WMD inquiry..

[Guest hunger4unger]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3453305.stm

 

Former cabinet secretary Lord Butler will chair a five-member committee looking at whether the pre-war intelligence was right or wrong.

 

The committee will include two MPs, but the Lib Dems are not taking part - because it will not look at the political judgements on the war.

 

Earlier, Tony Blair said the inquiry would not re-run Lord Hutton's report.

 

"The issue of good faith was determined by the Hutton inquiry," he said.

 

I don't think there is any way that the UK government is going to come out of any inquiry looking bad. The same goes for the US who are also holding an inquiry. They are afterall appointing the ministers to lead the inquiry.

 

To look at the slightly bigger picture it is possible that we went to war/invaded another country on the basis of either lies, exagerations or wrong information..

 

Whether you think that we should have gone in and taken out Saddam anyway, this is a seperate issue; we were told that Iraq had WMD and could use them within a 45 minute timeframe which is why most people, at the time, were for the war. Now that this is clearly not the case, what do you think the problem was? I personally feel that the US and UK governments exagerated any threat and blatantly lied about WMD and are now pushing the blame onto their intelligence services.

 

If it is proven, though I doubt it, that Iraq posed no threat and that Bush & Blair falsified information in order to justify invading Iraq should they be tried for war crimes?

[Guest JMA]

I already know how this thread is going to turn out...

[Guest hunger4unger]

Heh. I think I do too. Still, I think it's worth a discussion...

[Justice 0]

Well, this seems to be an intelligence failure of massive proportions. Just about every intelligence agency in the world was saying the same damn thing about Iraq: They had WMDs and they had always had them. The UN believed the same thing right up until during the war; they only disagreed with how we should go about it. To say that the US and UK blantantly lied is ignoring the fact that their viewpoint on WMDs was the same as just about everyone else's in the world.

 

And no: If anything, they should be rewarded for capturing one of the biggest war-criminals of all time. To call them war criminals for simply enforcing Resolution 1441 (Saddam never did supply adequate proof that he didn't have WMDs during the 12 years after PG1 anyways) is moronic.

[Guest JMA]

Heh. I think I do too. Still, I think it's worth a discussion...

No one will discuss anything. People will just insult each other's opinions and it'll all end up as one big clusterfuck. Still, I can't turn away.

 

It's almost like watching a train wreck.

[Justice 0]

Heh. I think I do too. Still, I think it's worth a discussion...

No one will discuss anything. People will just insult each other's opinions and it'll all end up as one big clusterfuck. Still, I can't turn away.

 

It's almost like watching a train wreck.

JMA is right. Would this count as trolling and worthy of a ban?

[Guest JMA]

Heh. I think I do too. Still, I think it's worth a discussion...

No one will discuss anything. People will just insult each other's opinions and it'll all end up as one big clusterfuck. Still, I can't turn away.

 

It's almost like watching a train wreck.

JMA is right. Would this count as trolling and worthy of a ban?

I think a better solution would be folder reform. Although, just my saying that is bound to piss people off.

 

Oh well.

 

"If you don't like it you can GEET out!"

[Justice 0]

Heh. I think I do too. Still, I think it's worth a discussion...

No one will discuss anything. People will just insult each other's opinions and it'll all end up as one big clusterfuck. Still, I can't turn away.

 

It's almost like watching a train wreck.

JMA is right. Would this count as trolling and worthy of a ban?

I think a better solution would be folder reform. Although, just my saying that is bound to piss people off.

 

Oh well.

 

"If you don't like it you can GEET out!"

Capital Punishment, bitch! I don't want any of that namby-pamby hippie reform shit. When I solve a problem I wanna know that that thing is gone.

[Guest JMA]

Heh. I think I do too. Still, I think it's worth a discussion...

No one will discuss anything. People will just insult each other's opinions and it'll all end up as one big clusterfuck. Still, I can't turn away.

 

It's almost like watching a train wreck.

JMA is right. Would this count as trolling and worthy of a ban?

I think a better solution would be folder reform. Although, just my saying that is bound to piss people off.

 

Oh well.

 

"If you don't like it you can GEET out!"

Capital Punishment, bitch! I don't want any of that namby-pamby hippie reform shit. When I solve a problem I wanna know that that thing is gone.

Bring the hammer down on their collective asses!

 

[Guest hunger4unger]

I don't see the problem of discussing this here. The subject and content certainly does not merit a ban. This is a forum - people are free to voice their disagreements if they infact, disagree.

