galanter wrote:There is a difference between (A) someone who *actually believes* that Iraq has WMDs, and then designs a PR campaign to sell that idea in order to get support to do something about it and (B) someone who *doesn't believe* that Iraq has WMD's, but dishonestly designs a PR campaign in a cynical attempt to scare the public into submission.

I hear accusations like (B) with some frequency here. I think most cases if not all are more like (A).

If they genuinely believed Iraq had real live WMDs, why did they wait so long to mention anything about this? I mean, if they really thought Saddam's finger was hovering over the launch button, why wait until 2002 to do anything about it?

It is clear they wanted to take out Saddam from day one. I will grant they genuinely believed he was a threat. But they settled on WMD as the rationale that would best solidify public support for the war. I don't think anyone particularly cared if he had any WMD or not, as long as fear of WMD provided an opportunity to remove him from power.

This is a lot more like (B) than (A).

DrAwkward wrote:

galanter wrote:After all, we now know that Saddam lied when he said all the WMDs were destroyed because 100's have been found. They were found in a degraded state, but nevertheless they were hidden and not destroyed.

Dude, come on. That's like me shooting someone dead in the street with a handgun, and then justifying it by saying that the other guy had a bazooka, and then, when the authorities find a slingshot in the dude's pocket, me saying "see? He had a weapon!"

No, it's more like someone killing 10,000's using chemical weapons both against an external army and within his own country as part of an ethnic genocide campaign, and then that same person saying "trust me, I've gotten rid of all my chemical weapons". And then finding out that person lied.

Taking Saddam at his word...now *that* would be incompetent.

galanter wrote:

DrAwkward wrote:

galanter wrote:After all, we now know that Saddam lied when he said all the WMDs were destroyed because 100's have been found. They were found in a degraded state, but nevertheless they were hidden and not destroyed.

Dude, come on. That's like me shooting someone dead in the street with a handgun, and then justifying it by saying that the other guy had a bazooka, and then, when the authorities find a slingshot in the dude's pocket, me saying "see? He had a weapon!"

No, it's more like someone killing 10,000's using chemical weapons both against an external army and within his own country as part of an ethnic genocide campaign, and then that same person saying "trust me, I've gotten rid of all my chemical weapons". And then finding out that person lied.

...And then saying "we'll be greeted as liberators" and "we'll be in and out in six months."

So, um, who exactly was anywhere close to taking Saddam at his word, and who advocated that? If the UN inspectors themselves found nothing, and the only thing they failed to find were degraded and useless weapons, i'm not sure how anyone was taking Saddam at his word when they said "Iraq has no weapons."

lars wrote:

galanter wrote:There is a difference between (A) someone who *actually believes* that Iraq has WMDs, and then designs a PR campaign to sell that idea in order to get support to do something about it and (B) someone who *doesn't believe* that Iraq has WMD's, but dishonestly designs a PR campaign in a cynical attempt to scare the public into submission.

I hear accusations like (B) with some frequency here. I think most cases if not all are more like (A).

If they genuinely believed Iraq had real live WMDs, why did they wait so long to mention anything about this? I mean, if they really thought Saddam's finger was hovering over the launch button, why wait until 2002 to do anything about it?

It is clear they wanted to take out Saddam from day one. I will grant they genuinely believed he was a threat. But they settled on WMD as the rationale that would best solidify public support for the war. I don't think anyone particularly cared if he had any WMD or not, as long as fear of WMD provided an opportunity to remove him from power.

This is a lot more like (B) than (A).

The US waited because the UN wanted to pass 17 resolutions before getting tough with Iraq. And then France said they would veto *any* deadline regardless of how soon or late it was. Only then, when it became clear that the UN was impotent to deal with Iraq, did the US, UK, and a host of other nations decide to act without the UN.

Let's see how well the UN sees to it that Hezbollah disarms, and that Syria and Iran not supply Hezbollah with weapons.

For the sake of innocent Lebanese and Israelis I hope they do.

DrAwkward wrote:

galanter wrote:

DrAwkward wrote:

galanter wrote:After all, we now know that Saddam lied when he said all the WMDs were destroyed because 100's have been found. They were found in a degraded state, but nevertheless they were hidden and not destroyed.

Dude, come on. That's like me shooting someone dead in the street with a handgun, and then justifying it by saying that the other guy had a bazooka, and then, when the authorities find a slingshot in the dude's pocket, me saying "see? He had a weapon!"

No, it's more like someone killing 10,000's using chemical weapons both against an external army and within his own country as part of an ethnic genocide campaign, and then that same person saying "trust me, I've gotten rid of all my chemical weapons". And then finding out that person lied.

...And then saying "we'll be greeted as liberators" and "we'll be in and out in six months."

So, um, who exactly was anywhere close to taking Saddam at his word, and who advocated that? If the UN inspectors themselves found nothing, and the only thing they failed to find were degraded and useless weapons, i'm not sure how anyone was taking Saddam at his word when they said "Iraq has no weapons."

This started as an aside, and now this is an aside to the aside.

My original point was that I don't think various threats from terrorists and the like are being floated by those in power as knowing lies used to control the population. This is routinely floated on this board without opposing comment. I think it's simply not true.

On the aside to the aside...

It remains true that Saddam lied when he said all the WMDs were destroyed, and it remains true the UN inspectors were unable to uncover the truth of the matter.

