We are right!

[zara]

It has been off the media in all but the most dedicated journalists. No one wants people digging up biochems that would take months of dedicated work to get rid of but it has been found and properly disposed of.

The nuclear weapons program has been found and reported to the US Congress. People and the News Media ignored it.

Have you got any links on this? I would have thought that Tony Blair might have brought that up as a defence for the damning verdict he recieved in the Chilcott report..
I just find it hard to beleive that if evidence of this was found it would pass under the radar. It would surely be massive news!


The Iraq Survey group found the following:

- Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.

- While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter.

-In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW [biological warfare] weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes.


Is that what your referring to? the 'old abandoned chemical munitions'?

[Officer of Engineers]

Have you got any links on this? I would have thought that Tony Blair might have brought that up as a defence for the damning verdict he recieved in the Chilcott report..
I just find it hard to beleive that if evidence of this was found it would pass under the radar. It would surely be massive news!


The Iraq Survey group found the following:

- Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.

- While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter.

-In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW [biological warfare] weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes.


Is that what your referring to? the 'old abandoned chemical munitions'?

I loved how they word this. It was a small number by strategic sense but it was an entire battery's worth of munitions. It was buried, not destroyed, meaning to hide them.

Iraq destroyed nothing. They froze things in place. All the nuclear research was buried, not destroyed as required by the UNSC. The same thing with the chemical munitions.

Iraq was never that advance with bio weapons. They're hard to weaponize. Instead, they were a chemical weapons developer and the facilities to make those remained in place, even today. If you can make pesticides, you can make chemical weapons.

[Officer of Engineers]

This is the part I have trouble grasping. Saddam was undoubtedly a scumbag that ruled with an iron fist, caused trouble with his neighbors, and slaughtered Iraqi separatists. If you wanted him removed on those accounts based on humanitarian concerned or interference with American interests I would understand it.

What I don't see is how he posed a credible threat to CONUS. His biological and chemical programs are hardly unique, and our hit list would be long indeed if that was our criteria for invasion. The Israelis nipped his nuclear program in the bud, and while he maintained people with some technical knowledge, he never even managed to test a bomb that I'm aware of, and he had no ICBMs with which to deliver a warhead anyway.

I'm not really seeing the will and intent either. He was aggressive towards Iran after the Islamic revolution threatened his secular regime, and Kuwait after they undermined his plan to boost oil prices via OPEC. As far as I can tell, his interest in procuring WMD post Gulf War 1 was an attempt bolster his defenses to avoid a repeat, Saddam's ability to project any power to actually threaten the West was laughable.

The guy was a genocidal ass, and I would have lost zero sleep over having him "removed" from power by more surgical means. His ability and intent to harm the US is exactly what I continue to doubt however.

Again 11 September gave him the hints he needed. Forget ICBMs. An oil freighter in the middle of New York Harbour with pallets of mustard gas. Hell, how about opening the pumps on an oil freighter in New York Harbour and setting it ablaze?

As for intent, I think his attempt to kill Bush Sr demonstrated his mindset extremely well.

[astralis]

but that still does not differentiate between Saddam and the Kims. the Kims have an even stronger track record of doing insane things (see the various murders along the DMZ, USS Pueblo).

moreover, all the stuff you mentioned can be done without a state actor; ISIS certainly doesn't lack for creativity along those lines.

it's certainly true that Saddam was trying to wiggle his way out of sanctions but it was clear from the post-war intelligence that as of 2003 he hadn't done a very good job of it, and indeed had an over-inflated sense of what he had. bottom-line, he posed a threat but nothing that could be characterized as an "imminent threat" and the "most dangerous threat of our time".

[Officer of Engineers]

but that still does not differentiate between Saddam and the Kims. the Kims have an even stronger track record of doing insane things (see the various murders along the DMZ, USS Pueblo).

moreover, all the stuff you mentioned can be done without a state actor; ISIS certainly doesn't lack for creativity along those lines.

