons of mass destruction

Why Saddam’s ravaged, hermetically bottled up Iraq would be more of a danger to the US than 1.5 billion Muslims enraged by America’s perceived persecution of Iraqis, Afghans, and Palestinians also remains unclear.

Terrorists don’t need Iraq to concoct germ weapons, as Japan’s Aum Shinrikyo showed, and Saddam Hussein is too intelligent to invite nuclear attack by the United States or Israel by slipping germ weapons to terrorists. If Saddam had wanted to do so, he had ample opportunity from 1991-2001.

Equally unclear is why the U.S. refuses to seek diplomatic accommodation with Iraq rather than war. Saddam Hussein has repeatedly shown himself a wily survivor willing to deal with the devil, when necessary

Just before the 1991 Gulf War, this writer discovered a group of British scientific technicians in Baghdad who had been “seconded” to Iraq by the British Ministry of Defense and the Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, to help Baghdad develop biological weapons. The British technicians were based at the secret biowarfare complex at Salman Pak where they were developing anthrax, botulism and possibly Q-fever for Saddam’s military – with the full knowledge and support of the British and American governments. Other British scientists were developing poison gas for Iraq. They showed me documents confirming that the feeder stocks for Iraq’s germ weapons had been supplied by the United States.

But as former UN arms inspector Scott Ritter has observed

Surely on the scale of threats to Americans, aggressive, sinister and wholly unpredictable North Korea should demand more urgent attention than demolished Iraq?

It was Saddam who transformed Iraq into a modern, industrialized nation with one of the Arab world’s highest standards of education and income.

Doubtful? Well I guess Invading Germany was "Doubtful" as we could not be sure if we removed Hitler from Power and Ended his Nuclear Weapons Program(We did not know at the time but still) would have no positive effects?

This is the same man who openly deffied every single UN law and reslouting every applied to him and is fast devopling Nuclear Weapons that will make War with him Unwinable(As in Politcily unwinable not nessary militarly)

Dum de Dum, Guess he forgot he was building Nukes, Nope Nukes Don't Matter Dum de Dum, Oh and the Chemical Weapon attacks, guess they don't matter either dum de dum, Must allll be about Oil, Yep, Just oone cause its all about the Oil, Not about the Fact that he has murdered tens of thousands and is trying to devople weapons with range to reach the US ALONG with Bio and Nuclear Payloads to go with it....

An Attack aginst an Ally and support an Enemy is an Attack on the US. Such BS its not even funny

MIGHT? WE HAVE PHOTOS OF THOSE WEAPONS! We had the head of Iraq's Weapons Programs Defect! This reminds me of the Idea in the Middle East that 10,000 Jews stayed home on 9/11, Dennying evidance right in front of his face

As for his question, Which of those Countries has tested Weapons of Mass-Destruction on his own people?

Because India is not controled by the Muslim Popluace is it?

Ahh I see, He does not have the weapons but he does but he's to smart to give them to Terriorsts, Make up your mind
And second whos to say he did not? Simple timing could be all thats happening, Why inindate the Media when you can spoon feed them terrible acts

Nice Implication the US is the Devil there, Oh and Why seek Diplomatic accomindations? We have, WTF do you think we are doing with the UN right now you twait! Third we tried that before remeber 91? Not only did he break them he tripled his stockplies!

Ooooh Reallly? Any Reason for that? Any fucking evidance for it either? Why have I not heard this being yelled from the hights by CNN if this is acutaly true

The same one who said in 96 Confindantly that Saddam would have no Biological or Chemcial Weapons left by 97 and his Nuclear Weapons program was "gone beyond repair"

Who had over 5 Thousand people die to Stravation last year, I shudder to think of what the rest of the Arab world is if Iraq is leading it....

You think the moment Iraq acquires nuclear capability it'll somehow strike an American or Western city? That's patently absurd, and I'd like to know how having WMD automatically translates into immediately using them, and having a viable DELIVERY SYSTEM

War will be unwinnable with Saddam in possesion with nuclear weapons? Don't go to war then. The USA and USSR faced off for 50 years, you're telling me deterrence won't work on a tin-pot dictator like Saddam Hussein?

