Why does anyone care if Iran has nuclear bombs?

[a_unique_person]

On the specifics, yes. So what? Everyone disagreed on the nature of the threat, but I can't think of anyone who pooh-poohed the whole thing and dismissed any real chance of Saddam having such weapons.

And as usual, you've failed to back up your claim.

You know, AUP, you use hindsight the way a psychic claims to use ESP. That makes you a woo in my book.

Every claim that Powell made was discredited. The 'decontamination' units that were fire trucks. Before the war started. The impetus to war was set in concrete by mid 2002. The case for that war was still being manufactured.

Look at powells case. Evaluations that were ambiguous, 'dual use', were always taken as the worst possible use. If Iraq had complied with the no 'dual-use' demands, it would not have been able to function as an industrial nation.

 

[Jocko]

Every claim that Powell made was discredited. The 'decontamination' units that were fire trucks. Before the war started. The impetus to war was set in concrete by mid 2002. The case for that war was still being manufactured.

Again, you're discussing specifics instead of the best available conventional wisdom of the time. No one is arguing that the photos were at best misinterpreted, at worst deliberately mischaracterized. But that doesn't address the point, now does it? Can you supply that very simple evidence I requested or not?

Look at powells case. Evaluations that were ambiguous, 'dual use', were always taken as the worst possible use. If Iraq had complied with the no 'dual-use' demands, it would not have been able to function as an industrial nation.

No argument here. But considering the lack of solid inteligence due to deliberate obfuscation by Hussein, it would be irresponsible not to paint a worst case scenario, wouldn't it? Unless you're look at in hindsight, that is... any of this getting through?

Again, please provide one respectable, contemporanous intelligence report that claimed Hussein presented no threat, not even a potential threat. I am as eager as you are to stop beating this dead horse, but at least I realize it was still alive in 2003. Please back up your claim that it wasn't.

 

[Jocko]

US fundy radical hating, please.

...er, excluding who, again?

 

[Ed]

US fundy radical hating, please.

No, it is far broader than that. It was widely believed by both left and right that Iraq was a severe threat. Clinton, Gore, Kerry, they all said it, repeatedly.

 

[Jocko]

No, it is far broader than that. It was widely believed by both left and right that Iraq was a severe threat. Clinton, Gore, Kerry, they all said it, repeatedly.

Only because they are not blessed with AUP's special... er, gift. Oh, wait, I guess Kerry is, after all.

 

[a_unique_person]

No, it is far broader than that. It was widely believed by both left and right that Iraq was a severe threat. Clinton, Gore, Kerry, they all said it, repeatedly.

Anyone who didn't think Saddam was a homicidal maniac was naive. His ability to carry out that internationally was about nil, however. It was widely known his armed forces were a mere shadow of their former selves.

There is a difference between treating Saddam as a dangerous person, and acting irrationally to that perceived threat. Clinton never undertook risky escapades like the Iraq invasion.

 

[Jocko]

Anyone who didn't think Saddam was a homicidal maniac was naive. His ability to carry out that internationally was about nil, however. It was widely known his armed forces were a mere shadow of their former selves.

Funny, I thought this whole sidetrack was about how the UN did a crappy job of keeping tabs on him, and how EVERYONE in the world thought that he either had WMDs, might have WMDs, or had programs to produce WMDs.

Unless you can respond to my now thrice-stated request for evidence to the contrary.

There is a difference between treating Saddam as a dangerous person, and acting irrationally to that perceived threat. Clinton never undertook risky escapades like the Iraq invasion.

Which is a large part of the reason 12 years of sanctions produced no results, including reliable intelligence. Kind of like your 12 years of elementary schooling.

So how about it, AUP? Put up or shut up time. Who should we have listened to that could be believed?

 

[Kerberos]

Actually, I really can't think of any other reasons.

Sight! The very fact that he isn't a western leader makes what he says less interesting to the media and the population. Do you think that some Christians commiting genocide in Africa would get anywhere near the airtime that a western leader doing the same thing would?

The guy is the major nut in a theocracy. Why would he not be taken seriously?