None except Saddam signed on the dotted line and then proceeded to try to kill the man who forced him to sign on the dotted line.

it's certainly true that Saddam was trying to wiggle his way out of sanctions but it was clear from the post-war intelligence that as of 2003 he hadn't done a very good job of it, and indeed had an over-inflated sense of what he had. bottom-line, he posed a threat but nothing that could be characterized as an "imminent threat" and the "most dangerous threat of our time".

Because we didn't give him a chance and it would have been extremely idiotic to have given him that chance.

[SteveDaPirate]

Again 11 September gave him the hints he needed. Forget ICBMs. An oil freighter in the middle of New York Harbour with pallets of mustard gas. Hell, how about opening the pumps on an oil freighter in New York Harbour and setting it ablaze?

As for intent, I think his attempt to kill Bush Sr demonstrated his mindset extremely well.

In Kuwait...the guy couldn't pull off a car bombing 50 miles from his border. We settled the score for that nonsense via cruise missile shortly afterwards.

The kind of shenanigans you are describing with a freighter in a US harbor could be pulled off by literally any country or even moderately successful company in the world that was feeling upset with us. It hardly justifies the expenditure of more American lives and treasure than 9/11 cost us, just to remove a tin-pot dictator.

Saddam was fairly consistent in acting against recent threats to his regime that were within his reach if not his grasp. His attacks on Iran followed threats to his secular rule after the Islamic revolution, attacking Kuwait followed their undermining of his economy, and the attempt on Bush followed Gulf War 1 when Bush was within spitting distance.

[Officer of Engineers]

In Kuwait...the guy couldn't pull off a car bombing 50 miles from his border. We settled the score for that nonsense via cruise missile shortly afterwards.

The kind of shenanigans you are describing with a freighter in a US harbor could be pulled off by literally any country or even moderately successful company in the world that was feeling upset with us. It hardly justifies the expenditure of more American lives and treasure than 9/11 cost us, just to remove a tin-pot dictator.

Saddam was fairly consistent in acting against recent threats to his regime that were within his reach if not his grasp. His attacks on Iran followed threats to his secular rule following the Islamic revolution, attacking Kuwait followed their undermining of his economy, and the attempt on Bush followed Gulf War 1 when Bush was within spitting distance.

You missed the part that he had a ready made scapegoat.

[SteveDaPirate]

You missed the part that he had a ready made scapegoat.

Of course he did, he was in no position to act openly.

An angry dog may bite you if you stick your fingers through the fence. That doesn't mean it's a threat outside it's yard, and it doesn't mean you suddenly need to jump the fence to put it down.

[Officer of Engineers]

Of course he did, he was in no position to act openly.

An angry dog may bite you if you stick your fingers through the fence. That doesn't mean it's a threat outside it's yard, and it doesn't mean you suddenly need to jump the fence to put it down.

He's already went outside his fence. Kuwait. And he tried to bust through the fence when he thought the US wasn't looking. The US also fought a 10 year Air War that didn't kept him from doing stupid things like massing for a 2nd attempt at Kuwait and trying to kill Bush Sr. 11 Sept showed him how he could reach the US.

[Red Team]

IMO the most damning cost of OIF was the sheer waste of political capital expended on getting the American people on board.

Today, we have a Syrian civil war where one of the parties is not only openly using chemical weapons, but is also enjoying the support of a resurgent Russia that has taken the opportunity to assert itself in the wake of a United States that is tired of war. Frankly, the justifications we made for putting boots on the ground in Iraq in 2003 are much more applicable for going into Syria in 2014.

Colonel, I just don't see it. A trillion dollars, the blood of hundreds of thousands of servicemen and women, an electorate fed up with war, a further increase of Western resentment in the ME; and all we have to show for it is one less scumbag dictator in a continent filled with scumbag dictators.

[SteveDaPirate]

In addition to the direct cost in lives and treasure, there are the strategic costs of the Iraq war to consider as well. The hundreds of billions that got poured into the sand pit would be pretty darn nice to have as additional F-22s, SSNs, etc. over in the Pacific about now.