I'm sick and tired of hearing how 'insane' he is. He's not. He's a perfectly rational ruthless tinpot, nothing more.

he has NBC capability (biological and chemical being wiped out by 7 years of inspections, the ones that were missed being now useless because they only have a shelf life of 3-5 years)

b: he would use this capability against the US or a US ally. For 11 years Iraq has been effectively contained, and has mended fences with its neighbours, even Kuwait. Where is the evidence that all of a sudden Iraq is going to go to war, pray tell? I'm sick of hearing this bullshit that all of a sudden now he's some sort of super-threat, when his ass was kicked 11 years ago quite easily. 11 years ago, he had more weapons than he had now, did he use them? No. Why? BECAUSE HE'S NOT SUICIDAL.

Attack against what ally? 11 years ago? The war's over. Support of what enemy? Al-Quaeda? Get real. There is no evidence (admitted to by the fucking CIA!!!!) that Iraq has supported terror since the beginning of the 1990s, and the bullshit Mohammed Atta meeting an Iraqi agent in Prague was debunked months ago.

What photos? What weapons? This evidence has never been presented, nor has its presence been alluded to. What's more, this alleged head of the Iraqi weapons program has been thoroughly discredited- why do you think noone uses him? He's an embarassment.

The US in the 1950s-60s for one. Also, that Saddam 'gassed his own people' is a myth, made true by being repeated often.

Nothing but assumption. The point stands- he's had ample opportunity to use his alleged WMD for terrorist acts for a WHOLE 11 years, but hasn't. Also remember that many of his biological and chemical weapons have exceeded their service life.

Outright lie. Tripled his stockpile after 1991? What the fuck are you talking about?! Provide evidence for this (though I know you don't have any, and I'm sure Scott Ritter would love to hear how the Iraqi stockpile tripled while he was there busting his ass for 7 years).

Actually that the US and Britain aided Iraq's WMD programs throughout the 1980s is oft-reported in the media, including CNN.

And he has not been contradicted by any evidence whatsoever. But I guess he doesn't know what he's talking about when he discusses Iraqi capacity to produce WMD ... after all he was only over there for 7 years busting his ass.

Due to UN sanctions that other countries repeatedly call for to be dropped but which the US remains in place.

Mr Bean wrote: Straw-man:Did I SAY they would use them the instant they got them? Hardly the base fact is one Nuclear Weapons are attented ATTACKING THEM becomes Politicly unviable and because they can not be attacked they are free to devople newer and larger weapons so one day London or some-where else might suffer a Nuclear Attack because of a weapon "stolen" from Saddam's Arsonal

Deterrence worked only because the other side had somthing to loose, You critsie me for comparing WII to today then Compare the COLD WAR to Today?
Your Hypcrosay is astonding, Oh and do you seriously think that we would be allowed or even would cleans Iraq with Nuclear Fire if say a 50KT bomb went off in Chicago?

Did I nessarly say he would use them? He does not have to, as its been pointed out he's know to Harbor Terriorsts ranging from Al-Quadi to the French group who's name slips my mind ATM , he can pretty safley toss weapons to them and have them use them elsewhere while he is realtivly secure as after all they where "stolen" oh and BTW in-case your not keeping up on the times, Saddam is getting on in years and seems to becoming more and more religious.... More Fundmentlist that is

Burden of Proof Fallicy tied up with impossible Request. You clamin 3-5 Years while citing one former Nuclear Weapons inspector never mind providing viablity reports or how exaclty Sarion Gas can "degrade in leathlity" to begin with then ask me to fucking break the law, The Evidance is out there in what Bush has handed out already, I Could provided you with Snap-shots and Survillence Photos but you know what?
Giving that stuff to somone not cleared for it would be.... hmmm ahh I know ESPIONAGE AND TREASON and they SHOT PEOPLE FOR THAT

I'm scating far to close to the edge as it is right now even acknoledging that we have the Photos and information

1. He's been quote in the past numerious times as wanting to destroy Isreal and his stated goal was its destruction(Along with most of the ME who wants Isreal dead too)
2. Effectly Contained? He managed to rebuild most of his Army and get to the same point he was BEFORE the War and is within a year of having viable Nuclear Weapons
3.Iraq does not have to go to War, It can do any number of things from handing weapons off Terroists to having them "stolen" and wind up exploding elsewhere, As for why he was beat so easily 11 years ago, Very simple, He did not expect the US to retalitate and he did not have Nukes yet to make attacking him quite costly so he turned turtle, Stashed his supplies and played the I'm so sorry game while rebuilding his capabilites

Bullshit, who said the CIA never had any Evidance? We know of a minium of four High up Al-Quadi Memebers in Iraq, We know he provided Materla Support since the fucking 1980s and thats PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE!

Agian see above about how I'm staking to close as it is, Second where was he Discreidited Who where what? Provided some Sources

Guess all the pretty pictures on CNN are fake right? Or wait your saying the Kurds where not his people, what they where just staying for the Week-end?

Agian you have yet to provided any evidance for the Bio and Chem exceeding thier service life, second thats because he did not have Nukes, Bio and Chem attacks are great aginst the Populas of other Countries but not aginst the Soilders knocking on your Door

Scott Ritter is a fucking Joke! Stop the Worship of that idiot! The evidance was distrputed of the number of Chemical weapons currently aviable to Iraq, and you seem to take everything he says on face-value but question absoutly everything everyone else says

You simply repeated what he said without fucking backing it up, And frankly CNN is on 18 hours a-day around here and I've never seen it reported

More Scott Ritter Worship without even knowing anything about the guy

France since 95 has been trading Oil with Iraq under the Table, They do it openly now
Every fucking Heard of Oil for Food?
How much of that Money acutal goes to the Citizins?
What next Vympril? Are your going to be Screaming DEATH TO AMERICAN sometimes later on

That Iraq will use such weapons against the West and the US is implicit in the case for the war on Iraq

Explain your reasoning for why Saddam has nothing to lose by using WMD on the US, and also, since Iraq is not the USSR, why he would be less deterred than the USSR, rather than more, considering that the USSR actually had the ability to destroy the US and NATO?

Where's the evidence that Saddam is a religious fundamentalist? His Baa'th party is secular, and Osama Bin Laden for one hates his guts.

As for Al-Quaeda in Iraq- it has been repeatedly asserted by the Bush administration but nothing has been proven- this much was admitted by the CIA more than a month ago.

What has Bush handed out already? I'll tell you: nothing. And also, what the hell are you talking about since when do you know anything about photos and information? Are you some sort of intelligence officer

1: religious rhetoric

2: rebuild his army? Assertion without evidence. He hasn't taken a weapons delivery in 11 years.

3: And why would it do any of these things? What does Saddam stand to gain?

As for the CIA on Iraq: here's your evidence

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 76,00.html
http://www.sundayherald.com/28384
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... 186933.DTL

Happy?

There is no evidence (admitted to by the fucking CIA!!!!) that Iraq has supported terror since the beginning of the 1990s

Read the URL I posted please.

Jeez how ridiculous. I'm supposed to provide evidence for something a UN weapons inspector should know about?!

When Ritter resigned in 1998, calling the inspection program a sham, he testified in Congress:

"Iraq is not disarmed. Iraq still poses a real and meaningful threat to its neighbors."

Iraq could completely resurrect its weapons of mass destruction programs "within a period of six months," he told a Senate committee that year. As for Saddam, Ritter said he "remains an ugly threat to his neighbors and to world peace."

That leaves us to consider ulterior motives. One popular theory, recently advanced by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard, holds that Ritter has essentially been bought off. By his own admission, Ritter accepted $400,000 in funding two years ago from an Iraqi-American businessman named Shakir al-Khafaji. Ritter used the money to visit Baghdad and film a documentary purporting to tell the true story of the weapons inspections (which in his telling were corrupted by sinister American manipulation). As Hayes has reported, al-Khafaji is openly sympathetic to Saddam and regularly sponsors anti-American conferences in Baghdad. Al-Khafaji seems to have gotten his money's worth: The documentary was so anti-U.S., says one of Ritter's former U.N. colleagues, that Iraqi officials were passing out copies of it on CD-ROM at a recent international conference.

Fine then, live in your fantasy world where the US and Britain didn't support Iraqi WMD development in the 1980s. How much evidence should I provide?

Why should I doubt his credibility? Is he a liar? Why don't you provide reasons as to why he's not credible?

