Replies

but I was very worried that he (or his sons after him) would develop nukes and give them to those who intended to detonate them in the U.S. (or Israel)

I can understand that, but that threat has not been removed by his removal. In fact, it may have be increased as a result of further radicalization of Islam (whish perceives our military interventions as "Crusades" for "Zionist' interests). There are 1 billion Muslims in this world (and one of the fastest growing religions). If one out of ten Muslims is an Islamic radical, that's a potential army of 100 million (no fuzzy math this time!). I believe mine is a conservative figure.

So, the question is have we made our world safer, and the answer is no. Just the opposite.

Saddam openly said he had a nuke program

That program was blown to pieces by the Israelis. Active production of weapons-grade plutonium and activities associated with such a project are easily detectable, as is the case with N. Korea and Iran. What's the point of lying? More importantly, you can't hide it. But what was suggested is that somehow the program has "advanced" to the "imminent threat" level.

In a speech to the UN in 2002, a few months before the start of the war, Pres. Bush said "Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger." In 1997, Clinton actually said Saddam was a "clear and present danger" (but he was referring to the local region). Yet the UN inspections, and intelligence reports were not as certain as politicians.

In September 2002, the International Institute for Strategical Studies (IISS), which calls itself the "world's leading authority on political military conflicts," said

Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein could build a nuclear weapon "in a matter of months" if he managed to buy or steal raw materials, a defence analyst has warned.

This cover-organization states that IISS

has found that Iraq has chemical nerve agents, a stockpile of anthrax and is some way down the road towards nuclear weapons - without yet having the raw material

Of course, none of this was true. The report then continues with "probably" and "it is believed" that Iraq had "tonnes" of chemical and anxthrax supplies, etc. none of which indicated anything but pure (and irresponsible) speculation, assuming it was not deliberate as I suspect.

The report was immediately accepted as "fact" by Phoney Tony (Blair) :

The IISS report comes after a weekend which saw Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President George W Bush argue that doing nothing about Saddam's weapons programmes was not an option for the international community.

Mr Blair stressed that once the public had seen the evidence "people will see this is not something that has been invented or dreamt up in the last few weeks. This is a real and serious issue.

So, Blair was assuring everyone that this was all true and certain even though the report itself is full of doubtful words and even states that

The report said that Iraq's chemical weapons capability did not appear to pose a decisive threat against opposing military forces, who would be protected against such attack, although in small numbers chemical munitions could disrupt logistical operations and threaten civilian populations.

So, it is clear who was doing the lying for our side, and we didn't stop him. The urgency and even panic situation was being created deliberately and without despite facts on the ground to the contrary, by various "analysts" and emigre groups.

Let me tell you: I have seen our analysts at work in Bosnia. We ha more luck than brains. Their knowledge of the local customs, language, habits, history, etc. was sorrowful. They used clearly biased sources and treated them as facts. What followed in Iraq did not come as a surprise to me at all, as regards the aftermath.

By August 2003 (five months after the war, and when GW proclaimed "mission accomplished"), the Brits fessed up that Saddam was no threat at all and that all hype about him being able to launch WMDs within 45 minutes was an "exaggeration."

The inquiry has already established beyond doubt that, despite government briefing that Dr Kelly was a medium-level official of little significance, he was in fact one of the world's leading experts on WMD in Iraq. It is also clear that Dr Kelly chose to brief three BBC journalists - and presumably others - to the effect that the 45-minute warning of the possible use of WMD was an exaggeration. He said to the Newsnight reporter Susan Watts, as well as to Gilligan that Campbell and the Downing Street press operation were responsible for exerting pressure to hype up the danger. [Guardian, Aug 23, 2003]

In the same article is says

We know through emails revealed by Hutton that Tony Blair's chief of staff made clear that the dossier was likely to convince those who were prepared to be convinced, but that the document "does nothing to demonstrate he [Saddam Hussein] has the motive to attack his neighbours, let alone the west. We will need to be clear in launching the document that we do not claim that we have evidence that he is an imminent threat.

