Iraq and WMDs

[kai]

who beleived iraq had WMDs at the time. leave out hindsight and be honest!
I did i beleive Saddam propagated the idea right till the bitter end as a deterrent.
no Bush bashing or conspiracy theories just an honest answer did you beleive or not beleive saddam had WMDs at the time of the invasion, if you did not beleive i have to ask you to explain why when all the evidence put to us indicated that he did. try and keep to the point because a lot has happened since but i am interested to know what people beleived at the time

 

[ayani]

i did. i was skeptical, but i figured the govt. was telling the truth, just blowing it out of proportion. i didn't think the issue was important enough to warrant an invasion, though.

 

[kai]

can i ask that people who vote no explain why they beleived the WMDs were not there. i will progress this topic later so eveyone will get a greater say in it

 

[spacemonkey]

I KNEW they weren't there. I was onboard the USS Enterprise for http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/desert_fox.htm and we all knew he didn't have any.

Inspectors had been in Iraq over and over again looking for WMD's and they NEVER FOUND ANY. You don't get a massive weapons program started overnight or without the planes (enforcing the no-fly zones) or satellites noticing it.

 

[lilithu]

I can't say that I knew with 100% certainty that there were no WMDs in Iraq but I was highly highly highly skeptical. For me, you don't invade another country unless you are at least reasonably sure about it, which means evidence.

You make it sound like everyone believed that there were WMDs and some of us now are just claiming that we didn't after the fact. According to the Harris polls, the highest percentage of Americans who believed was 81%, immediately before the invasion. That was after weeks and months of propaganda aimed at us. And even then, that meant one in five Americans did not believe it.

Why didn't I believe the administration?

1) Sadam was not a religious zealot. In fact, he had been criticized by Muslim fundamentalists for not being religious enough. My assessment of him was that he was a two-bit bully dictator who cared more about preserving his own power and wealth than anything else. People who only care about their own power and wealth will oppress and even slaughter their own people; they may even invade a neighboring country to control their resources. But they do not stockpile weapons of mass destruction and aim them at superpowers and their allies. Only strong ideology causes someone to do something like that.

2) The accusation came out of left field. Shortly after 9/11, they identified bin Laden and Al Qaeda as the culprits, and at that time, they said that Iraq was not involved. And then all of the sudden it became Iraq has ties to Al Qaeda. Granted, they may have learned something to make them change their minds, but no evidence was ever presented to support this.

3) There was no frickin evidence presented. That was the bottom line for me. If you have evidence that leads to you believe that Saddam had WMDs then tell us what it is so that we will know that you're making the right decision and support you. Yes, I understand that some things can't be released for security reasons but at least give us hint. It boggled my mind that we were inching closer and closer to war, week by week, day by day, with out any real evidence presented to justify it, only accusations and rhetoric. I kept thinking that someone somewhere would say before it was too late, 'wait a minute. we're talking about WAR here, people dying, do you have evidence to back up your claims?'

I said in another thread that Powell's testimony in front of the UN did shake my resolve a little. But no way and no how did even Powell convince me that Iraq was a sufficient threat to warrant invasion.

 

[darkpenguin]

like all governments at the moment i knew bush and blair were talking out of thier backsides, it was just another way for bush to throw his weight around like the bully he is, and look at iraq now, is it any better since removing saddam? i really don't think it was our war to fight, but i guess every leader like bush would like to have the monopoly on oil, hell who wouldn't?

 

[Yerda]

I did not believe that Iraq had these weapons. Every source that I trusted suggested that there was little evidence if any. Meanwhile even the people I could trust to back war could provide only scant evidence. I tried to read as much as possible, and my feeling was that there was little chance that Iraq possessed WMDs and most importantly was of no threat to the people in my country (or the USA).

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I thought he still had Chemical weapons...( which they may still have)
But I never thought they were a threat to us.
The more likely use was against their own people as they had done before.

Interestingly Sadam never said he did not have them, and even issued Gas masks and protective clothing to some of his troops.
May be it was all bluff we may never know.

However there was no threat against the west by terrorists or weapons by Iraq.
There was a threat to other bordering nations.
It would have been better (and cheaper in lives and cost) to have placed defensive forces against any adventure by Sadam.
In due time he would have died either at the hands of his own people or by more covert mens.