Also, FUCK YOU, what fucking right do you have to say that I'll be screaming "death to america" simply because I disagree on Iraq?

Mr Bean wrote:Ok back sorry for the delay(Well at least by my 24/7 standereds) but if you remeber eariler mention the relative whos car was broken into in Memphis, well I was off giving them a ride back from the Dealership(1 Door+Window and fittings understanbly is not a typical or easy to instal part)


Anyway back to the subject at hand

Its never been though for a moment Saddam was going to have a Missle anytime soon with enough power to hit the US and admitly he is to high profile to do somthing as Mail it

Saddam is getting on in the years and he's getting more Religious if five ten years from now he's facing death from Cancer in a few months and the Clerics are telling him that he's going to be burning for all his crimes unless he does somthing to make it up... What do you think will happen?

The USSR was more indimated for two reason, 1. Thier Mostly Atheists, You die you Die to bad, 2. That had so much more to loose, 3. The very nature of the USSR, they did not have a Single man who could say Nuke the USA one hour from now and no one could tell him no, Now the US Presidant can do that but then he is elected and still has to be authorised when in peace-time. Now if Saddam in a fit of rage decides to blow somthing up, no-body can tell him no, remeber that, he picks people who will follow him 100% and is know to kill those that tell him no.
Now can you see Saddam fearing death and damination might want to strike one last blow to kill a bunch of infidels in his last moments of life, Are we going to Nuke Iraq? What he hops a transport and goes to Mecca while the Bombs are going off, Will Nuke SA just to get him?

Here is where the diffrence lies, Its one thing to know its another thing to be able to SAFLEY prove

If we had say Saddam's Grand-Son on our pay role and he sees evidance of a Secret Plan to attack saay Mexcio via giant ballons(I'm being rediculius for a reason) we can safly say Gee I hope Saddam's not going to invade anyone, However if we say, Gee I hope they are not going to attack Mexico would be iffy and certinaly mentioning the Giant Ballons would get Saddam to look and see who saw that plan and endanger our source

There is what is know and what can be proven, Would you like Confiormation of his Nuclear Weapons Program which results in the Deaths of half a dozen of American agents in Iraq?

Earily you demand evidance of Religious Fundism and claimed he was backed by Secluar people, which exact point would you trying to refute there? Is he a religious Nut-job so don't take anything he says serious? Or is he not religious but still lieing, Or as you said eariler is he a cold rational invidual who happen to be lieing in this case? What exactly DO you think Saddam is?

2: rebuild his army? Assertion without evidence. He hasn't taken a weapons delivery in 11 years.

Are you seriously telling me that Saddam has the same or more Military Hardware today then he did in 91 in some Catogrys and he never taken a weapons delivery in 11 years?
What did his cousin sign for all of it?

Domince in the Middle East, with Nuclear Weapons to back him up he can extent an extreme amount of pressure on any of the other OPEC Countries(What? No rasing the Price? How about if I NUKE YA, HA!)
His ultimate goal will has and always will be control of the Middle East and going to ground and playing the I'm so sorry game for a few years is a set-back sure but at least he's still in power and it just pushs things back a few years

Not at all I asked for Evidance that your asseration that the CIA had said that Al-Quadi and Other Terrirost Groups had no ties to Iraq, instead you give me three stroies about the Director of the CIA saying that Saddam's not likley to use WMD unless attack, While a nice evidance if present as such for NOT attacking Iraq it does not answear my orgional request unless you can provided

How either of those two sites without citing any sources(Aside from "Russia Photo graphs never publicly realsed")

Its called not taking things at Face Value, Lets dig back ok?

...

So we have a few news storys(I left some out if your not conviced I have more)
That Ritter not only took money from a Pro-Saddam person but is contradicting himself in 98 when he said the Inspectros where a joke and Saddam could have everything up and running agian in 6 months
And when did he kick inspectors out? What 2? 3 Years now?

And when did he kick inspectors out? What 2? 3 Years now?

Not because you disagreing but because what your saying is the Ralling Cry OF this idiots screaming Death to American that despite the fact that Saddam's Military has been rebuild along with many other Military things his people still starve

Do you have any numbers on how much it takes to feed a country? Do you know how little it takes to keep people from Starving to death?

While the Oil for Food Program was running all the new things that Saddam built inculding enlarging most of those Palacies(If I remeber corretly don't quote me on this but during that time he went from 5 SM of those Palaces to todays 12 SM)

I'll admit some of the things blocked where dumb some because they can be used as weapons(Clothrine for one) but to lay responsiblity entirly on the UN and the USA when if he acutal care about the people all those Billions over the year he aquire in under the table deals with France(And China apprently according to yesterday Power-Lunch on CNBC) if he wanted to keep his people feed he could have, I ask you how where the people before 91? Before the Sanctions where put in place? Where they are better off?

Your whole aurgment rests on a few things, One is Scott Ritters Crebility which as I've provided is in question, two is bone-head moves by the US when it comes to Sanctions(Which I'll Conceeded) and third is Ritters assert that Saddam does not have any WMD though he could have also according to him Rebuilt it in under six months and Saddam's had over 2 years

So where exaclty do Ritters Loyalties lay?

And I have provided sources saying that it is the CIA's opinion that Saddam will not use his alleged WMD unless backed into a corner.

Evidence for saying that Saddam is getting increasingly religious? And also is it not a leap of logic to say that he is getting increasingly religious and then to say he'll atone for his 'crimes' by blowing up Israel?

I don't trust the US government. E.g: Gulf of Tonkin, or the babies in incubators, or the Patriots shooting down Scuds, or the 100,000 dead in Kosovo, etc.

As for the death of American agents in Iraq, how exactly would concrete confirmation of the current claims without evidence guarantee their deaths?

But a comprehensive British government report, based on its own intelligence agency findings, noted that most estimates were based on guesswork" from one of the links.

Denouncing Israel and supporting the Palestinians is par for the course throughout the Middle East.

Provide evidence for major arms deliveries: new tanks, new planes, new artillery, new anything? Nope. No major arms deliveries. Spare parts and ammunition are entirely different- for one thing Iraq manufactures its own ammunition for tanks at least (and I presume small arms and artillery), and spare parts can be easily gotten from under the table means.

Most of the Iraqi air force fled to Iran, or was destroyed on the ground. Many Iraqi aircraft are in Serbia, where they were sent for refit but never returned because of sanctions. Hardly a REBUILT force.

I thought you said he wanted to use WMD to atone for sins because he's getting religious? Saying that he'll threaten nuclear war over oil prices is just silly.

Most terrorism experts agree, however, that links between Hussein's government and al Qaeda are murky at best. Until late summer, most administration officials -- and CIA and FBI investigators -- said that despite allegations of links between Mohamed Atta, the main planner of the terrorist attacks, and an Iraqi intelligence agent, there was no evidence of ties. They also noted that Osama bin Laden has long been hostile to the decidely secular Hussein."

Oh I see, we have the analysis of Soviet satellite photos that you haven't personally seen on one hand, and on the other hand we have the contention without ANY proof of a massive Iraqi troop buildup. I guess I'll go with the US no proof at all side (and refusal to release it)-

Second source: ah the Weekly Standard ... $400,000 to make a documentary- he's been bought off! His documentary was critical of American policy: it's anti-american and must be lies!!!

They've been smearing Ritter for months; calling him crazy, saying he's been bought off, calling him a quisling, someone said he had drunk "Saddam's Kool-Aid" (even though Ritter hates Saddams guts) while others have called him a coward. They've never actually explained while he's wrong, they've just gone off to ad hominem city.

Richard Butler ORDERED inspectors out of Iraq WITHOUT UN security council approval back in 1998. Scott Ritter calls for the return of weapons inspectors- but also contends that Iraq does not pose a threat because they uncovered no evidence of nuclear weapons, no viable delivery system,

And his biological and chemical weapons have exceeded their service life (which probably has something to do with the shells they're kept in I don't know. If you can contradict this, please do).

Not quite your using one mans opionin that Saddam WILL use WMD if backed into a Corner(Admittly he is the CIA Director but he is still one man) however as the classic saying goes, no one can read another's mind perfectly and in this case its a good example, why forsake his people and increase his chances of uprising by Starving them so he can divert money to building new Houses and running his WMD program


People just don't Build WMD for Fun, they do it for a reason.

