they sent them there to find out what happened to the WMDs that were known to have existed but were not accounted for…
you seem to be missing that little fact, Saddam admitted to certain quantities, only a portion was destroyed, maybe he lost several tonnes of Mustard gas behind the couch or something
When one does accounting, they do indeed count, don’t they CM? Now you’re reaching…
Anyway, I never suspected you of being a true believer, but this thread has proven me wrong on that account.
Oooooohhhh scary! Is that what you’re reduced to now? That’s such a lame fall-back position.
Just because you don’t agree with someone, it must be because hold some extreme position?
Ok I’ll counter with this also-lame response:
I’m so disappointed in you crichton, I thought you were better than that.
Every report on the matter, even all of them after the invasion.... can you find a UN or governmental report that didn’t conclude Saddam was maintaining the infrastructure to make WMD?
Even reports aside, they’re full of interesting facts… keeping the right people on the payroll. Keeping the right tools and parts at the right factories (that were making non WMD durring the inspections...) to switch back.
What relevance are any reports after the relevant statements were made? That would be justifying statements retrosepectively. Which is what I’ve been pointing out isn’t possible.
If a categorical statement is going to made, there should be a report dated before it. Then we can say (even if we have no direct evidence) that the report informed the statement.
I’m in no way arguing what might or might not have turned out to be correct. That’s not relevant for the purposes of this discussion.
Every report on the matter, even all of them after the invasion.... can you find a UN or governmental report that didn’t conclude Saddam was maintaining the infrastructure to make WMD?
Even reports aside, they’re full of interesting facts… keeping the right people on the payroll. Keeping the right tools and parts at the right factories (that were making non WMD durring the inspections...) to switch back.
What relevance are any reports after the relevant statements were made? That would be justifying statements retrosepectively. Which is what I’ve been pointing out isn’t possible.
If a categorical statement is going to made, there should be a report dated before it. Then we can say (even if we have no direct evidence) that the report informed the statement.
I’m in no way arguing what might or might not have turned out to be correct. That’s not relevant for the purposes of this discussion.
This is why it’s not worth doing a lot of research when talking to you… your shifting the ground of the discusion vs being serious…
The issue was raised that they made a conscious effort to retain WMD production capabilities and further more, it’s still the consensus post invasion.
Every report on the matter, even all of them after the invasion.... can you find a UN or governmental report that didn’t conclude Saddam was maintaining the infrastructure to make WMD?
Even reports aside, they’re full of interesting facts… keeping the right people on the payroll. Keeping the right tools and parts at the right factories (that were making non WMD durring the inspections...) to switch back.
What relevance are any reports after the relevant statements were made? That would be justifying statements retrosepectively. Which is what I’ve been pointing out isn’t possible.
If a categorical statement is going to made, there should be a report dated before it. Then we can say (even if we have no direct evidence) that the report informed the statement.
I’m in no way arguing what might or might not have turned out to be correct. That’s not relevant for the purposes of this discussion.
This is why it’s not worth doing a lot of research when talking to you… your shifting the ground of the discusion vs being serious…
The issue was raised that they made a conscious effort to retain WMD production capabilities and further more, it’s still the consensus post invasion.
You asked who says.
I answered.
And now this lame reply.
Whatever.
I’m not sure how I could have been any clearer - the statements made didn’t reflect what was known. In order for definitive statements to be made, the evidence must have been definitive at the time. If it was, what was that evidence?
It’s a basic requirement to be able to back up definitive statements with evidence that IS AS DEFINITIVE. Nothing lame about it. I’m sure you’d agree if it applied to something else, so I don’t understand your reluctance or inability to agree in this case.
One more reason to withdraw from a useless organization.
I’m pretty sure the US representatives at the UN know how the system works. It’s designed to provide an opportunity to reach decisions multilaterally, instead of everyone doing everything unilaterally (or with whatever cobbled-together group they can get). Resolutions are fairly variable in what they are for and what they require. They can be flexible, or not. But ultimately the nations that word and pass the resolutions know what they mean, and are the ones that are responsible for determining whether they’ve been met, or whether something further needs to happen.
But yeah, members of the UN inherently agree to the system. So if you don’t agree, and refuse to operate under that structure, then leaving would seem to be the best option. Better than betraying it.