This confirms that erring on the side of caution when it came to Saddam's WMDs was not unreasonable.

Further the Bush administration's reading of whether Iraqi WMDs were a problem was about the same as all the other countries who also voted for the 17 resolutions on the topic.

My apologies for leading this thread astray.

galanter wrote:

vockins wrote:

galanter wrote:That move was very destabilizing in the context of the paradigm of that time...mutually assured destruction. The short and low fly time meant that in case of an apparent attack the time to decide on a counter-strike was reduced to almost zero.

The United States had cruise missle equipped submarines in 1959 and IRBMs throughout Europe well before the USSR attempted to construct the launch site in Cuba.

That might, in your mind, justify the USSR's actions. It doesn't make it any less destabilizing.

My point is that the United States had a distinct advantage in regards to attack time and total tonnage of missiles, even if the Cuban missile site had been constructed. It's no more destabilizing than the launch sites the United States constructed in Turkey. I'd be shocked if the USSR had more than ten ICBMs in 1962, and they certainly didn't have anywhere near the number the United States had. There was nothing mutually assured until the Soviets developed their own submarine launched cruise missiles.

(Are you sure about the cruise missle part? I don't think the advanced navigation systems required go back that far. I'm pretty sure they were regular missles)

Regulus cruise missles were first tested in 1951. I think Polaris equipped subs may have been in service by 1961, but I can't say for sure. There's probably a wiki on it and I'm certain there are other sources that can verify that.

galanter wrote:The US waited because the UN wanted to pass 17 resolutions before getting tough with Iraq

You misunderstood me.

You say they genuinely believed Saddam had WMD. (And let's be clear -- the WMD they were talking about were large-scale biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, not a couple forgotten shells of degraded sarin.)

We know they wanted to remove Saddam from the get go. So they must have believed he had WMD in early 2001, right? Surely they didn't think he acquired these capabilities in between early 2001 and early 2002?

If this is what they really believed, then why wasn't this hostile, evil, well-armed unstable terrorist dictator with nuclear weapons the number one issue after the inauguration? Why didn't we go to war immediately?

All the sabre-rattling and UN jockeying and "we don't have time to wait for inspectors" rhetoric came after 9/11. This is not a coincidence.

You continue to place an inordinate amount of trust in an administration that has given you every reason not to.

galanter wrote:Let's see how well the UN sees to it that Hezbollah disarms, and that Syria and Iran not supply Hezbollah with weapons.

i can't be arsed getting into an argument again at the moment but I'm just pointing out that you are, again, being very selective about the UN resolutions you would like to see enforced.

Also, there may be some, but with regards deliberately constructed artificial threats arranged in secret, was there ever any hard evidence that the Nazis deliberately burned down the Reichstag to blame it on the Commies?

There may be but I don't recall hearing it anywhere.

It is generally presumed that the Nazis did do it to pin it on the Commies at an opportune time.
I suppose I should be specifically asking Mr G this. Do you believe the Reichstag was deliberately burned by the Nazis so they could use it for political advantage? If so do you know where the evidence for that is?

(like I say there may be some but I don't know what it is. It's possible the fire was a coincidence and the Nazis used it for their advantage but this isn't the typical reading of the situ as far as I am aware)

(PS is this what they call 'hitlering' a thread?)

Vockins, I'd say that at most you could argue that missiles in Cuba shouldn't have been viewed as destabilizing. They obviously were in a functional sense. The situation became much less stable. If you want to argue some 45 years later that the whole thing was, as usual, all the US's fault so be it. The USSR is dead, and communist Cuba will follow as soon as they run out of countries willing to prop them up.

That the USSR putting nuclear missiles in Cuba was destabilizing and aggressive may be one of those things that is obvious to some, and obviously false to others.

Earwicker, I'm not being selective regarding the UN. I'm pointing out that as long as the UN has no credible force to back up its resolutions it's going to remain irrelevant. Where do laws work well without police?

Individual countries still have to protect themselves. And of all countries on the planet Israel is going to be one of the last to depend on others for defense. After the Holocaust who can blame them for DIY defense?

re: the Reichstag...I don't know what the historical evidence is. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if Hitler was capable of wrongs few others would think to commit.

Lars, it's not surprising that attitudes changed after 9/11. It's not that Saddam's boys flew the planes. They didn't. But the general lesson was that previous reactive approaches to terrorism were inadequate.

Reasonable people might agree on this but then disagree as to what changes would be appropriate.

But it's not surprising that attitudes changed after 9/11. They had to.

galanter wrote:But it's not surprising that attitudes changed after 9/11. They had to.

Just to be absolutely clear:

You think the Bush administration believed Saddam possessed large stockpiles of readily deployable bio/chemical/nuclear WMD in early 2001, but they didn't think it was necessary to say or do anything about it until they had a collective attitude adjustment after 9/11.

Doesn't it seem much more likely that the attitude change you mention prompted them to remove Saddam at all costs -- whether he had WMD or not?

The idea that Bush had a change of heart after 9/11 and decided, "You know, we better do something about those WMD" is complete revisionism. I believe his actual line was "Fuck Saddam. We're taking him out."

I'm sorry if it seems like we're all ganging up on you here.

My apologies for leading this thread astray.

On the contrary. I think you've pinpointed the reason why this poll is so lopsided.