Time Novemeber 27(Or 24 I'll find out later) Page 26 a Story which contains quite a few relivations about Saddam's increasing faith with age, Second his name I do not have it at the moment saying the way to Salvation for Saddam is in his striking a blow at Isreal, Third the stated Goal of half the Imans over there is the destruction of Isreal, what are the chances he ends up with a few of those telling him the only way to avoid fire and burning is to give some of his own?

Two of those where Media ideas, the second was pure proganda(Patriots) and the last, come on... its CLINTON where talking about (The man with over 1Million in unreported gifts and 2Mil in "reported" gifts plus another 100k in acutal reported gifts)

WTF? Concrete Confirmation without Evidance? What the heck is that supposed to mean?
I though you found the current Confirmations bad because they Lacked Evidance? What are you trying to say there?

Simply becuase MI6 is based in Europe, Eursia and Russia, tradtionaly few Europeans have had success down in the ME.

So is attacking Isreal, Heck excluding a few I can name around six that have directly or indirectly attacked Isreal

Excuse me but China Rarly reports Devilvery figures in public and as for Small Arms most are belived to been obtained from France(Who sells anything to anyone) or some of the shadder African countries who have more guns than they need

Fled to Iran? Where did you get that little Gem?(Just cursios on that one)
Second if its not a rebuild force then why do we still see similar numbers of tanks every hour via sattlite pass, As these mearly Decoys? Decoys that people get in and out of them, that can fire banks while they have hidden C-4 Charges on the target?
And as for asking for the photos unfourtiunaitly I can not provided any-more than what has been provided publicly, However there are quite a few good shots aviable in the varison covarages, hmm I belive Newsweek and Time both Covered Saddam's Military Strenght at the same time, plus there are some slightly older ones avaible on www.fas.org

No there can be any number of reasons, I never said he might use WMD just for fun or anything but pray tell what will it be like for the American Economey when the gas price jumps to 2.40$ thanks to Saddam?

You still have yet to provided a rational explination as to why he would even attempt WMD to being with, Chemical and Biological Weapons are mostly uselss on Todays Army yet he spent quite a bit in 91 you would agree devopling and building them?

Why does one build WMD except to use them? Biological and Chemical can not be used as detterance espcilly aginst a Devopled Country. Hell you can go out and buy a full-body chem suit right now if you wanted as a private citizin

Who are most? Who are these people? With quotetions or support its mearly an appel to authority and popluatiry fallacy

You contend that without seeing any of these Photographs that your willing to belive them but because Bush does not name them American photo-graphs and no your not allowed to see them you won't belive him?

Not quite, When Funding comes from a Supporter of Saddam and he's invited over there it casts douht

And he's never explained why he's right, He contradicts himself and right-so people mock him
Sure some of them are simply Ad-Homeaning him(After all what does cable TV media do now-adays except Jerry-Springer esk opposites attack each other and pray for good ratings over it)

But he still has yet to explain his stance that Saddam could quickyl re-build his Arsonal once the inspector was gone, The fact he said "We got everything" though there where TWEVLE SQUARE MILES of "Palalces" he never got to vist and now says that there is no way Saddam can have any WMD today....

How about the 12SM of buildings(7 of which are underground) he was never allowed to Vist? Know another place where Inspectors where? North Korea since 94!

Frankly acutal I have found quite abit from fas.org in declassifed CIA memorandom and whatnot

Yes people build WMD for a reason, and that reason has most often been deterrence.

Yes; but so much crap comes out when a war is on the horizon a skeptical eye is required- evidence for the public is absolutely necessary. but look at Rumsfeld getting up and denying that deliveries of biological agents to Iraq ever took place!

Typo. Just remove the without evidence part.

They have more of a chance than an American intelligence officer; seeing how much people loathe America over there. The point is that America hasn't had much success either.

Yes- but the history behind those attacks is not as clear cut as the Arabs tried to destroy Israel. Saddam's SS-1 Scud attacks on Israel in 1991, for example, were an attempt to provoke Israel into attacking Iraq, and thereby make the rest of the Middle East jump in on Iraq's side- helping it in Desert Storm.

What is China going to deliver to Iraq? US intelligence capabilities would easily spot the delivery of say; highly unimpressive Chinese tanks and planes to Iraq- and seeing how this is a violation of UN sanctions, the US could easily embarass China with it.