1. Let’s pretend Obama is President. Let’s say he’s got a Dem Congress to work with too.
One day he gets up and makes a big speech, saying that he’s going to raise the minimum wage by $2 an hour. It’s going to be a federal law. He’s convinced enough Dems in Congress to pass it.
The reason, he says, is that raising the minimum wage is definitely good for everyone. He says that everyone knows it’s a fact. Plus, he’s got this research study which provides the evidence. The study is supported by some overseas studies as well.
Would you guys think he’s being misleading at all? Would the fact that his statements on the matter are absolute be an issue, when there are in fact other studies which cast doubt on what he says? Is he accurately representing the situation?
2. In early to mid 2003, 53% of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11th, 2001, terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. I’ve given one possible explanation of why that might have happened. If you reject that, then what are the alternative explanations?
I would call him a liar if the economy was worse some year down the road, whether or not it in any way was related to what he did or said. He’s clearly lying.
I would call him a liar if the economy was worse some year down the road, whether or not it in any way was related to what he did or said. He’s clearly lying.
He would only be a liar if the economy turned out to be worse? Why wouldn’t he be a liar at the time, for putting across (in an attempt to convince people) a position that misrepresented the reality of the situation? Surely whether you are lying or not (or whatever term you want to use) is entirely dependent on what the situation is AT THAT TIME? You don’t need to wait to know that he’s lying.
Even if the economy took off remarkably and experts examined it and concluded firmly that it was the minimum wage rise that was the clear stimulis, it wouldn’t alter the fact that he did not accurately represent the situation. In reality it would have been just a gamble that paid off.
From the report as linked to by CM, page 34 of the report, page 54 of the pdf:
When attacking Western interests, the competitive terror cartel
came into play, particularly in the late 1990s. Captured documents reveal that the
regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al
Qaeda-as long as that organization’s near-term goals supported Saddam’s longterm
vision. A directive (Extract 24) from the Director for International Intelligence
in the IIS to an Iraqi operative in Bahrain orders him to investigate a particular
terrorist group there, The Army of Muhammad.
Extract 24.
[July 2001]
We have learned of a group calling themselves The Army ofMuhammad… has
threatened Kuwaiti authorities and plans to attack American and Western interests
...We need detailed information about this group, their activities, their objectives,
and their most distinguished leaders. We need to know [to] whom
they belong to and with whom they are connected. Give this subject your ut-
. 82 most attentIOn.
34
The classification markings are original to the Iraqi documents and do not reflect current U.S. classification.
The agent reports (Extract 25) that The Army of Muhammad is
working with Osama bin Laden.
Extract 25.
[9 July 200 1]
Information available to us is that the group is under the wings of bin
Laden. They receive their directions from Yemen. Their objectives are the
. 83 same as bIll Laden...
A later note84 lists the group’s objectives, among them:
• Jihad in the name of God.
• Striking the embassies and other Jewish and American interests anywhere
in the world.
• Attacking the American and British military bases in the Arab land.
• Striking American embassies and interests unless the Americans pull
out their forces from the Arab lands and discontinue their support for
Israel.
• Disrupting oil exports [to] the Americans from Arab countries and
threatening tankers carrying oil to them.
A later memorandum from the same collection85 to the Director
of the IIS reports that the Army of Muhammad is endeavoring to receive assistance
[from Iraq] to implement its objectives, and that the local IIS station has
been told to deal with them in accordance with priorities previously established.
The IIS agent goes on to inform the Director that “this organization is an offshoot
of bin Laden, but that their objectives are similar but with different names that can
be a way of camouflaging the organization.”
Good thing the BBC told us that the Army hid this to prevent us knowing it disproves that Saddam dealt with alQueda, or I would think the boldened part meant he did deal with alQueda since it, ya know, says he did. Not to mention tbe collaborating evidence from the Saddam regime’s own memos.
So no smoking gun proving Saddam had any connection to 9/11. But lots of smoking guns that he was more than happy to work with the guys who did.
Good thing the BBC told us that the Army hid this to prevent us knowing it disproves that Saddam dealt with alQueda, or I would think the boldened part meant he did deal with alQueda since it, ya know, says he did. Not to mention tbe collaborating evidence from the Saddam regime’s own memos.
