The real tragedy behind Iraq war...
POSTED BY: lynchaj
UPDATED: Sunday, June 19, 2005 05:17
VIEWED: 4115
PAGE 3 of 3
I thought I'd review this thread and catch up
It starts out with OFF, but at one point LynchAJ seems to give up completely on OFF and responds to WMD topics exclusively.
To support his assertions, he relies on outdated reports which have since been superseded and takes selected quotes out of context. Despite serious bias in selection, NONE of his quotes or sources actually documents WMD of concern (not even the Duelfer report, which specifically discounts CW relics -see below):
1) He quotes one sentence of what he calls the "UNMOVIC Report". UNMOVIC was withdrawn from Iraq before it could complete its inspections because of imminent US attack. Regarding the quote
Quote:only PNAC (yes PNAC) calls it the "UNMOVIC Report" so I'm guessing the quote came from there. The UN calls it "UNMOVIC Working Document, Unresolved Disarmament Issues" and it has many interesting quotes, like this one
There has been a surge of activity in the missile technology field in the past four years. — UNMOVIC Report, March 6, 2003
Quote:
No proscribed activities (chemical and biological), or the result of such activities from the period of 1998-2002 have, so far, been detected through inspections.
2) He quotes David Kay's first INTERIM report
Quote:with its unfulfilled promise that in 6 months they'd find WMD, or at the very least evidence of same. (Which they did not.)
“If I can speak of what we have found in addition to intent, we have found a large body of activities
3) He quotes Hans Blix
Quote:leaving out this portion (from the UN Wire News):
“The long list of proscribed items unaccounted for and as such resulting in unresolved disarmament issues was neither shortened by the inspections, nor by Iraqi declarations and documents.”
Quote:
UN INSPECTORS FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF PROHIBITED WEAPONS PROGRAMMES AS OF 18 MARCH WITHDRAWAL, HANS BLIX TELLS SECURITY COUNCIL ... "it is not justified to jump to the conclusion that something exists just because it is unaccounted for."
And then a fairly meaningless quote from Cohen about belief.
He then cites Duelfer's report as 'proof' Iraq had WMD ("if you honestly read the entire report and still claim there was no presence of WMD programs, evidence of WMDs themselves") but seems to have overlooked these items from the report (key findings):
Quote:
"The Iraq Survey Group (ISG) has uncovered no evidence Iraq retained Scud-variant missiles, and debriefings of Iraqi officials in addition to some documentation suggest that Iraq did not retain such missiles
after 1991.
Quote:
Iraq Survey Group (ISG) discovered further evidence of the maturity and significance of the pre-1991 Iraqi Nuclear Program but found that Iraq’s ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively
decayed after that date.
• Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.
• Although Saddam clearly assigned a high value to the nuclear progress and talent that had been developed up to the 1991 war, the program ended and the intellectual capital decayed in the succeeding years.
Quote:
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, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.
... Iraq implemented a rigorous and formalized system of nationwide research and production of chemicals, but ISG will not be able to resolve whether Iraq intended the system to underpin any CW-related efforts.
Quote:
In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence tNOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The first time I clued into the fact it wasn't about WMD (well before the US attacked) was when I realized that Bush could not politically or strategically afford to send a couple of hundred thousand US personnel into a situation where tens of thousands were certain to die. (You know, from those massive stockpiles of WMD.)
Then when I saw him moving the goalposts every time Hussein complied with each new demand, it became completely clear that war was pre-ordained.
One motive, which set the timing, became clear to me when I learned that Iraq was about to sign oil development contracts with France and Russia, and that any contracts, once signed, were legally binding on any subsequent occupying force.
Powell's UN presentation, which I studied carefully, was a masterwork of deception, mixing old information with unsupported speculation, and relying heavily on 'information' that he 'couldn't' provide to the UN.
That US ground troops weren't directed at any time to investigate and secure WMD sites made the lie more apparent. (Also, that the US had to be pressured into formally looking for WMD at all, and only months after the 'end' of the war.)
I learned that Bush 'fixed intelligence around' his goal from carefully reading the Senate Report. That is how I knew years ago about Bush's specific lies about yellowcake, aluminum tubes, and CW and BW. What, when, where, who, and how.
Other people relied on other information to come to the same conclusions.
Anyway, there's more, but I have a lot to do.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
What do I think Saddam was doing? .... He was gathering his WMD capabilities, hiding them, protecting them, and waiting for the UN sanctions to collapse so he could move WMD production back into high gear.
Why? ...I believe his most likely scenario was to restart the Iran/Iraq war or at a minimum counteract the growing Iranian nuclear threat.
Even if your belief is true, why would we be against it? Aren't there rumors about Iran being next?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
I do want to say to the folks here that it is quite a bit of fun and even a bit healthy I think to hash this out. You have your opinion and I respect that.
I'd like to thank FFF.net for having RWED forum, especially out of the main FFF.net forums, as it does a lot of good to have peaceful discussions among people who disagree on their world views.
Andrew Lynch
Hear, hear! LynchAJ, in another thread a couple weeks ago, I felt the need to tell you that you were being needlessly rude and to knock it off. Since then, I've read with interest the evolution of the discussions which you innitiated. I appreciate you're focus on the issues and your seriousness, which I initially misjudged. Thanks for your thoughtful contribution to the RWED. Keep flyin'!
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rue, you are my hero. I have rarely seen such an effective and incontestable refutation of a spurious argument. Using the very documents that LYNCHAJ was selectively quoting against him. Pure genious - My hat is off to you, keep up the good work.
Mark
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME