nsxr1 said:
If you had even the most elementary understanding of the Iraq situation, you would know that it is an indisputable, extensively documented FACT that Saddam Hussein's regime had biological and chemical weapons (those are WMDs, in case you didn't know).
Of course I know they had WMDs. This was extensively documented in the congressional report released in 1994 on Iraqgate. Bechtel built the main Chemical plant they used to make the weapons after 1988 (previously they had purchased them from chemical companies abroad in France, Germany and the US). But that plant was destroyed by the UN inspectors after the Gulf War and so was their ability to produce new weapons.
nsxr1 said:
We know this because, among other things, Saddam used them 1) against the Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war
Yup, of course.
nsxr1 said:
2) to murder thousands of Kurds in 1988
This was heavily investigated by the Defense Dept. in 1988 at the urging of the Reagan administration and the report they released concluded that the Kurds killed at Halabja were killed by Iranian gas, not by Iraqi gas. Apparently they used different chemicals which could be traced by doing autopsies on those killed
Are you of the opinion that the Reagan administration lied and falsified this report? Or do you agree with its conclusions?
Reagan used this report as justification to veto the bill that had been passed by both the House and the Senate which called for sanctions against Iraq because of the gassing of the Kurds in this incident. It was 4 months
AFTER this report was released that Bechtel started building the PC2 Petrochemical Complex, which allowed Iraq to produce their own chemical weapons.
In fact, in 1985 Reagan approved over $2 billion in guaranteed loans to Iraq, and in 1989 Bush Sr. approved $1 billion in guaranteed loans. "Guaranteed" meaning if Iraq defaulted, our govenrment would pay them back to the banks who loaned the money. And guess what? They did default after the Gulf War, and US taxpayers had to pay back over $2 billion of these loans.
nsxr1 said:
3) to murder Shitte Muslims in southern Iraq who rose in rebellion following the first Gulf War.
There were no incidents of this reported by any news source (mainstream or alternative) that I have seen. Please give a link to such a report as I am interested to read this. It's not that I would find it hard to believe -- hardly -- but I have never read this before.
nsxr1 said:
Terms of surrender that Hussein's regime agreed to after Operation Desert Storm in 1991 (when we drove the pathetic Iraqi army out of Kuwait) included the destruction and disposal of all chemical, biological and conventional weapons in the Iraqi arsenal, and that the destruction/disposal must be <B>verified</B> by U.N. weapons inspectors.
Yes, I'm familiar with the treaty.
nsxr1 said:
At that time, we had a list of these weapons that we knew Saddam had, at a minimum. Over the next 12 years U.N. inspectors attempted to carry out their task, with the Iraqis obstructing the process at every turn by denying free and unfettered access to many areas/facilities.
First of all, you fail to state the reason which Iraq claimed they were obstructing the process. They claimed there were US spies that had infiltrated the group of inspectors. And they had good reason to believe this. A pattern began to develop in which US planes would bomb sites within 24 hours after inspectors were there. They would bomb power plants and water treatment centers. Between 1995 and 1998, over 50% of Iraq's power plants and water treatment centers were destroyed by allied bombing. If you remember, back then we used to bomb once every week or so. And the sites bombed were always cites that had been visited by inspectors in the previous day or two.
Several members of the inspection team themselves admitted that the group had been infiltrated by CIA agents -- Scott Ridder was the head inspector at the time, and he resigned from his position and claimed that the US government was putting him and his men in danger.
So around this time, Saddam's government began blocking access to power plants and water treatment stations -- never was access blocked to anywhere else. Of course the claim can be made that some of these sites were not power plants and water treatment stations, and were really chemical or biological plants in disguise.....and that is very possible. But you must realize that both sides were in the wrong here. This issue is not as one-sided as you claim.
Many times Saddam offered to open access to these sites if all Americans and Israelis were removed from the inspection team. Each and every time this offer was denied -- an action that shows obvious motive on the part of the US government, as clearly there are enough qualified inspectors from the other 200 or so countries around the world.
So in 1988, Clinton gave Saddam an ultimatum. Anticipating the bombing, the UN ordered their inspectors to leave Iraq fearing they would be held hostage (yes.....Saddam never "kicked them out" as was claimed....they were ordered to leave). And of course, we bombed there in Operation Desert Fox.
nsxr1 said:
Saddam's response to these resolutions was to basically thumb his nose at the U.N. (and at the U.S. in particular) and continue subverting the inspection process.
Not really. Between 1998 and 2002, there was simply a stalemate. Saddam said he would allow an inspection team to enter, so long as there were no Israelis or Americans. And the UN refused his offer.
nsxr1 said:
The end result of Saddam's stupidity was that in 2003, we still could not verify the destruction and disposal of many of those weapons stockpiles.
That is why the inspectors returned there in late 2002. In January 2003, Hans Blix said the Iraqis were fully cooperating with his team and they were being given full access to all sites. He said it would take them several months to complete their work. But the Bush Administration knew if they waited for his team to complete their work, they would certify Iraq disarmed and then their excuse for war would go bye-bye, so they simply circumvented the UN and went to war.
When the UN inspectors left in 1998, they had certified Iraq 98% disarmed. This means they had destroyed, or had documented the destruction of 98% of the WMDs that Iraq had.
As we are living in a country where the Pentagon themselves have admitted to
losing $2.3 trillion (6 times their yearly budget), then you would think it reasonable that the UN could be off by 2% in the amount of weapons they determined that Iraq had. Perhaps Iraq themselves were off by 2% -- this appears to be the case according to David Kay's report released last winter.
Either way, you apparently are of the opinion that without solid proof, and without giving the UN inspectors the time (several months) they needed to provide solid proof, it was worth starting a war which has so far resulted in the deaths of over 50,000 Iraqi civilians, over 10,000 Iraqi troops, over 1,000 American soldiers, and has resulted in the woulding or maiming of many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and over 10,000 American soldiers. Not to mention over $200 billion spent by American taxpayers which could go towards health care, research to cure disease, eduction, etc.
You are entitled to your opinion, but I certainly disagree.
