Originally Posted by KJ

All very good.
And if the invasion had happened on those grounds a very worthy cause.
But it didn´t, did it?

Fact:
The invasion was planned and executed on the wrongful assumption that Iraq had WMD,s, no WMD,s have been located.

Тhere is something apparently missing from this statement:
Iraq COULD HAVE destroyed ALL her chemical weapons AND re-create them in very short period of time!

I was wandering all these years why such a simple idea has never been popular with the media?

Now, in his book about the war, the former undersecreary of Defence Douglas J. Feith
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/se...s%20J.%20Feith

wrote that in the CIA report has been mentioned that Saddam could restore his WMD stockpiles in 3-5 weeks!

I have thought, it would be much longer than that.!

However, the Administration has not bother to highlight this fact buried in 400-pages report and the Media has not liked the idea of uncovering this.

To me, an ability to produce the WMD in 5 weeks after lifting of the sanctions is pretty much the same as the real stockpiles.
Am I stupid in believing in this?

The problem with this line of thinking is that it tries to make intangibles into fact...
For example:
If some one does xxxx then it could lead lead to yyyy which in turn can cause zzzz.

Using the same process I can make Santa Claus into a professional pedophile.

I COULD have something illegal in my possession. If the police raid my home and find nothing, can they justify it by saying "He must have moved it."?

Originally Posted by boris116

Тhere is something apparently missing from this statement:
Iraq COULD HAVE destroyed ALL her chemical weapons AND re-create them in very short period of time!

I was wandering all these years why such a simple idea has never been popular with the media?

Now, in his book about the war, the former undersecreary of Defence Douglas J. Feith
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/se...s%20J.%20Feith

wrote that in the CIA report has been mentioned that Saddam could restore his WMD stockpiles in 3-5 weeks!

I have thought, it would be much longer than that.!

However, the Administration has not bother to highlight this fact buried in 400-pages report and the Media has not liked the idea of uncovering this.

To me, an ability to produce the WMD in 5 weeks after lifting of the sanctions is pretty much the same as the real stockpiles.
Am I stupid in believing in this?

----------------------------------------------------------------

I would be pretty skeptical of ANYTHING Douglas Feith has to say. He's one of the worst of the Neocons Bush had working for him.

He's one of those Neocons that sits in some dark room in the Heritage Institute in Washington DC who writes US and Israeli Foreign Policy based on how Neocons would like the world to work rather actually be bothered to experience it themselves.

Much of the reason we are neck deep in s*** in Iraq is because of this guy. According to General Tommy Franks (Head of the Iraq invasion in 2003) "Feith is the dumbest f***** man on the planet".

Also, he is very possibly an Israeli spy. Thats not some blanket accusation I make, Larry Franklin (sentenced to 12 years for Espionage) was his direct subordinate, an FBI investigation of Franklin proved that Feith had a VERY unorthodox relationship (much worse than Franklin's) with the Isreali Government and that Bush's direct intervention that protected him from prosecution. Another theory is that Franklin pulled a "scooter libby" went to jail to protect his boss.

Originally Posted by boris116

Тhere is something apparently missing from this statement:
Iraq COULD HAVE destroyed ALL her chemical weapons AND re-create them in very short period of time!

I was wandering all these years why such a simple idea has never been popular with the media?

Now, in his book about the war, the former undersecreary of Defence Douglas J. Feith
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/se...s%20J.%20Feith

wrote that in the CIA report has been mentioned that Saddam could restore his WMD stockpiles in 3-5 weeks!

I have thought, it would be much longer than that.!

However, the Administration has not bother to highlight this fact buried in 400-pages report and the Media has not liked the idea of uncovering this.

To me, an ability to produce the WMD in 5 weeks after lifting of the sanctions is pretty much the same as the real stockpiles.
Am I stupid in believing in this?

Disclaimer: The below are to be construed as sarcasm.

Sweden have nuclear powerplants, we could build a nuclear device in less time then that.
You need to invade us.

// end sarcasm.

Our regime might be looked upon as a tad more stabile then the former Iraqi one.
But if you try to play the "What if/how about/could have had" game this is the type of argument you will be bringing it down to.

Every nation in the world can produce Chemical or biological weapons in such a timeframe, not all nations have enough abillity to deliver them nor will to use them to pose "a clear and present danger" to the world because of it.

I dunno, maybe I am just cynical again.
But the more I hear about the reasons to go in the more it sounds like a cover up for ulterior motives.

As Redneck stated though.
NOW, you´ll have to clean up the mess.
Otherwise the nation are worse off then when you went in with no leadership whatsoever, and a security for the common man that is worse then when the arsehole were in charge.

Just my humble opinion.

I have never been convinced, and remain unconvinced regarding the WMD question.

My uncertainties involve :-

Why did the inspectors , having been given so much time and opportunity, and asked to produce such an important answer for the UN, NEVER confirm that there was no WMD or confirm that they believed that Sadam was fully co-operating? Why did they stay firmly on the fence, at that important time?

Why was Sadam prepared to risk everything, his life, his family, his power, his armies, his country, rather than fall in line regarding this issue?

The nearest I have heard in response is that he wanted to make Iran believe that he did in fact have WMD.

Given the nature of Iraq's neighbours, my question would still be, where are they now? Sorry - I'm from Missouri too, and I believe this story still has to unfold. If I am the only guy left who feels this way, well, so be it. The current storyline just doesn't make sense to me.

The real and only reason for this war - it had nothing to do with 9/11 - is that G. Bush wanted to take revenge on the man who made his father look a fool. As a British publication in the Spring of this year wrote "The way troops are treated today is unforgivable." This has never been more true! The use of soldiers by politicians for private reasons is disgusting. I do not understand why such people cannot be brought before international courts of law.

Originally Posted by Englander2

The real and only reason for this war - it had nothing to do with 9/11 - is that G. Bush wanted to take revenge on the man who made his father look a fool. As a British publication in the Spring of this year wrote "The way troops are treated today is unforgivable." This has never been more true! The use of soldiers by politicians for private reasons is disgusting. I do not understand why such people cannot be brought before international courts of law.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Your not quiet right on this.

The Neocons had wanted to invade Iraq BEFORE Bush was even elected. There are letters written by Neocons to President Bill Clinton asking him to attack Iraq during the 1990s. (Which he wisely decided to ignore).

Here is a copy of one letter.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

You notice its signed by Rumsfeld, Perle, Armitage, Bennett, Bolton, Fukuyama, Kagan, Kristol, Wolfowitz and others.
All of these people would later work for George Bush.

The invasion of Iraq was due to Oil, and also to protect Israel.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

-------------------------------------------------------------
due to Oil, and also to protect Israel.

MM - why do you feel that Israel needed protecting from Iraq?

According to the Frontline special on the war on PBS, the war in Iraq really wasn't so much Bush's fault as it was Rumsfeld's, Cheney's, Wolfowitz's, and so on. They were the ones who first brought up Iraq as being a threat, even when all roads pointed to Afghanistan.

(Side note on Afghanistan: apparently, according to Frontline, all operations if Afghanistan were supposed to be run by the CIA, who would operate much like the British SAS; underground, meet up with the Northern Alliance, use their knowledge of the landscape to help find Al Qaeda hideouts, and either capture or kill Bin Laden and other high authority in Al Qaeda. Rumsfeld would have none of it. He wanted the full scale invasion of Afghanistan, a task that would go to the Pentagon. Eventually they reached a compromise, and all went well until Tora Bora. Surrounded on three sides, CIA had found Bin Laden, they told Rumsfeld to order the Miltary to close the fourth side, but he refused to take orders from the CIA. So Bin Laden most likely escaped.)