So far I have seen absolutely no evidence of any WMDs in Iraq. Only suggestions, and much like God, you can't disprove that there are WMDs in Iraq. Take it on faith! Don't you trust your government?

No, I don't trust anybody. The more you have to lose the more you probably need to lie.

Regardless of wither there were any WMDs found in Iraq. Not only did Saddam lead his political neighbors to believe he had WMDs but it was commonly held belief among world intelligence agencies that there were factories set up for the production of them. And given his use of deadly chemical warfare in the Gulf War I don't think it would have surprised anyone if he would be willing to use them.

I've seen articles that claim both sides of the issue, there were WMDs, there were not WMDs. But the fact remains you have a terrorist who was more then willing to use deadly force against any who opposed his regime.

[edit]: Hell even the French thought there was reason to invade.

Imagine a scenario of a ruthless terrorist who has taken lives before, and claims to have rigged bombs throughout a building. He's also threating to use them if anyone tries to stop him. Do you take a chance that he's bluffing or do all in your power to save the lives of everyone in that building?

Regardless of how you feel now about the War in Iraq. The world felt a lot different about the suggestion before it happened. The UN supported it, and most of Europe did too.

I know they found at least one WMD... in my pants.

First off, to Sarzy I can only say "Zing!" Secondly, to Gorgonheap, why wouldn't Saddam lie about having WMD? Aside from the fact they were a sovereign country which has the right to protect itself with weapons, they were also neighbors to hostile countries, such as Iran, therefore it was in their national security's best interest to puff out their chests a bit, if you get my meaning. That said, I have to admit, I am glad that sob isn't running the country anymore, but it's certainly not in a better state of affairs by a long shot.

Hmmm. I'm liking the feedback.

Wouldn't you think that there'd be some bureaucratic trail leading us to what they found? I mean, if I had found something that the world said I was on a wild goose chase for, I would document the muthafucka like crazy! On top of it, the government's habit of keeping paperwork trails, to an annoying degree, leads me to believe there's something out there, lie or not, substantiating the findings. no?

Saddam was not a terrorist, to say he is a terrorist is a logically fallacy, that would make Bush a terrorist as well for invading two sovergien nations. Also does that make the US a terrorist nation to be the only country in the world to use nuclear weapons offensively? Imagine that! Any day those guys could nuke someone! The horror! We must invade now!

The case for WMDs in Iraq was built because of the Bush Administration desire to go to war in Iraq riding off the 9/11 attacks, since it was not possible to rationally argue for it in anyway the WMD case was built relying mostly on the information of a single informant code named 'Curveball':

Curveball was the pseudonym given by the Central Intelligence Agency to Rafid Ahmed Alwan an Iraqi citizen who defected from Iraq in 1999, claiming that he had worked as a chemical engineer at a plant that manufactured mobile biological weapon laboratories as part of an Iraqi weapons of mass destruction program. Alwan's allegations were subsequently shown to be false by the Iraq Survey Group's final report published in 2004. Despite warnings from the German Federal Intelligence Service regarding the authenticity of the claims, the US Government utilized them to build a rationale for military action in the lead up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, including in the 2003 State of the Union address, where President Bush said "we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs", and Colin Powell's presentation to the UN Security Council, which contained a computer generated image of a mobile biological weapons laboratory. On November 4, 2007, 60 Minutes revealed Curveball's real identity. Former CIA official Tyler Drumheller summed up Curveball as "a guy trying to get his green card essentially, in Germany, and playing the system for what it was worth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)

This all lead up to Colin Powell's presentation at the UN, utterly destroying any shred of credibility of both Powell and the CIA. The case for war was cherry picked. After the war various study groups were formed to solidify the case for WMDs, the admission that no WMDs were found or any found were from depleted 1990 Gulf War stocks was much to damaging for the Administration which argued that Iraq had nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, so various counter study groups were formed since there was political motivation to build a legitimated case for war in Iraq:

On January 23, 2004, the head of the ISG, David Kay, resigned his position, stating that he believed WMD stockpiles would not be found in Iraq. "I don't think they existed," commented Kay. "What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last Gulf War and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the nineties."

In a briefing to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Kay criticized the pre-war WMD intelligence and the agencies that produced it, saying "It turns out that we were all wrong, probably in my judgment, and that is most disturbing."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Survey_Group

This of course all makes sense, the administration couldn't come from the invasion say it was catastrophically mistaken in gathering intelligence pre-invasion, so various counter arguments were created everything ranging from Iraq had to be invaded because it had skilled labor in the WMD industry, to that knowledge could seep into Syria and Iran (which it of course did due to the Iraqi dispora).

