• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Saddam: 'I Lied About WMD In Fear Of Iran'

I never said I would wait for 100% certitude. The UN and others asserted that Iraq posed no threat.
Interesting statement, given the multitude of UNSC resolutions to the contrary, stating that Iraq was a threat to the security of the region.

Recall, too, that no one questioned the threat that was Iraq until it was clear that GWB was of a mind to actually do something about ut.

We had outdated intel that said otherwise.
Seems to me we had solid, positive intel regarding the existence of both WMDs and WMD programs in 1998, which was the justification for the 3-day war we waged against Iraq in december of that year.

If we knew they were there then, and Iraq failed to prove that they had been destroyed/dismantled -- what conclusion can you reach other than they are still there (and that there is a concerted effort to hide them)?

Why is it impossible to make sure that your intel is good before invading and occupying another country.
Define "good". Does 19:1 qualify?
If not, why not?

Do we know that Iran has nuclear aspirations? Yes.
Do we know they support terror? Yes.
Have we invaded as we did Iraq? No.
Non sequitur? Relevance?
 
Last edited:
Interesting statement, given the multitude of UNSC resolutions to the contrary, stating that Iraq was a threat to the security of the region.

I can find no such resolutions. Only failure to comply with weapon inspections, as we have now seen was in effort to keep Iran in check.

Recall, too, that no one questioned the threat that was Iraq until it was clear that GWB was of a mind to actually do something about ut.

No one felt that the region should be thrown into turmoil to simply remove Saadam, when the nation was under a total embargo.


Seems to me we had solid, positive intel regarding the existence of both WMDs and WMD programs in 1998, which was the justification for the 3-day war we waged against Iraq in december of that year.

That was over failure to allow weapons inspectors in.

If we knew they were there then, and Iraq failed to prove that they had been destroyed/dismantled -- what conclusion can you reach other than they are still there (and that there is a concerted effort to hide them)?

Have you missed the point of the thread? Saadam wanted Iran to think he still had weapons.


Define "good". Does 19:1 qualify?
If not, why not?

Sure, 19-1 are good. But when I presented these 19-1 and my Secretary of State said he did no think the intel was good, and a diplomat went to Africa and found no evidence of certain charges, and the head of the CIA speaks out only to be put back into place by my VP, then the 19-1 starts to look more 50/50.


Non sequitur? Relevance?

You asserted that with what Bush had and the geopolitical situation, he was right and should have done as he had. Iran poses the exact same scenario with greater intel certainty, yet Bush did not act. Why? If your theory of preemptive action is correct, then we must immediately attack Iran and North Korea as they are more dire threats than Iraq could have ever been.
 
I can find no such resolutions. Only failure to comply with weapon inspections, as we have now seen was in effort to keep Iran in check.
UNSCR 1441:
“Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security"

No one felt that the region should be thrown into turmoil to simply remove Saadam, when the nation was under a total embargo.
Your response concedes the point that no one questioned the threat that was Iraq. Thank you.

That was over failure to allow weapons inspectors in.
WJBC described the attacks that he orderd were on Iraqi WMD weapoms and weapons development facilities:
...on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.
How do you attack these targets if you do not know they exist, and where they are?
Further, who questioned the information that Iraq did indeed have WMDs and WMD programs in december 1998?

Have you missed the point of the thread? Saadam wanted Iran to think he still had weapons.
Yes... and so, he had an active campaign in place to make people think he had WMDs. Seems likely then that the conclusion that he had them was natural, obvious, and supported by the information at hand.

To ignore this information on the grounds that it was MISinformation would necessitate holding the belief that, even though GWB had a quarter million men on his border and is more than ready to set them loose, Saddam -deliberately- make GWB think that he had the very things that GWB was about to invade Iraq for.

Sure, 19-1 are good. But when I presented these 19-1 and my Secretary of State said he did no think the intel was good, and a diplomat went to Africa and found no evidence of certain charges, and the head of the CIA speaks out only to be put back into place by my VP, then the 19-1 starts to look more 50/50.
As I said:
Citing the two or three things those inflicted by BDS like to hang their hats on does nothing but illustrate a failure to understand this.

You asserted that with what Bush had and the geopolitical situation, he was right and should have done as he had. Iran poses the exact same scenario with greater intel certainty, yet Bush did not act. Why?
Whatever the answer, its irrelevant to my point.
MY point is that when dealing with things like this, you never have 100% of the information, and so ALWAYS must act on the perponderance of the evidence.
 
UNSCR 1441:
Your response concedes the point that no one questioned the threat that was Iraq. Thank you.

No, my answer is that as Iraq was under a complete embargo, they were no threat.


WJBC described the attacks that he orderd were on Iraqi WMD weapoms and weapons development facilities:

How do you attack these targets if you do not know they exist, and where they are?
Further, who questioned the information that Iraq did indeed have WMDs and WMD programs in december 1998?

They knew that old sites existed in which the weapons they used against Iran were housed. As did they have exiled Iraqi informants, the same that were proven incorrect.


Yes... and so, he had an active campaign in place to make people think he had WMDs. Seems likely then that the conclusion that he had them was natural, obvious, and supported by the information at hand.

To ignore this information on the grounds that it was MISinformation would necessitate holding the belief that, even though GWB had a quarter million men on his border and is more than ready to set them loose, Saddam -deliberately- make GWB think that he had the very things that GWB was about to invade Iraq for.

I am saying it was knowingly questionable, and the administration was told as much. It has been long known that both Rumsfield and Cheney wanted an Iraq invasion prior to 9/11.


Whatever the answer, its irrelevant to my point.
MY point is that when dealing with things like this, you never have 100% of the information, and so ALWAYS must act on the perponderance of the evidence.

How is this irrelevant? Is it because we cannot easily beat-up on these other nations? Or is it that we have learned from Iraq?
 
Ultimately, I think the disagreement between you and I is over pre-emptive war policy. Which not even war-loving Realists are against. John Mearsheimer himself felt that the evidence for pre-emptive war in Iraq was not strong enough for the cost versus reward factor. The U.S. went in and in doing so has left a potential chaotic nation that may, if it does not survive as a democracy, throw the whole region into turmoil, and create new niches for groups such as the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
 
Mean while back on the Ranch the rest of us are tired of this discussion because it get's no where and most if you had never step in one foot into to Iraq prior to 2003.

But I will agree with one thing till we the folks who were their on the ground are free of certain rule's and regulations and most of the UN Security reports will be declass starting in 2015 unless Russia and China but a hold on them(Hmmm Wonder Why they would want that to happen). That is when you will see allot of REAl TRUTHS start come out about Iraq and their WMD programs and their rebuilding of their Military till then it's going to be the same no your wrong no you don't know what your talking about shut the **** up yes I do no you don't prove it Bull**** discussion's.
 
Mean while back on the Ranch the rest of us are tired of this discussion because it get's no where and most if you had never step in one foot into to Iraq prior to 2003.

But I will agree with one thing till we the folks who were their on the ground are free of certain rule's and regulations and most of the UN Security reports will be declass starting in 2015 unless Russia and China but a hold on them(Hmmm Wonder Why they would want that to happen). That is when you will see allot of REAl TRUTHS start come out about Iraq and their WMD programs and their rebuilding of their Military till then it's going to be the same no your wrong no you don't know what your talking about shut the **** up yes I do no you don't prove it Bull**** discussion's.

Take it easy man. You should hit the Tikki and have a drink. Oh, again let me know when your book will be published.:2wave:
 
Mean while back on the Ranch the rest of us are tired of this discussion because it get's no where and most if you had never step in one foot into to Iraq prior to 2003.

But I will agree with one thing till we the folks who were their on the ground are free of certain rule's and regulations and most of the UN Security reports will be declass starting in 2015 unless Russia and China but a hold on them(Hmmm Wonder Why they would want that to happen). That is when you will see allot of REAl TRUTHS start come out about Iraq and their WMD programs and their rebuilding of their Military till then it's going to be the same no your wrong no you don't know what your talking about shut the **** up yes I do no you don't prove it Bull**** discussion's.

Oh, so we should wait till after Cheney's dead and buried to even discuss the topic. I see. Boy, he's got his hand up your ass but good.
 
Oh, so we should wait till after Cheney's dead and buried to even discuss the topic. I see. Boy, he's got his hand up your ass but good.

What part didn't you read huh please go back and read what I said about the UN Classifed Reports I said nothing of Mr. Cheney nor would I since I didn't report to him and never had to write any reports for the VP of the United States, I'm sure he might have read one or two of the reports that I with allot of other folks help write but once again you decide to bring in someone who isn't even part of the discussion way to go Will typical of you ell at least you consistent I'll give you that.
 
What part didn't you read huh please go back and read what I said about the UN Classifed Reports I said nothing of Mr. Cheney nor would I since I didn't report to him and never had to write any reports for the VP of the United States, I'm sure he might have read one or two of the reports that I with allot of other folks help write but once again you decide to bring in someone who isn't even part of the discussion way to go Will typical of you ell at least you consistent I'll give you that.

OMG you are hilarious, is there anything you don't take credit for?
 
OMG you are hilarious, is there anything you don't take credit for?

Nothing that isn't military. Scorpion automatically assumes everyone can kiss his a** about the military, but he really needs to learn to shut his god**mn mouth, and eat some humble f***ing pie.

Scorpion, you need to tone down your freaking arrogance level, because it's only gonna make you look like an a**hole, and one who didn't do anything in Iraq anyway.

I remember you getting all personal about Iraq, and saying you went there as part of the inspection teams. I also remember you said you were turned away. IE, your "experience" is going to Iraq for a few days, then you got your butt kicked out of there. That's what you have. What we have, is common sense, and a sense of humility, something you need to learn.
 
Let's not lose sight of the real lesson for our children here. If you lie, you get hanged.
 
Nothing that isn't military. Scorpion automatically assumes everyone can kiss his a** about the military, but he really needs to learn to shut his god**mn mouth, and eat some humble f***ing pie.

Scorpion, you need to tone down your freaking arrogance level, because it's only gonna make you look like an a**hole, and one who didn't do anything in Iraq anyway.

I remember you getting all personal about Iraq, and saying you went there as part of the inspection teams. I also remember you said you were turned away. IE, your "experience" is going to Iraq for a few days, then you got your butt kicked out of there. That's what you have. What we have, is common sense, and a sense of humility, something you need to learn.

and he also claims to be a test pilot instructor? My father taught fighter pilots, and one thing I know is he would never have bragged about it. No real pilot would.
 
and he also claims to be a test pilot instructor? My father taught fighter pilots, and one thing I know is he would never have bragged about it. No real pilot would.

Scorpin has the biggest head in the whole damn world. All he can do is brag, brag, and then brag some more. Most annoying thing in the d**n world.

If you come here to debate, you have to have humility. Scorpion has the opposite, extreme arrogance.
 
You mean the same one who invaded Kuwait? Fought a war of attrition with Iran? You mean that same one?


I think you need to consult your history book. :2wave:

Hahahahahaha.

Yes. The same one who attacked and fought Iran. With our blessing. The same one we aided in his war with Iran.

Yes, the same one who invaded Kuwait. Who we drove out of Kuwait. Who then was defeated by us. Whose airspace we controlled. Who we contained.

That is the history. History also tells us that our President, in 1991, stopped fighting after we had defeated Saddam's army, because he knew going further into Iraq would have been a military nightmare, and was completely unnecessary. H.W. was very smart, and understood the basic rule that it isn't smart to own liabilities. So he didn't take ownership of Baghdad. Good move.

But we didn't learn from that history, and look where that got us.
 
Hahahahahaha.

Yes. The same one who attacked and fought Iran. With our blessing. The same one we aided in his war with Iran.


Point being, they were a threat

Yes, the same one who invaded Kuwait. Who we drove out of Kuwait. Who then was defeated by us. Whose airspace we controlled. Who we contained.

who was involved in the worlds biggest embezzelment scheme in cahoots with the UN, france, russia et all, while blaming us for starving iraqis.


That is the history. History also tells us that our President, in 1991, stopped fighting after we had defeated Saddam's army, because he knew going further into Iraq would have been a military nightmare, and was completely unnecessary. H.W. was very smart, and understood the basic rule that it isn't smart to own liabilities. So he didn't take ownership of Baghdad. Good move.

But we didn't learn from that history, and look where that got us.



nonesense Bush one told us to stand down because he was a UN coward. We stood ready to go in and were equipped to take bagdhad when he pulled us out because of the namby UN. Had he gone in, we wouldn't be there now.
 
Scorpin has the biggest head in the whole damn world. All he can do is brag, brag, and then brag some more. Most annoying thing in the d**n world.

If you come here to debate, you have to have humility. Scorpion has the opposite, extreme arrogance.




The Good Reverend is far more arrogant. But of course he is. I mean just look at the dood! If you were as cool as him, you would have to be arrogant too.


Just sayin.
 
No, my answer is that as Iraq was under a complete embargo, they were no threat.
Others, like the UN security council and the governments of several countries, disagreed with you.

They knew that old sites existed in which the weapons they used against Iran were housed. As did they have exiled Iraqi informants, the same that were proven incorrect.
That's not what WJBC said. Did he lie?
Again - no one questioned their existence until it was obvious GWB was willing to do something about it.

I am saying it was knowingly questionable and the administration was told as much.
Perponderance of evidence.

It has been long known that both Rumsfield and Cheney wanted an Iraq invasion prior to 9/11.
Prove this to be true.

How is this irrelevant?
Because the discussion here revolves around the idea that you often have to act on incomplete information. Your interjection of 'why havent we invaded Iran' into the discussion is irrelevant.
 
Ultimately, I think the disagreement between you and I is over pre-emptive war policy.
Given the damage potential of modern WMDs, there's no rational reason to write off the idea of pre-emptive war. Waiting to be attacked before acting does nothing but needlessly cost lives.
 
Let's not lose sight of the real lesson for our children here. If you lie, you get hanged.

I won't hold my breath on seeing Blair hanging along side him :roll:
 
Others, like the UN security council and the governments of several countries, disagreed with you.


That's not what WJBC said. Did he lie?
Again - no one questioned their existence until it was obvious GWB was willing to do something about it.


Perponderance of evidence.


Prove this to be true.


Because the discussion here revolves around the idea that you often have to act on incomplete information. Your interjection of 'why havent we invaded Iran' into the discussion is irrelevant.

To answer all of your questions to the sources of my information, read Bob Woodwards works on the administration, in which he directly interviews all involved. Read Collin Powells book, Scott McClellan's memoir, and a host of other books on the subject written by those within the administration.

As to the want of Rumsfield and Cheney, read any of their statements prior to George W. Bush taking office. Watch Frontlines documentary on Cheney, it was widely known he felt that George H. Bush dropped the ball by not taking Baghdad in the first Gulf War.
 
Given the damage potential of modern WMDs, there's no rational reason to write off the idea of pre-emptive war. Waiting to be attacked before acting does nothing but needlessly cost lives.

Perhaps you misunderstand me. If we were talking about a scenario, like that of North Korea, then fine. They are openly building-up weapons and are flagrant in their actions to provoke the U.S. as well as threaten the saftey of the U.S. and it's allies. I am all for invasion.

Yet, in Iraq, there were no real signs. There were weak testimonies from expatriots, old intel that could not really be verified, and speculation. There, we could have waited, as there was no real chance of we or our allies being attacked. There was not even a build-up of troops or equipment, both of which we could have seen with satalite surveilance. Iran is another preemptive war that may be justifiable, at least ten times more so than Iraq.

Regardless, the deal has been done, and I hope desparately, that Iraq lasts as a democracy in the Middle East.
 
To answer all of your questions to the sources of my information, read Bob Woodwards works on the administration, in which he directly interviews all involved. Read Collin Powells book, Scott McClellan's memoir, and a host of other books on the subject written by those within the administration.

As to the want of Rumsfield and Cheney, read any of their statements prior to George W. Bush taking office. Watch Frontlines documentary on Cheney, it was widely known he felt that George H. Bush dropped the ball by not taking Baghdad in the first Gulf War.
I'll take these as concessions of the points, in that you cannot support your positions any further -- its YOUR job to "look it up", not mine.
 
Perhaps you misunderstand me. If we were talking about a scenario, like that of North Korea, then fine. They are openly building-up weapons and are flagrant in their actions to provoke the U.S. as well as threaten the saftey of the U.S. and it's allies. I am all for invasion.

Yet, in Iraq, there were no real signs.
Three words:
Perponderance
Of
Evidence
 
Back
Top Bottom