[Guest hunger4unger]

Well, this seems to be an intelligence failure of massive proportions. Just about every intelligence agency in the world was saying the same damn thing about Iraq: They had WMDs and they had always had them. The UN believed the same thing right up until during the war; they only disagreed with how we should go about it. To say that the US and UK blantantly lied is ignoring the fact that their viewpoint on WMDs was the same as just about everyone else's in the world.

The United Nations certainly did not agree that Iraq had WMD's. They had inspectors in the country that found nothing. They urged for more time to be given to the inspectors before any action took place.

[Guest JMA]

I don't see the problem of discussing this here. The subject and content certainly does not merit a ban. This is a forum - people are free to voice their disagreements if they infact, disagree.

Eh, I don't want you banned. I'm just saying that there probably won't be much of a discussion.

 

See my above post for the reasons why.

[NoCalMike 0]

well for some reason Powell made some rather major conflicting statements concering Iraq relating to WMD's. I believe the biggest occurances was in how the complete opposite opinion was given in the span of two months and to as why? No one really knows besides Powell. Was it as simple as ready a document or two and changing his mind, or was there persuasion involved.......I guess we will never know.

[Justice 0]

Well, this seems to be an intelligence failure of massive proportions. Just about every intelligence agency in the world was saying the same damn thing about Iraq: They had WMDs and they had always had them. The UN believed the same thing right up until during the war; they only disagreed with how we should go about it. To say that the US and UK blantantly lied is ignoring the fact that their viewpoint on WMDs was the same as just about everyone else's in the world.

The United Nations certainly did not agree that Iraq had WMD's. They had inspectors in the country that found nothing. They urged for more time to be given to the inspectors before any action took place.

They didn't find anything the first time... yet they continued inspections for 7 more years and kept on sactions specifically because Saddam never gave adequete proof he didn't have them. If they knew there was nothing there, why keep having weapons inspections?

[Guest hunger4unger]

Because they thought he had them. After intense inspections leading up to the war still none were found. Since the occupancy still none have been found.

 

We were told going into this war that Iraq had WMD's..that there was proof. Clearly there wasn't.

[NoCalMike 0]

Well, this seems to be an intelligence failure of massive proportions. Just about every intelligence agency in the world was saying the same damn thing about Iraq: They had WMDs and they had always had them. The UN believed the same thing right up until during the war; they only disagreed with how we should go about it. To say that the US and UK blantantly lied is ignoring the fact that their viewpoint on WMDs was the same as just about everyone else's in the world.

The United Nations certainly did not agree that Iraq had WMD's. They had inspectors in the country that found nothing. They urged for more time to be given to the inspectors before any action took place.

They didn't find anything the first time... yet they continued inspections for 7 more years and kept on sactions specifically because Saddam never gave adequete proof he didn't have them. If they knew there was nothing there, why keep having weapons inspections?

what better proof then never finding even a trace? And weren't the inspections required by the sanctions?

[Justice 0]

Because they thought he had them. After intense inspections leading up to the war still none were found. Since the occupancy still none have been found.

The United Nations certainly did not agree that Iraq had WMD's. They had inspectors in the country that found nothing. They urged for more time to be given to the inspectors before any action took place.

 

That's sort of a contradiction there. I said that they still thought that they had WMDs, just like we did. Everyone thought Iraq had WMDs based on the intelligence everyone was given. Dealing with the problem was where everyone differed. Not until after the war was there any presumption that there might not be WMDs.

 

We were told going into this war that Iraq had WMD's..that there was proof. Clearly there wasn't.

 

Of course, this is why it is considered an INTELLIGENCE failure. Every intelligence agency out there thought that Iraq had these. The UN was continuing inspections because they thought they still had them. Iraq had never accounted for hunderds of thousands of chemical shells they had said they had. This was not lying, this was an intelligence failure, and frankly, that's the only part I'm really concerned with. The invasion of Iraq was still justified 6 ways from Sunday simply because of the regieme in power over there.

 

what better proof then never finding even a trace? And weren't the inspections required by the sanctions?

 

1) If that's the proof, then why did UN inspectors continually say "We know he's hiding some, we just can't get around him"? I mean, before this war there was no UN inspector who didn't think Saddam had WMDs. The UN obviously thought he had them to continue keeping sactions and inspections on him.

 

2) Well, they were kind of hand-in-hand; one begets the other and vice-versa.

[NoCalMike 0]

maybe W. is lying about being given false information, and he just had people cook the books!?!

[Justice 0]

maybe W. is lying about being given false information, and he just had people cook the books!?! 

Well, when you put it like that...

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

hunger4unger, how was Iraq NOT in material breach of UN Resolution 1441?

[Guest Cerebus]

After intense inspections leading up to the war still none were found. Since the occupancy still none have been found.

Oh really?

 

Although UNSCOM verified the destruction of 73 to 75 of the 75 special warheads that Iraq declared, a number of discrepancies and questions remain, which raise doubts about the accounting of the special warheads, including the total number produced: statements by some senior Iraqi officials that Iraq had possessed 75 chemical and 25 biological Scud-type warheads; the finding that, at a minimum, 16 to 30 structural rings remain unaccounted for;

As it has proved impossible to verify the production and destruction details of R-400 bombs, UNMOVIC cannot discount the possibility that some CW and BW filled R-400 bombs remain in Iraq.

The “Air Force document” recently received by UNMOVIC introduces additional uncertainty in accounting as it indicates that 6,526 fewer aerial CW bombs had been “consumed” during the Iraq Iran War. This would mean that approximately 1000 tonnes of agent (predominantly Mustard, but also Sarin and Tabun) had not consumed as previously thought...It is possible that viable Mustard filled artillery shells and aerial bombs still remain in Iraq.

UNMOVIC has credible information that the total quantity of BW agent in bombs, warheads and in bulk at the time of the Gulf War was 7,000 litres more than declared by Iraq. This additional agent was most likely all anthrax.

Based on all the available evidence, the strong presumption is that about 10,000 litres of anthrax was not destroyed and may still exist.

Iraq currently possesses the technology and materials, including fermenters, bacterial growth media and seed stock, to enable it to produce anthrax. Many of the skilled personnel familiar with anthrax production have been transferred to civilian industries. There does not appear to be any choke points, which would prevent Iraq from producing anthrax on at least the scale of its pre-1991 level.

UNMOVIC assesses that neither peptone or tryptone soya broth (TSB) growth media have been adequately accounted for by Iraq. It is not possible to be definitive about the amount of peptone and TSB that may be unaccounted for, but the amount would appear to be significant.

 

I don't know why I keep putting the same info, it'll never seem to matter to trolls like you. Might as well let people know how big a dumbass you are at least.

 

Oh and it's occupation not occupancy.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Not sure what's going in the UK.

 

As for the U.S, frankly none of these independent inquiries on any issue, ever amount to anything, and the findings generally seem to be forgotten within a month.

 

Personal opinion. They'll come to the basic conclusion the Kay Report did.

[Guest hunger4unger]

hunger4unger, how was Iraq NOT in material breach of UN Resolution 1441?

They had no WMD so how could they possibly give them up?!

[Guest hunger4unger]

After intense inspections leading up to the war still none were found. Since the occupancy still none have been found.

Oh really?

 

Although UNSCOM verified the destruction of 73 to 75 of the 75 special warheads that Iraq declared, a number of discrepancies and questions remain, which raise doubts about the accounting of the special warheads, including the total number produced: statements by some senior Iraqi officials that Iraq had possessed 75 chemical and 25 biological Scud-type warheads; the finding that, at a minimum, 16 to 30 structural rings remain unaccounted for;

As it has proved impossible to verify the production and destruction details of R-400 bombs, UNMOVIC cannot discount the possibility that some CW and BW filled R-400 bombs remain in Iraq.

The “Air Force document” recently received by UNMOVIC introduces additional uncertainty in accounting as it indicates that 6,526 fewer aerial CW bombs had been “consumed” during the Iraq Iran War. This would mean that approximately 1000 tonnes of agent (predominantly Mustard, but also Sarin and Tabun) had not consumed as previously thought...It is possible that viable Mustard filled artillery shells and aerial bombs still remain in Iraq.

UNMOVIC has credible information that the total quantity of BW agent in bombs, warheads and in bulk at the time of the Gulf War was 7,000 litres more than declared by Iraq. This additional agent was most likely all anthrax.

Based on all the available evidence, the strong presumption is that about 10,000 litres of anthrax was not destroyed and may still exist.

Iraq currently possesses the technology and materials, including fermenters, bacterial growth media and seed stock, to enable it to produce anthrax. Many of the skilled personnel familiar with anthrax production have been transferred to civilian industries. There does not appear to be any choke points, which would prevent Iraq from producing anthrax on at least the scale of its pre-1991 level.

UNMOVIC assesses that neither peptone or tryptone soya broth (TSB) growth media have been adequately accounted for by Iraq. It is not possible to be definitive about the amount of peptone and TSB that may be unaccounted for, but the amount would appear to be significant.

 

I don't know why I keep putting the same info, it'll never seem to matter to trolls like you. Might as well let people know how big a dumbass you are at least.

 

Oh and it's occupation not occupancy.

So, Iraq had WMD that are unaccounted for. So that document says anyway, which i'll take as granted for arguements sake. Now, after YEARS or inspections and an intense inspection program leading up to the occupancy and even more searching afterwrds, we've stll found nada. Nothing. Zilch. What does that tell you? It tells me that any WMD were destroyed, used or weren't ever there on that scale in the first place.

 

You were stating your case pretty well under you called me a "troll" and a "dumbass" - resortign to insults is a sure way of acknowledging that you are incorrect. Let your opinions get over your points not insults.

 

And if I want to use "occupancy" I will.

[Guest hunger4unger]

Not sure what's going in the UK.

 

As for the U.S, frankly none of these independent inquiries on any issue, ever amount to anything, and the findings generally seem to be forgotten within a month.

 

Personal opinion. They'll come to the basic conclusion the Kay Report did.

In the UK the WMD issue is a huge deal as this is the reason that we were lead into this war. Many, including myself and many politicians doubted that WMD claim was true.

[Zorin Industries 0]

I don't expect much to come of this report, the remit is quite narrow, as it will investigate the political and diplomatic decisions to wage war, nor the legal basis for doing so. Plus, Lord Butler is known for showing deference to the Establishment and after the Hutton whitewash I can see the general public viewing the result with a degree of skepticisim, especialy if it exonorates the government.

[Justice 0]

hunger4unger, how was Iraq NOT in material breach of UN Resolution 1441?

They had no WMD so how could they possibly give them up?!

Actually, this is wrong. We've found a long range missile program (Documented in the first Kay report, I believe) which was in direct violation of the guidelines outlined in 1441. So yeah.

[Murmuring Beast 0]

Weapons inquiry is needed because the British public want to know WHY we went to "war" with Iraq. Sure, we got "Saddam", but that doesn't excuse the fact that Blair might have justified the invasion by lying about the Weapons Of Mass Discretion .... sorry, destruction.

[Guest Cerebus]

So, Iraq had WMD that are unaccounted for. So that document says anyway, which i'll take as granted for arguements sake. Now, after YEARS or inspections and an intense inspection program leading up to the occupancy and even more searching afterwrds, we've stll found nada. Nothing. Zilch. What does that tell you? It tells me that any WMD were destroyed, used or weren't ever there on that scale in the first place.

 

You were stating your case pretty well under you called me a "troll" and a "dumbass" - resortign to insults is a sure way of acknowledging that you are incorrect. Let your opinions get over your points not insults.

 

And if I want to use "occupancy" I will.

You didn't read anything did you? Look at the history in each section of cluster of disarmement issues, from UNMOVIC's last report from Iraq btw, and it will tell you how UNSCOM discovered countless prohibited weapons and forced Iraq to disarm. If you're really interested in what UNSCOM did discover (and despite what you think they did find and disarm tons of prohibited weapons before they were kicked out in 1998) I'll be happy to PM the documents to you so that you can take a look yourself. Also, looking for prohibited weapons in a country that's 168,754 square miles is not like your mom searching your room for a bag of weed especially when you don't have a chance to explore fully (it's easy for many, including me, to conclude that UNMOVIC wasn't given enough time to explore Iraq fully but that's a different issue). And tell me, since you seem to be a plethora of information on Iraq, why didn't Iraq give all the info to exonerate itself if it did, indeed, have no weapons or wasn't trying to restart its weapons program?

[C Dubya 04 0]

And tell me, since you seem to be a plethora of information on Iraq, why didn't Iraq give all the info to exonerate itself if it did, indeed, have no weapons or wasn't trying to restart its weapons program?

It doesn't seem like Iraq really had any real organization, so they may not have had any documentation of the destruction (or sale) of any of those weapons.

 

The reports that you keep posting all seem to be along the same lines that things may have been there, but they don't ever clearly state that there were WMD's in Iraq. The information posted above just seems to be general questions if there were weapons or not, not conclusive evidence thereof.