 

[RevOxley_501]

i knew there were missiles given to saddam by rumsfeild in the 70s

i knew saddam had no reason or hint of using them against the US---and probably no other country either---the missiles were old, so were the wmd payloads.

 

[kai]

I can't say that I knew with 100% certainty that there were no WMDs in Iraq but I was highly highly highly skeptical. For me, you don't invade another country unless you are at least reasonably sure about it, which means evidence.

You make it sound like everyone believed that there were WMDs and some of us now are just claiming that we didn't after the fact. According to the Harris polls, the highest percentage of Americans who believed was 81%, immediately before the invasion. That was after weeks and months of propaganda aimed at us. And even then, that meant one in five Americans did not believe it.

Why didn't I believe the administration?

1) Sadam was not a religious zealot. In fact, he had been criticized by Muslim fundamentalists for not being religious enough. My assessment of him was that he was a two-bit bully dictator who cared more about preserving his own power and wealth than anything else. People who only care about their own power and wealth will oppress and even slaughter their own people; they may even invade a neighboring country to control their resources. But they do not stockpile weapons of mass destruction and aim them at superpowers and their allies. Only strong ideology causes someone to do something like that.

2) The accusation came out of left field. Shortly after 9/11, they identified bin Laden and Al Qaeda as the culprits, and at that time, they said that Iraq was not involved. And then all of the sudden it became Iraq has ties to Al Qaeda. Granted, they may have learned something to make them change their minds, but no evidence was ever presented to support this.

3) There was no frickin evidence presented. That was the bottom line for me. If you have evidence that leads to you believe that Saddam had WMDs then tell us what it is so that we will know that you're making the right decision and support you. Yes, I understand that some things can't be released for security reasons but at least give us hint. It boggled my mind that we were inching closer and closer to war, week by week, day by day, with out any real evidence presented to justify it, only accusations and rhetoric. I kept thinking that someone somewhere would say before it was too late, 'wait a minute. we're talking about WAR here, people dying, do you have evidence to back up your claims?'

I said in another thread that Powell's testimony in front of the UN did shake my resolve a little. But no way and no how did even Powell convince me that Iraq was a sufficient threat to warrant invasion.

well thats certainly not my intention, i am interested to know who beleived there were WMDs in iraq at the time mainly because i did. the UK was involved solely on WMDs, wasnt regime change a part of the US reason?

 

[michel]

who beleived iraq had WMDs at the time. leave out hindsight and be honest!
I did i beleive Saddam propagated the idea right till the bitter end as a deterrent.
no Bush bashing or conspiracy theories just an honest answer did you beleive or not beleive saddam had WMDs at the time of the invasion, if you did not beleive i have to ask you to explain why when all the evidence put to us indicated that he did. try and keep to the point because a lot has happened since but i am interested to know what people beleived at the time

I hate to admit it, but I did. I was 'suckered' into the whole thing. When Mr Blair agreed that we should invade Iraq, I actually wrote him a letter (because of all the 'negative vibes' at the time), I said that I believed he was doing the right thing.

Now, I'd like to say something: true, we haven't found any WMD's; that doesn't constitute proof that there aren't any. They could still be there, hidden in some secret bunker. Being wise after the event is an easy game; had we all known then what we now know, I don't suppose anyone would have been in favour of invading Iraq - but we did, and that is history (unpleasant though it may be).

 

[Tigress]

I didn't. There was no evidence to suggest it, plain and simple.

 

[spacemonkey]

i knew there were missiles given to saddam by rumsfeild in the 70s

i knew saddam had no reason or hint of using them against the US---and probably no other country either---the missiles were old, so were the wmd payloads.

The weapons that we (Rumsfeld was just our rep) sold to Hussein to fight Iran were NOT Weapons of MASS Destruction. They were what are termed "conventional" weapons.

 

[spacemonkey]

I hate to admit it, but I did. I was 'suckered' into the whole thing. When Mr Blair agreed that we should invade Iraq, I actually wrote him a letter (because of all the 'negative vibes' at the time), I said that I believed he was doing the right thing.

Now, I'd like to say something: true, we haven't found any WMD's; that doesn't constitute proof that there aren't any. They could still be there, hidden in some secret bunker. Being wise after the event is an easy game; had we all known then what we now know, I don't suppose anyone would have been in favour of invading Iraq - but we did, and that is history (unpleasant though it may be).

Michel, they have been looking for WMD's in Iraq since the early 90's, if they were there we would have found them by now. These things aren't something you can just hide under a rock or in some bunker and leave. They have to be properly stored and maintenanced or they are not dangerous anyways. Their would need to be facilities and support infrastructure. Trust me, they're not there.

 

[doppelganger]

The weapons that we (Rumsfeld was just our rep) sold to Hussein to fight Iran were NOT Weapons of MASS Destruction. They were what are termed "conventional" weapons.

Actually the U.S. did help him obtain chemical and biological weapons including anthrax and the plague virus, which are generally regarded (certainly by the Bush Admin) as WMD.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...ode=&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29&notFound=true

Throughout the 1980s, Hussein's Iraq was the sworn enemy of Iran, then still in the throes of an Islamic revolution. U.S. officials saw Baghdad as a bulwark against militant Shiite extremism and the fall of pro-American states such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and even Jordan -- a Middle East version of the "domino theory" in Southeast Asia. That was enough to turn Hussein into a strategic partner and for U.S. diplomats in Baghdad to routinely refer to Iraqi forces as "the good guys," in contrast to the Iranians, who were depicted as "the bad guys."

A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.

Another interesting tidbit from that same article:

Among the people instrumental in tilting U.S. policy toward Baghdad during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was Donald H. Rumsfeld, now defense secretary, whose December 1983 meeting with Hussein as a special presidential envoy paved the way for normalization of U.S.-Iraqi relations. Declassified documents show that Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons on an "almost daily" basis in defiance of international conventions.

 

[Smoke]

I didn't know one way or another, but I suspected the administration of lying about it because ... well, that's what I do.

 

[Quiddity]

I didn't know one way or another, but I suspected the administration of lying about it because ... well, that's what I do.

Which administration do you speak of? If it is the Bush administration then I'm afraid it's dishonest to put it solely on their court. Clinton and his posse certainly thought Iraq had WMD's as well. The vast majority of intelligence also held to this view.

If anything, it should be put on the US shoulders as a whole, but saying they lied?

 

[Booko]

I considered choosing "no" except I wasn't completely certain at the time, just 99% certain. I mean, I was well aware the claims were being grossly exagerrated, and the propaganda efforts to play down Hans Blix' expertise and paint Scott Ritter as a kook were quite something to observe. But I confess I didn't think Colin Powell would put his loyalty to a Commander-in-Chief so completely above his loyalty to this country, and that gave me the 1% of doubt.

 

[Quiddity]

I considered choosing "no" except I wasn't completely certain at the time, just 99% certain. I mean, I was well aware the claims were being grossly exagerrated, and the propaganda efforts to play down Hans Blix' expertise and paint Scott Ritter as a kook were quite something to observe. But I confess I didn't think Colin Powell would put his loyalty to a Commander-in-Chief so completely above his loyalty to this country, and that gave me the 1% of doubt.

I started off being uncertain and then went to being more for "yes" after hearing that people from both camps thought they did have WMD's. I mean, that's all we as peons can really do right?

 

[doppelganger]

I would like to have heard something truthful about what this evidence of WMD's actually was. Whatever the evidence was (and it turned out to be next to nothing) should have been publicly disclosed and definitely should have been part of the congressional debate.

The fact is, a conclusory opinion from people with a vested interest is not a valid basis for a declaration of war. Bush should have been required to come forward with this so-called evidence and made his case to Congress and the American public. Very few people asked him to do so. And the shame of that falls on the whole Congress (R and D) and many of this contry's citizens.

I can pinpoint the moment I began to see through Bush. It was his 2003 State of the Union when he implied that Iraq had WMD but would not give any specific explanation as to why or how Sadaam was an imminent threat to the U.S. and the sparse "evidence" they provided about ties to terrorist organizations. At that instant - before the war - I realized he was lying. Prior to that I had supported him (and even voted for him in 2000).