And we all know that leaders of theocracies, unlike western leaders, never lie. I'm sure they find your trust touching, but it's hardly well placed. In case you haven't noticed anti-semitism is fairly widespread down there, the speech could easilly be for local consumption or to scare Israel. Talk is cheap, nuclear retaliation isn't.

As far as apeaking for other Iranians, it hardly matters if the relioious nuts control the Army, right?

Perhaps, but I think you're overestimating both their honesty and their nuttiness, when was the last time Iran did something that was likely to invite a hundred, or just a few, Israeli nukes in their head?

 

[a_unique_person]

Funny, I thought this whole sidetrack was about how the UN did a crappy job of keeping tabs on him, and how EVERYONE in the world thought that he either had WMDs, might have WMDs, or had programs to produce WMDs.

Unless you can respond to my now thrice-stated request for evidence to the contrary.



Which is a large part of the reason 12 years of sanctions produced no results, including reliable intelligence. Kind of like your 12 years of elementary schooling.

So how about it, AUP? Put up or shut up time. Who should we have listened to that could be believed?

Along with about 50 other countries. Why Saddam, and why now? It was known he was contained, he had allied jets flying over him with impunity. Blix, despite everyone's suspicions, including Blix himself, could find nothing.

The deliberate distortions and manipulations of the intelligence heads was quite clear. Tenet was a real 'can do' kind of guy, wasn't he? You want WMD, you got 'em. Only, the actual analysts doing the real intelligence work in the US and Australia and GB didn't agree with that. That didn't matter, because the assesments they had made were easily manipulated to read the way their masters wanted them to read. Then, as the link shows, there was an inquiry into how it all could have gone so wrong? Of course, the answer, in the US and Australia and Great Britain was the intelligence agencies were to blame. Unbelievable.

 

[Ed]

Along with about 50 other countries. Why Saddam, and why now? It was known he was contained, he had allied jets flying over him with impunity. Blix, despite everyone's suspicions, including Blix himself, could find nothing.

The deliberate distortions and manipulations of the intelligence heads was quite clear. Tenet was a real 'can do' kind of guy, wasn't he? You want WMD, you got 'em. Only, the actual analysts doing the real intelligence work in the US and Australia and GB didn't agree with that. That didn't matter, because the assesments they had made were easily manipulated to read the way their masters wanted them to read. Then, as the link shows, there was an inquiry into how it all could have gone so wrong? Of course, the answer, in the US and Australia and Great Britain was the intelligence agencies were to blame. Unbelievable.

I know that it is difficult for you to believe but we do not have a neo-cons self delusion here. As I said, widely feared by both sides.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source

 

[gnome]

I know that it is difficult for you to believe but we do not have a neo-cons self delusion here. As I said, widely feared by both sides.

Were Democrats equally behind the choice of timing to withdraw the inspectors and begin the invasion?

More to the point, I don't place the deception on Republicans in general. I place it squarely on the Bush administration which ignored intelligence that expressed doubt about the situation and exaggerated the certainty of the information they did have. Congress received this distorted information.

 

[Ed]

Originally posted by gnome
Were Democrats equally behind the choice of timing to withdraw the inspectors and begin the invasion?

My recollection is that Clinton told the inspectors to withdraw before bombing, ergo the Democrats, beyond being behind their withdrawl, precipitated it. Now, you were probably going to make a point about the Republicans predicated on this issue. Will you continue and direct it at the Democrats?

More to the point, I don't place the deception on Republicans in general. I place it squarely on the Bush administration which ignored intelligence that expressed doubt about the situation and exaggerated the certainty of the information they did have.

I agree completely. They wanted a war and they were going to get it, dammit. To give the benefit of the doubt to them, I suspect that they were very much afraid of erring on the side of the cautious since that could be catastrophic.

Congress received this distorted information

Sorry, they do not get a pass and GW does not get a ding on this one. They are as complicit (dems and repubs) as GW. Also, many of the shining lights of congress were convinced that Saddam did in fact have WMD's or at least had an agressive development program.

 

[Jocko]

Along with about 50 other countries. Why Saddam, and why now? It was known he was contained, he had allied jets flying over him with impunity. Blix, despite everyone's suspicions, including Blix himself, could find nothing.

The deliberate distortions and manipulations of the intelligence heads was quite clear. Tenet was a real 'can do' kind of guy, wasn't he? You want WMD, you got 'em. Only, the actual analysts doing the real intelligence work in the US and Australia and GB didn't agree with that. That didn't matter, because the assesments they had made were easily manipulated to read the way their masters wanted them to read. Then, as the link shows, there was an inquiry into how it all could have gone so wrong? Of course, the answer, in the US and Australia and Great Britain was the intelligence agencies were to blame. Unbelievable.

None of which addresses the point. Hindsight notwithstanding, can you identify one reliable intelligence source who claimed there was no threat, actual or potential?

This is the fourth time I've asked.

Please put up or shut up, and put down those goalposts before you herniate yourself. You've moved them far enough already.

 

[jay gw]

Can you cite any respected intelligence agency that stated at the time there were no weapons?

Who cares what bureaucrats in London or Washington said about WMDs??

The United Nations has had inspectors in Iraq for years. They said repeatedly, "There are no weapons here that we can see."

George W. Bush and Tony Blair decided to ignore the United Nations inspectors and trust their intelligence agencies. You know, the same CIA that never saw the fall of the Soviet Union coming, and failed to predict and identify anyone planning the biggest terrorist bombing in US history. Yes, that CIA. (Who can't find Osama Bin Laden to this day either).

Keep believing in the CIA/MI5/MOSSAD or whatever organization you want to believe in. Their record, especially the CIA, is absolutely awful. They're guilty of all kinds of crimes during the Cold War, something you want to ignore.

I just love Americans that put more faith in their government that they deserve. And mock the United Nations for "scandals" and such. Child's play compared to the US government's crap.

 

[Ziggurat]

The United Nations has had inspectors in Iraq for years. They said repeatedly, "There are no weapons here that we can see."

The IAEA had inspectors in Iraq BEFORE the first gulf war. And they said that there was no nuclear weapons program. Well, actually, if they had stated what you put in quotes, it would have been technically correct. The IAEA never saw Iraq's nuclear weapons program before the first gulf war. But it was there, and it was only a few years away from obtaining a weapon. And the IAEA never saw it coming. In fact, Hans Blix's own incompetent judgement allowed Iraq to pursue their crash program by leaving material inadequately secured. More recently, they also stated that Libya had no real nuclear weapons program. Well, turns out that was wrong too, as our interception of centrifuge equipment from AQ Khan's network on its way to Libya showed. In fact, the IAEA has NEVER discovered a clandestine nuclear weapons program through inspections. They're not the ones who found Saddam's unranium program in 1991, they remained oblivious to his crash program for FOUR YEARS of intensive inspections after 1991 until one of Saddam's sons-in-law defected and spilled the goods (and was subsequently assasinated for it). Yeah, the CIA's got lots of problems. But I wouldn't suggest using track records to try to argue that the IAEA was somehow more trustworthy. They've got quite a record of failures as well.

And here's something the UN inspectors NEVER said: "Saddam is fully complying with UN security council requirements." Why did they never say that? Because he never did.

 

[Jocko]

Who cares what bureaucrats in London or Washington said about WMDs??

The United Nations has had inspectors in Iraq for years. They said repeatedly, "There are no weapons here that we can see."

No, you ass, they said "We aren't being allowed to see jack ◊◊◊◊." That, and 12 years was only the beginning of the waiting game. Blix, et al., did not claim Iraq had disarmed. Didn't even suggest it.

George W. Bush and Tony Blair decided to ignore the United Nations inspectors and trust their intelligence agencies. You know, the same CIA that never saw the fall of the Soviet Union coming, and failed to predict and identify anyone planning the biggest terrorist bombing in US history. Yes, that CIA. (Who can't find Osama Bin Laden to this day either).

So if they were wrong, the UN inspections were toothless and worthless, WHO WAS RIGHT? That was my question, and that's the simple answer you and AUP continue to tap dance around without actually answering. It appears retroclairvoyance is contagious.

Keep believing in the CIA/MI5/MOSSAD or whatever organization you want to believe in. Their record, especially the CIA, is absolutely awful. They're guilty of all kinds of crimes during the Cold War, something you want to ignore.

I've never seen anyone derail their own posts as well as you. I'm truly impressed. Show me one intelligence agency that feeds orphans and widows on the weekends, and I'll concede what I presume is something resembling a sort of point.

I just love Americans that put more faith in their government that they deserve. And mock the United Nations for "scandals" and such. Child's play compared to the US government's crap.

And I just love sanctimounious pricks who seem to think their hindsight has any value whatsoever. Like I said before, it's no big trick to accurately predict the past.

Name the agency, or please stop non-responding to my posts. Thank you.

 

[demon]

As for "Iran`s nuclear threat”, I see the BBC, after numerous letters of complaint, have at least included the word "alleged" now.

Even though the word "alleged" can remain loaded with assumptions depending on tone I think their acceptance that the contention in their original broadcasts were a misrepresentation of known fact is a positive move. However, it does serve to highlight further errors in BBC and other newsgroups coverage of world events on TV, Radio and online. We had it last time with Iraq, let`s not have a repeat performance.

The case of Iran’s nuclear capability is one area where we would do well to exercise extreme caution since there is the challenge of filtering government doublespeak. If one is willing, as the BBC has appeared to be, to accept that the threat posed by Iran is indeed unproven at this point, then we are left with a question: Why is the BBC dealing with alleged fact?

It is not long ago since sincere letters were sent to the BBC requesting that alleged use of White Phosphorus (which the US military accepts) and Napalm be reported, but this was not deemed newsworthy exactly because it was “alleged”. (I know this as I was involved with others, in many exchanges with the BBC over this).

If the position of the Iranian threat as seen by the US is seen to carry sufficient weight to merit broadcasting as though it were proven, then claims of BBC impartiality go down in flames.

These leads nicely to another point on yet another area of the Middle East that suffers from a woefully partial interpretation by the BBC: Israel.

In reality (not alleged), they possess a huge nuclear arsenal and secret nuclear programs that have gone unpunished. Does international law state that Israel has rights that Iran does not? Also, they have an alleged war criminal in Sharon at the helm. Surely his actions in the Israeli/Lebanon conflict should preclude him from having bombs within his sphere of influence? The reality is that the existence of an Israeli nuclear threat exists and yet the BBC concentrates on the fact that Iran "might allegedly" be a threat.
It is an extraordinarily shortsighted way to look at the region and we need a more honest appraisal of the existing balance of power in the Middle East.

So, considering that "the alleged" Iranian threat is still newsworthy we should really be having some more sustained reports and stories about the alleged use of napalm and other war crimes by the "coalition", and while we are at it, the alleged figures telling us that over 100,000 civilians were killed during the allegedly illegal invasion of Iraq (actually, thats not alleged, it was illegal). Let`s not forget the alleged prime motive, theft and control of rescources and wealth too.
All these "alleged" matters might just be a little easier to prove one way or the other than the presence of alleged Iranian nukes and alleged Iranian threats.

 

[WildCat]

I think somebody really wants the United States military to attack every Arab country. If the public doesn't say "no" now, they won't get a chance to do it later.

Great googly-moogly! I've been offline for only a week (hard drive failure) and Arabs have taken over Iran? I wonder what else I've missed...

 

[Ziggurat]

Does international law state that Israel has rights that Iran does not?

Great Scott, you're a moron! This is not news, of course. But then neither is the fact that Israel (along with India and Pakistan, BTW) is not a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, but Iran is. Iran has obligations under this treaty that it is not living up to, Israel does not. Duh.

 

[Skeptic]

Strange. All of a sudden, the leftist attitude seems to change from "nukes are evil" and "ban the bomb" to "oh, who CARES if they have nukes?".

But I forget: nukes were evil and should be banned when the USA or the UK have them. When it comes to insane theocracies, the rules are different...