So no smoking gun proving Saddam had any connection to 9/11. But lots of smoking guns that he was more than happy to work with the guys who did.
Prediction: That won’t in the least bother CM or affect his contention that there was no Iraqi support for Al Queda under Saddam. Then again, if there were documents found, handwritten by Saddam, that showed him supporting them monetarily and with weapons and training, they wouldn’t affect his thinking on the matter either.
Good thing the BBC told us that the Army hid this to prevent us knowing it disproves that Saddam dealt with alQueda, or I would think the boldened part meant he did deal with alQueda since it, ya know, says he did. Not to mention tbe collaborating evidence from the Saddam regime’s own memos.
So no smoking gun proving Saddam had any connection to 9/11. But lots of smoking guns that he was more than happy to work with the guys who did.
Prediction: That won’t in the least bother CM or affect his contention that there was no Iraqi support for Al Queda under Saddam. Then again, if there were documents found, handwritten by Saddam, that showed him supporting them monetarily and with weapons and training, they wouldn’t affect his thinking on the matter either.
I don’t know how many times I’ve repeated myself - you can only use what was known at the time to determine whether someone was lying/misleading. Why is that so difficult to understand?
Yeah yeah, make me out to be a crazed extreme nutter if it helps. I don’t see how it does help, but then I’m clearly not you.
they sent them there to find out what happened to the WMDs that were known to have existed but were not accounted for…
you seem to be missing that little fact, Saddam admitted to certain quantities, only a portion was destroyed, maybe he lost several tonnes of Mustard gas behind the couch or something
Since 1998 Iraq had been fundamentally disarmed, as 90-95% had been destroyed. Sarin and tabun have a shelf-life of five years.
The remainder doesn’t even constitute a weapons programme. It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons programme.
Chemical weapons were produced in the Muthanna state establishment: a massive chemical weapons factory. It was bombed during the 1991 Gulf war, and then weapons inspectors came and completed the task of eliminating the facility. That means Iraq lost its sarin and tabun manufacturing base.
But that wasn’t known at the time of the 14 month run up to the war. If it had been known, why would the UN continued to add resolutions demanding that Iraq let inspectors in to account for all of their WMD? The UN would have just said “hey, 95% of it was destroyed in ‘98 and the shelf life of the rest of it is passed so it’s a non-issue.” But they didn’t do that, the UN continued to push resolution upon resolution onto Iraq because not all of their WMD were accounted for. Your reasoning doesn’t make any sense with how the UN acted and subsequently reacted to Hussein not allowing inspectors in.
I don’t know how many times I’ve repeated myself - you can only use what was known at the time to determine whether someone was lying/misleading. Why is that so difficult to understand?
Not so.
I’m one of four people playing poker. After a hand is dealt but before any bets are placed, the person to the dealers right says that no one is cheating, but the 4th players hand is ace, king, queen of hearts, two of spades and the three of clubs. He offers no supporting evidence, but when the hands are revealed, he’s right.
Was lying/misleading/cheating the only possibilities or could there be sources of information that I wasn’t aware of?
Contrary to the BBC claims, the report supports the actual claims about terrorism made by the US government, as opposed to the “claims” so many opponents accuse the government of implying, i.e. the “direct link”. This opens the possibility that the claims being made were based on real, if not public, intel. Otherwise why weren’t the actual claims made over or understated? Why were they coincidentally so accurate?
That several governments showed their support for the war by providing troops and/or materiel support suggests that intel, if it existed, might well have been shared privately.
But that wasn’t known at the time of the 14 month run up to the war.
Yeah it was known. No evidence had been found by the inspectors in the 7 year period before the war to suggest Iraq possessed chemical or biological weapons.
In 1998, UNSCOM was withdrawn at the request of the United States before Operation Desert Fox. Despite this, UNSCOM’s own estimate was that 90-95% of Iraqi WMDs had been successfully destroyed before its 1998 withdrawal.
If it had been known, why would the UN continued to add resolutions demanding that Iraq let inspectors in to account for all of their WMD? The UN would have just said “hey, 95% of it was destroyed in ‘98 and the shelf life of the rest of it is passed so it’s a non-issue.” But they didn’t do that, the UN continued to push resolution upon resolution onto Iraq because not all of their WMD were accounted for.
There were only two resolutions in between 1998 and the war. One (in 1999) changed the Iraqi inspection program from UNSCOM to UNMOVIC, and the other was the infamous 1441, which gave Iraq “a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations”. After Hans Blix of UNMOVIC reported to the U.N. on 7 March 2003 that several issues remained unresolved, the U.S., U.K., and other members of the “coalition of the willing” declared that Iraq remained in material breach of resolution 687. Efforts aimed at a new Council resolution explicitly authorizing the invasion were aborted owing to resistance from some veto-wielding Members of the Council. Iraq was invaded on 20 March.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Resolutions_concerning_Iraq
The UN clearly did always want to complete inspections. An estimate of 90-95% having been destroyed didn’t meet the tests of what was required by the relevant resolution (#687).
crichton - 19 March 2008 01:12 AM
Your reasoning doesn’t make any sense with how the UN acted and subsequently reacted to Hussein not allowing inspectors in.
See above. Ulitimately the UNSC wasn’t convinced that the situation was dire enough to justify military action. #1441 was obviously the key resolution determining the ‘reaction’ of the UN:
The resolution text was drafted jointly by the United States and the UK, the result of eight weeks of tumultuous negotiations, particularly with Russia and France. France questioned the phrase “serious consequences” and stated repeatedly that any “material breach” found by the inspectors should not automatically lead to war; instead the UN should pass another resolution deciding on the course of action. In favour of this view is the fact that previous resolutions legitimizing war under Chapter VII used much stronger terms, like “…all necessary means…” in Resolution 678 in 1990 and that Resolution 1441 stated that the Security Council shall “remain seized of the matter.”
While some politicians have argued that the resolution could authorize war under certain circumstances, the representatives in the meeting were clear that this was not the case. The ambassador for the United States, John Negroponte, said:
“[T]his resolution contains no “hidden triggers” and no “automaticity” with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.”
I don’t know how many times I’ve repeated myself - you can only use what was known at the time to determine whether someone was lying/misleading. Why is that so difficult to understand?
Not so.
I’m one of four people playing poker. After a hand is dealt but before any bets are placed, the person to the dealers right says that no one is cheating, but the 4th players hand is ace, king, queen of hearts, two of spades and the three of clubs. He offers no supporting evidence, but when the hands are revealed, he’s right.
Was lying/misleading/cheating the only possibilities or could there be sources of information that I wasn’t aware of?
Contrary to the BBC claims, the report supports the actual claims about terrorism made by the US government, as opposed to the “claims” so many opponents accuse the government of implying, i.e. the “direct link”. This opens the possibility that the claims being made were based on real, if not public, intel. Otherwise why weren’t the actual claims made over or understated? Why were they coincidentally so accurate?
When I say “known at the time”, I mean reasonably known to the person making the claim (whether it was public or not). And I don’t just mean information/evidence that supports what you say. If there is evidence/knowledge that disputes or dilutes the validity of the information that supports your claim, that cannot be set aside. By making a firm claim you are not only saying that there is known firm evidence of something, you’re also saying there is nothing of relevance that disputes or contradicts that.
Everything I’ve seen to justify the claims was determined or found later on.
So, when was Extract 24 and 25 discovered? When were those ‘documents captured’?
According to the report, they are from “Harmony document folder ISGQ-2005-000 17130 - Memorandum to IIS M4 from D1, subject: the battalions of the Army of Muhammad, 9 July 2001.”
I would assume the US didn’t get them right away, but found them after the invasion.
In fact the Foreward tells us:
In September 2003 the Commander, United States Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM), asked the Joint Advanced Warfighting Program (JAWP) at the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) to help develop the operational and strategic lessons from OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF) from the perspectives of former senior Iraqi decision-makers. By creating a historical narrative of the events surrounding OIF, interviewing captured prisoners, and reviewing translations of enemy documents and media archives, IDA researchers were able to report on the inner workings-and sometimes delusional behavior en masse-of the Saddam Hussein regime.
For this paper, the JAWP Iraqi Perspectives Project (IPP) research team screened more than 600,000 original captured documents I and several thousand hours of audio and video footage archived in a US Department of Defense (DOD) database called Harmony. As of August 2006, only 15 percent of the captured documents have English translations. evertheless, a user can search all of the documents by their cataloging descriptions, i.e., by topic, key concepts, and date, all of which are in English.
So how is that not just more retrospective justification (which isn’t relevant in proving what was known at the time)?
On the second to last page is a summary:
Captured Iraqi documents have uncovered evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism, including a
variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic terrorist organizations. While these documents do not reveal direct coordination
and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously,
operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist–operatives monitored closely. Because Saddam’s security
organizations and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was
inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some
ways, a “de facto” link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still
maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not
always successful, evidence shows that Saddam’s use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the
collapse of the regime.
You’ve suggested that the report shows that there were “lots of smoking guns that he was more than happy to work with the guys who did [have a connection to 9/11]”.
I wouldn’t agree. It shows some links, but as that summary makes pretty clear, it was probably mostly because of ‘overlap’ because of ‘similar aims (at least in the short term)’. As far as I can see, he didn’t even know 9/11 was going to happen. So I would say the links were tenous. There was no operational relationship.
On April 29, 2007, former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet said on 60 Minutes, “We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda
As I said before, was Saddam connected to the attacks on 9/11 in way any more meaningful than Iran? Or any other nation that had the same tenous links?
Even if the US administration had this report in their hands when they made the pre-war statements, I still don’t see that it backs up their continued insistence to conflate Saddam and 9/11 over and over and over again. But they didn’t have it, so they can’t even claim it. Of course they can claim that their claims were based information that wasn’t made known to the public (then, or now). But then why not provide the evidence now (and the evidence that they knew it at the time)?
Obviously this stuff wasn’t relevant at the UN, as the only issue there was weapons inspections.
That several governments showed their support for the war by providing troops and/or materiel support suggests that intel, if it existed, might well have been shared privately
Not necessarily. Aside from what I said above, it could (at least) equally suggest:
(1) They relied on what the US Administration was telling them (like the rest of US).
(2) They didn’t want to lose US aid money or they wanted to get some US aid money.
(3) They saw the situation as a time when they had to choose sides, and decided it was in their interests to side with the US.
Some national governments publicly denounced the invasion plan while at the same time accepting U.S. aid earmarked for the war, or providing to the war effort troops, fueling stations, military support, and/or airspace.
Most Japanese believe that it was motivated purely to improve Japan’s relations to the US government, which had been improving since the beginning of the Bush administration.
Israel welcomed the prospect of the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime. Isreal was prepared to offer any assistance it could to the US[3]. Furthermore, by launching the war, Israel will have a strong regional ally whose interests –both militarily and politically conflate with its own and that is willing to use force to safeguard those self-same interests. Diplomatically, Washington has shielded Tel Aviv from worldwide opprobrium as the construction of its security fence continues. For that time Tel Aviv was more than happy to allow Washington to shoulder Israel’s security burden throughout the Middle East.
The Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau (former American trust territories with a combined population of around 186,000) are legally sovereign and are full member states of the United Nations; however, their governments are largely dependent on the United States Congress for their funding through Compacts of Free Association. Some critics of the war assert that if these states took anti-war stances, they would be severely harmed politically and economically because of their reliance on the United States.
The Republic of Ireland is an officially neutral country, with a strong tradition of supporting UN institutions, peacekeeping and international law. Nevertheless, the use of Shannon Airport was allowed for transatlantic stopovers by the US Army. Under domestic pressure, the Taoiseach Bertie Ahern repeatedly glossed over the particulars of the situation, while emphasising the need for a UN mandate.
Despite large-scale protests, including many at Shannon Airport itself, opinion polls showed that many people broadly supported official policy on the use of the Airport. While a large majority of the public did oppose the war, there was a fifty–fifty split on the use of Shannon. Keeping US investment in Ireland safe was the principal reason for allowing US stopovers. Ultimately anti-war allies were appeased by the government’s not condoning the war while the situation with Shannon kept Irish-U.S. relations cordial.
2. In early to mid 2003, 53% of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11th, 2001, terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. I’ve given one possible explanation of why that might have happened. If you reject that, then what are the alternative explanations?