There is also the strategic distraction that took away from efforts that should have been directed to either bringing the Russians into the fold or shutting them down, and shepherding the rise of China to integrate them into the international system. Now we have to pay the price for our inattention to the players that can hurt us for real in the long term.

(Red Team beat me to the punch)

[Officer of Engineers]

Colonel, I just don't see it. A trillion dollars, the blood of hundreds of thousands of servicemen and women, an electorate fed up with war, a further increase of Western resentment in the ME; and all we have to show for it is one less scumbag dictator in a continent filled with scumbag dictators.

I'm not defending the occupation. When ISIS started winning, I took the opinion we should have done a Genghis Khan and left.

[YellowFever]

We had to know for sure.

Sure it's easy to say now that you wouldn't have supported the war if you knew what it would cost and if you knew the true extent of Saddam's capabilities. ..but we found those facts out after we invaded.

Those are facts we would have never found out if we didn't invade.

We had to know.

[astralis]

YF,

Those are facts we would have never found out if we didn't invade.

We had to know.

that is absolutely back-asswards.

you fight a war based on solid analysis of a geopolitical threat and cost-benefit analysis. if your intel can't give you the smoking gun, then that either means 1.) the smoking gun doesn't exist or 2.) your intel capabilities need overhaul/improvement.

NOT 3.) let's wage war just to be sure. that only makes sense if there's an imminent danger, like Saddam was about to put a nuke on a ship headed to NYC.

and just about everything that came out afterwards demonstrated that decisionmakers KNEW that this "imminent threat" was not there. there were a LOT of analysis that policymakers were presented with, but were deliberately hidden or wished away.

taking a few examples, Wolfowitz leaning on DIA to get the intel assessments he WANTED because CIA wouldn't provide them.

Rumsfeld deliberately intervening with General Franks' planning and publicly dismissing Army Chief of Staff Shinseki's troop comments, all to drastically reduce the number of soldiers. just to prove a point about Rumsfeld's beloved Revolution in Military Affairs and to reduce cost. (and if you think about it, why would you do this if Saddam was an imminent danger and "the most dangerous threat of our time"?)

Bush removing Secretary of Treasury Paul O'Neill when he complained about the WH lowballing the financial cost of war.

the amount of political stuff that was hidden away under the rug of "need to know" or "national security" was absolutely astounding.

[YellowFever]

YF,



that is absolutely back-asswards.

you fight a war based on solid analysis of a geopolitical threat and cost-benefit analysis. if your intel can't give you the smoking gun, then that either means 1.) the smoking gun doesn't exist or 2.) your intel capabilities need overhaul/improvement.

NOT 3.) let's wage war just to be sure. that only makes sense if there's an imminent danger, like Saddam was about to put a nuke on a ship headed to NYC.

and just about everything that came out afterwards demonstrated that decisionmakers KNEW that this "imminent threat" was not there. there were a LOT of analysis that policymakers were presented with, but were deliberately hidden or wished away.

taking a few examples, Wolfowitz leaning on DIA to get the intel assessments he WANTED because CIA wouldn't provide them.

Rumsfeld deliberately intervening with General Franks' planning and publicly dismissing Army Chief of Staff Shinseki's troop comments, all to drastically reduce the number of soldiers. just to prove a point about Rumsfeld's beloved Revolution in Military Affairs and to reduce cost. (and if you think about it, why would you do this if Saddam was an imminent danger and "the most dangerous threat of our time"?)

Bush removing Secretary of Treasury Paul O'Neill when he complained about the WH lowballing the financial cost of war.

the amount of political stuff that was hidden away under the rug of "need to know" or "national security" was absolutely astounding.

Hey we both made mistakes in supporting the war.

well, no. i've said quite openly that i supported the war. i wouldn't have if i knew that 1. iraq was NOT a clear and imminent danger, and 2. the aftermath was going to be a catastrophic shambles.

I'm not going to sit here more than 15 years later and say "if only I had known!" and dwell on it.

The facts you says caused you to changed your mind could not have been a ascertained without invading.

It is what it is, dude.

Success has a million fathers while failure...etc...etc...