Yet it was precisely the hysteria created that cut short the mandated Blix inspections which were to end several month later. In other words, the inspections could have been completed in time prescribed, and there was no need to go for a predetermined invasion date.

But, my theory is that we knew very well that Saddam had nothing, and that Blix's inspections would reveal that he had nothing, and would not give us the casus belli we were looking for, so we decided to cut the UN inspections lest they rob us of an opportunity to launch the war everyone was itching for. I am sure the neocons and everyone up the chain knew that there was nothing in saddam's arsenal all along.

Please take this in the good humor in which it is intended, but that statement makes Holocaust deniers look reasonable

It's a poor choice of words and a poor counter-argument because it has nothing to do with the Holocaust. In fact it degrades it. You are mixing apples and oranges. The only denial is yours, because you don't know the history of the 1947 British Protectorate in Palestine and the Israeli terror tactics used against them. At that time, the only terrorists and disrupters of peace were the members of the Israeli hits squads (the Irgun and the Stern gangs) , of which Menachim Begin, the one time Israeli PM, was an active member.

It was precisely the formation of Israel that provoked instability (ethnic cleansing and Palestinian refugee problem) and retaliatory Arab terrorism which hasn't stopped to this date. So, we can say a lot of things about Israel, both good and bad, but one thing is certain: Israel was never a stabilizing factor in the region.

A leading state sponsor of terror was a stabilizing factor??? Interesting. He invaded sovereign nations, gassed his own people, paid bounty to suicide bombers, grossly violated UN agreements, and bragged that he was developing nuclear weapons

Yes, he kept Iran in check and he kept the various factions in Iraq in check. he invaded only one country as far as I know, citing historical right to Kuwait as one of the provinces of Iraq. By the way, Saddam actually informed the American Ambassador in Iraq of his intentions to invade the country and she did not nothing to dissuade him. As for ignoring UN SC resolutions, Israel is the one that has the longest list of those. Israel is also not bragging but everyone knows it has nuclear weapons and refuses UN nuclear regulatory inspections.

FK: "... but I was very worried that he (or his sons after him) would develop nukes and give them to those who intended to detonate them in the U.S. (or Israel)"

I can understand that, but that threat has not been removed by his removal. In fact, it may have be increased as a result of further radicalization of Islam (which perceives our military interventions as "Crusades" for "Zionist' interests).

The threat has not been removed, but it has been lessened. Now there is one less government sponsor of the development of nukes intended for the U.S. Al Qaida has already proved that it does not need to be provoked to wage a terrorist war against the U.S. There have been attacks against us since at least the 80's. Bush was the first to recognize it for what it was. Even my hero Reagan didn't get it. The intent of the Islamists to destroy Israel and the U.S. was solidly there well before the Iraq War, or even 9/11.

If one out of ten Muslims is an Islamic radical, that's a potential army of 100 million (no fuzzy math this time!). I believe mine is a conservative figure.

I fully agree. I think there are more than that who are very sympathetic with terrorist actions and could be enlisted to participate.

So, the question is have we made our world safer, and the answer is no. Just the opposite.

I agree with the question, but the answer is unknowable at this time. If we surrender by cutting and running, then the world is MUCH MUCH less safe. However, if there is ultimate victory in Iraq, I believe the world will be safer in the long run. They are going to attack as long as they are alive and can keep recruiting. A stable democracy in Iraq would demoralize them.

Thanks to Clinton, the DPRK got NINE free years of development without our knowledge, until now it is too late. They have it, and will never let it go. I hope Bush doesn't fall for this latest absurdity of paying them off with fuel oil. That is another joke.

But what was suggested is that somehow the program has "advanced" to the "imminent threat" level.

The suggestion was actually that Iraq was on a path of inevitability, and I think that was correct. The madmen leading the Axis of Evil will never stop developing weapons technology unless forced to.