However all this was damage control, and the administration skillfully changed the narrative now to freedom and democracy in Iraq as well as "We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here".

The worsening of the war also diverted public attention, but it is telling that most of the media avoided exploring this topic like it was the black plague, the usual patriotic attacks along the line of "Our troops are dying and questioning their sacrifice even if no WMDs are found, is unpatriotic." Never mind that they wouldn't need to die considering international pressure during UN discussions around January 2003 would lead to eventual opening up of Iraq to serious inspections, but war was on the agenda months before, when US was preparing to go to war with Afghanistan, it was already preparing for war in Iraq.

I can attest to this personally since I was in Kuwait at the time, the build up of man power and arms was well underway even before December/January. The administration decided to act unilaterally, the UN and coalition thing were just smoke and mirrors to create some sort of legitimacy to what was basically an unprovoked invasion.

But the facts are clear The Iraq Survey group under Charles Duelfer said Iraq's nuclear capability had decayed and not grown since the 1991 war. This was reported in October 2004, "Report concludes no WMD in Iraq", of course as I said the narrative was being actively changed by then the Administration said that the report showed "intent" so it was good we attacked then when we did. Which is about as logically as saying the US has intent to nuke someone else because it happens to possess nuclear weapons and has done it before thus we should invade and disarm it.

^wow *applauds*

good stuff, I feel I have a better idea of specifically how we've been bent over and fucked.

Thanks for taking the time to clarify.

Wow, Farhad2000, I tip my hat to you for not only a very detailed reply, but a very interesting read

Of course, they are STILL people who will insist WMDs were found...sad but true...

I think this is one of the best answers i have seen to this, and "intent" is like the US being the Orwellian World Police - that does not make it ok

I know they found at least one WMD... in Sarzy's pants.

so allllll that to say that any excuse for any unilateral action on the part of a military and intelligence community with a will of someone others than that of the people they supposedly serve and protect is a good one???? Sounds like a secret government to me-sounds like money continues to be able to convince any man to perform any act against another man, regardless of any immediate consequences-
Sounds like, a vote for a president has as good of odds for you (the voter)winning, as in any traveling carnival midway ring-toss

The Magic Christian scenario played out daily on the Risk board of human experience, in the current, long-winded, predictable paradigm-

Still happy that the Israelis have some solid brass balls with regard to their less than civil, socially-undomesticated, back-asswards Allah-loving desert-gibbons(not you farhad, you don't count, Uzbek-yer a transplant)

I still reel with delight at the memory of June 7, 1981, when Bagdad got their pretty French Nuke plant double wing fist-fucked(thank you Jews)-That's what the 8th century throwback fuckers deserved....NO TOYS till you learn how to pick a frikkin' leader.....Too bad France sucks major balls-too bad the U.S. does....too bad (insert whore of Babylon punk country here) does.


-make free energy available to all
-get rid of money
-make knowledge accessible to all men

it is at this point, the ENTIRE human race will begin to really tap into evolution's pineapple, not simply a few, fat, inbred fucks.

It's pretty simple.

>> ^Farhad2000:
Saddam was not a terrorist, to say he is a terrorist is a logically fallacy,


Right so by your reasoning the genocide of over 5000 people, killing 148 innocent civilians and the destruction of entire family's related to anyone opposing his power. Threating nuclear holocaust on neighboring countries makes him... not a terrorist. Please tell me what your definition of a terrorist is, because I'm lost.

>> ^gorgonheap:
Hell even the French thought there was reason to invade.
...
Regardless of how you feel now about the War in Iraq. The world felt a lot different about the suggestion before it happened. The UN supported it, and most of Europe did too.


The facts disagree, on both counts. The French strongly opposed the invasion of Iraq, and the UN did not approve it. That was the reason for the whole "Coalition of the Willing".

Check:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_2003_Iraq_War

Or google the topic, there was plenty of objection to the invasion, just most of it not in our country.

To address the main topic, there haven't been any found. If they'd found some, you wouldn't have missed the news, they'd have trumpeted it for months.

Those who cling to the righteousness of the war generally stick to one of two responses, one "Saddam had 'em, but moved 'em to Syria" or "Well, he very well could have, and the *only* thing we could've done is send in 130,000 troops!"

...or let the UN inspectors continue their work, while slowly building up the pressure.