Also, both the USA and USSR also had significant chemical and biolgoical warfare programs. They can be useful in a conventional war.

Bush also referred to recent intelligence reports that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb making and chemical warfare. But he held back from a direct statement that Hussein is helping bin Laden's terrorists, saying only that they "share a common enemy" -- the United States. After the speech, administration officials cautioned reporters against drawing tight links between Iraq and al Qaeda."

1: Bush '41 administration refuses to release satellite photos of alleged massive Iraqi troop buildup

Why should I assume that the person who wrote 2 is lying? Would it not be extremely easy to call such a person out on this claim if it weren't true?

No, he's an Iraq-American businessman. As in he lives in America. Having an Iraqi background means at most he's concerned about the fate of Iraq, not that he supports Saddam.

Please provide better evidence of a contradiction. The only thing you provided was two EXTREMELY small snippets in "" marks. I've provided two interviews with Ritter, those lay out his position in his own words.

Well there you have it the DIA and CIA have different opinions, and Iraq *may* still have some binary nerve agents at its disposal. Are possible nerve agents a reason to go to war? Who do these pose a threat to? How will these be delivered? What will be the objective in using them?

Mr Bean wrote: Except! One can not deter with Chemical and Biolgical Weapons, WMD attack aginst a Civilian population is a terriost act pure and simple, you can kill thier people but you can't kill thier army, The whole POINT of Detterance is if one side can fuck over your Means of Defenese Six ways from Sunday and they can't do anything about, Thats simply not true with Chemical and Biological weapons, He simply can't deter anyone with those things so what other purpose could he have with them?

I can pass for German, Arabic or Hispanic if I wanted, There are quite a few people just like me in the US, The US tradtionaly has a ton of people to draw on for all sorts of operations and intellgence, Native Farsi speakers simply don't see England as number 1 on thier places to move yet we have quite of few of those Aviable in American

Of course weither or not they are trust worth and working for the CIA is another matter but tradtionaly we have a much better base to build on for Forign ops then England

And the Human Rights Viloates and the oppresion of thier people is not enough?
Hell China and Russia are selling everything to everyone

India resently got a Shipment of T-90s from Russia
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land ... 0-app1.htm which where to counter the T-85s sent by China Pruportiled

Terroirsts today still use AK-47s and 74s but thier now showing up more and more as the Chineese version. China can pretty much do what it wants without worrying about *embarsement as they control thier own Media and now have so many filters on the Internet is quite impossible for most people to find out what the goverment does not want them to

Face it they could use the Oil and the Money

They can be but only in suprised attacks, and to degrade troop preformance(Face it ever worn a NCB suit? It makes everything from loading up Trucks to shoot a gun much more diffuclt for the avarage trooper)

I won't dissagree with the first half but the second is quite evidant to be political ass covering as every adminstration does every day of every year

If one had the Photo-graphs yes if they where aviable yes, however if we only hear "Two experts where suprised" and never see the pictues for ourself its hard to verfiy, However I ask where the two experts named or mearly written as "two experts"

http://slate.msn.com/?id=2071502
This story was specficly ABOUT Ritter's possible Contradticion, I suggest you read it

Not its a contradiction of Ritter agian who says they have quote "None nothing we destroyed it all before we left"

I pointed out in my previous post that these weapons were developed long before the US and Iraq were on bad terms, and that they were used in the war against Iran. They can, and were,used conventionally.

Yet the American government has released no dossier as the British government has: not even a single claim that "intelligence from Iraq has demonstrated Iraq has yielded evidence that Iraq has nuclear weapons" for example. They've said nothing.

Yes that's true. They are a viable conventional weapon.

Yes, they're covering their ass because they don't want to be proven wrong if there is no link. So they're not sure.

Didn't you read the article? One is named and the other isn't because he's former DIA.

Yes, and they only quote him with like three or four words at a time. That can mean anything, and makes me suspicious that they've taken him out of context. "Within six months" as a quote doesn't prove anything.

To deal with Saddam I'd prefer that the West contain him until he's dead

6: An attack on Iraq will inflame fundamentalist Islamic terrorists and the populations of surrounding Middle Eastern countries and provide fresh recruits for terror attacks on the US