Yet the UN inspections, and intelligence reports were not as certain as politicians.

I suppose we disagree on how much weight should be accorded to UN inspection reports.

In September 2002, the International Institute for Strategical Studies (IISS), which calls itself the "world's leading authority on political military conflicts," said...

From what I could find, the IISS is nothing more than a private British think tank, like the Heritage Foundation is here. You showed that their findings were hyped to the public, but I don't see any evidence that there was actual reliance on them. Governments have their own independent data that can't be made public. Quoting think tanks is a PR move. Maybe it's unsavory, but in today's world it appears that wars must be "sold" to the public.

Bush and Blair have both suffered tremendous political losses as a result of this war. I still haven't heard a credible argument as to how it would benefit either of them to manufacture the war on false pretenses. War for oil doesn't cut it. I don't think the Islamists hated Britain nearly as much as they hated the U.S. and Israel. What was the threat to Britain's oil supply? As I said before, anyone can buy it on the open market.

I'm sure there were politically based "facts" flying around on all sides. Bush was convinced that regime change was in our interests, so why would he question the rhetoric of a like-minded ally?

I am sure that Bush and Blair were convinced, as I was at the time, that the Blix-led inspections were a sham. It made no difference whether the inspections were ever "completed" or not. No weapons would have been found, regardless. Saddam obstructed them from the beginning, and Blix and company thought that was just fine. They just kept negotiating. Again, this was the failure of the hard left to recognize evil for what it was and is.

But, my theory is that we knew very well that Saddam had nothing, and that Blix's inspections would reveal that he had nothing, and would not give us the casus belli we were looking for, so we decided to cut the UN inspections lest they rob us of an opportunity to launch the war everyone was itching for. I am sure the neocons and everyone up the chain knew that there was nothing in saddam's arsenal all along.

If you agree that Saddam was a madman dictator, then what is your theory to explain Saddam's unilateral and SECRET disarming? Iraq was getting really hurt with sanctions at the time. All Saddam had to do was say, "hey come on in and look anywhere you want, we disarmed all by ourselves in the interests of world peace", etc. Yet, according to you, Saddam chose the sanctions in order to protect a weapons program he didn't have!!! AY CARAMBA! :)

It's a poor choice of words and a poor counter-argument because it has nothing to do with the Holocaust. In fact it degrades it. You are mixing apples and oranges.

It was a good choice of words because denying Middle East terrorism is to ignore the facts to the same degree that Holocaust deniers do. While the Holocaust was certainly on an incomparable scale (to date, that is), both it and terrorism are centered on murdering innocent civilians.

It was precisely the formation of Israel that provoked instability (ethnic cleansing and Palestinian refugee problem) and retaliatory Arab terrorism which hasn't stopped to this date. ...

Your quote that I was reacting to with my Holocaust comment was the following:

"There was no terrorism or instability in the Middle East. The only terrorism that existed after 1945 was Israeli terror tactics against the British there."

You said stable Middle East and no terrorism, except for the Israelis. That denies common knowledge. Now you appear to acknowledge Arab terrorism, but only as retaliation. I like to ask this of people with your view: What do you think would happen if magically, all weapons above a machine gun suddenly disappeared from Israel and its Arab neighbors? Would Israel SEEK to launch a major offensive to take over the whole region? Or, would most of the Arab countries SEEK to drive the Jews into the sea? I know the answer for certain. The only side that doesn't recognize the other's right to exist is the Arab side. Arabs don't want to relocate the Jews so they can reclaim "their" land. No, they simply want to KILL all Jews. That's a big reason why I oppose Israel's enemies.

Yes, Saddam kept Iran in check and he kept the various factions in Iraq in check.

LOL! Yeah, Saddam sure kept the Iraqi factions in check alright. All he did was torture and murder all dissenters AND their families. WAY TO GO Saddam! Do you really want to keep defending this guy? I don't know if that is what you are really trying to do, but it sure sounds like it.