There isn't any question anymore about whether Iraq had WMD's, they did not. More to the point, there's plenty of evidence available now to see that even the CIA didn't think Iraq had WMD's at the time, but Farhad2000 covered that topic in plenty of detail.

This was imperialism, pure and simple. Bush/Cheney and the neocons thought it'd be easy to topple Saddam, replace him with a pro-America puppet democracy, slurp up their oil, and use Iraq as a sort of second Israel to influence that region of the world.

We absolutely need to stop calling this a war on Al Qaeda, it's not even a war anymore, it's an unguided, undisciplined occupation of a foreign land that doesn't even have a functioning government.

Leaving might not be the best thing, but at least we need to change what our mission is to being primarily humanitarian and diplomatic, not 100% military.

>> ^gorgonheap:
>> ^Farhad2000:
Saddam was not a terrorist, to say he is a terrorist is a logically fallacy,

Right so by your reasoning the genocide of over 5000 people, killing 148 innocent civilians and the destruction of entire family's related to anyone opposing his power. Threating nuclear holocaust on neighboring countries makes him... not a terrorist. Please tell me what your definition of a terrorist is, because I'm lost.


A terrorist is someone who uses terror (fear) as a means of control, as far as I know. That's a quite inclusive definition that certainly also includes the US. By this definition you can say that Saddam Hussein was also a terrorist.

I think that most people defines a terrorist as someone who is involved in terror-actions, such as deliberate attacks on civilians and the like. But the center of this is the FEAR that it spreads, terror actions are attributed much more power than it actually has because people give it power by fearing other actions.

The US government does not spread fear through terror actions, but by fear-mongering (at least inside it's own borders, compare: Fox News), which you could call a (much) milder form of terror action.

I think one of the sift's favorite debaters covered the topic pretty well. Starting in the third part of his debate against his brother, Christopher Hitchens talks about the war, Saddam, WMD's, captured terrorists traveling on Iraqi diplomatic passports, and other reasoning for supporting the war.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Hitchens-Vs-Hitchens-2

I say Saddam is not a terrorist because that was the narrative created for you by the Bush Administration, until that time no one referred to sovereign government heads as terrorists, it was all about framing the issue to justify a war. Saddam gas and suppressed his own people before the Iraq invasion of 2003, before even the Gulf War. Power politics justified his oppression of civilians, the US supported that there was no action, the Iran-Iraq war falls under the same definition, again many western nations profited from arms sales to both.

Furthermore as Reagen said "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" or rather "The only difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is your point of view."

The US defines what and who is a terrorist pretty freely, your example of Saddam killing civilians flies in the face of the fact that most of the arms for that endeavor was supplied by the US government. The US also supported and enabled coups in Iran (Shah), Chile (Pinochet), East Timor and countless other states that went on to falling in the same definition of terrorism that you apply. However they weren't labeled as such.

The Isreal/Palestine issue is the biggest example where the excuse of terrorism, has been applied to justify encroachments on Palestinian lands, criticism of which makes you somehow antisemitic. Who is the terrorist in this case? The Palestinians who are forced to use guerrilla tactics or the modernize Israel army with its tanks, jets and rifles?

This is realpolitik of the world.

Terrorism -- use of force or threats to demoralize, intimidate, and subjugate, esp. such use as a political weapon or policy

Power politics -- international political relations in which each nation attempts to increase its own power or interests by using military or economic coercion

Realpolitik -- practical politics; a euphemism for power politics

Frequently, realpolitik = power politics = terrorism

http://www.twf.org/Library/Terrorism.html

Words can be made whatever they want them to mean for you. As long as it creates enough justification for them to act as they please.

*quality discussion

Awarding rottenseed with one star point for this contribution to Sift Talk - declared quality by kronosposeidon.

Let's not forget to mention, that the evidence for going to war was so faulty and thin that the administration set up THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL PLANS run by Douglas Feith as an extension of the vice presidents office, to produce the "intelligence" they needed as justification to go to war.

A high-ranking military officer reveals how Defense Department extremists suppressed information and twisted the truth to drive the country to war.
http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2004/03/10/osp_moveon/index.html

Senator calls report 'devastating condemnation' of Office of Special Plans
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/A_devastating_condemnation_of_OSP_and_0208.html

>> ^Sarzy:
I know they found at least one WMD... in my pants.


Wiener of minuscule dimensions? ...sorry I couldn't resist.

Silliness aside, great discussion, I only wish I wasn't late to the party, what I'd say has pretty much been said already.