PDA

View Full Version : Would Saddam have rebuilt his WMD?



Studeo
15th September 2010, 17:07
In his memoirs, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair justified the 2003 invasion of Iraq by saying that he "may have been right" about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. His argument was that even if Saddam Hussein did not have WMD at the time of the invasion, he intended to rebuild them. Paul Reynolds, world affairs correspondent for the BBC News website, examines this claim.

One of the charges against Tony Blair over the invasion of Iraq is that he exaggerated the evidence for WMD.

Is he now exaggerating the threat that Saddam Hussein would have posed if left in power? Or is there enough evidence to support him?

Continue reading the main story

Start Quote
"I have often reflected as to whether I was wrong. I ask you to reflect as to whether I may have been right... But the true facts do provide the clearest possible basis to assess that he [Saddam] was indeed a threat
End Quote
Tony Blair

A Journey
The line of inquiry leads to Saddam himself but starts in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion.

The Iraq Survey Group, whose job was to find WMD, made an interim report in October 2003 saying it had found none. Its leader David Kay resigned in early 2004 and said of WMD: "I don't think they existed."

Intriguingly, however, in a comment picked up by Tony Blair, Mr Kay told a Senate committee: "I actually think what we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war."

Hopes and intentions'

His meaning became clear when the ISG, under its subsequent leader Charles Duelfer, issued its final report in September 2004.

It concluded that Saddam hoped in due course to get sanctions lifted and rebuild his WMD.

The ISG summary, quoted by Mr Blair, was this: "Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq's WMD capacity... but probably with a different mix of capabilities... Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability... but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capability."

This conclusion, Mr Blair said, showed that Saddam had made a "tactical decision to put [his WMD] programme into abeyance, not a strategic decision to abandon it".


Click to play
Click to play
AdvertisementTony Blair on Iraq: ''I can't regret the decision''
Note that Mr Blair does not follow the distinction the ISG made between the various types of WMD and its belief that Saddam would in future concentrate on chemical weapons and ballistic missiles (because he saw Iran as his main threat and he had beaten off Iran with CW and missiles before).

Note also that Mr Blair uses the word "programme", which implies that Saddam had a plan which was waiting for the go-ahead. Yet the ISG does not say that. It states: "There is an extensive, yet fragmentary and circumstantial, body of evidence suggesting that Saddam pursued a strategy to maintain a capability to return to WMD after sanctions were lifted by preserving assets and expertise."

On the other hand, the ISG does conclude that Saddam's intention was there. It says: "In addition to preserved capability, we have clear evidence of his intent to resume WMD as soon as sanctions were lifted."

Saddam interviews

So where does this belief in Saddam's intention come from? It comes from two sources. The first was interviews with Saddam's associates and scientists. They suggested that this is what their leader would do.

The ISG report quotes Saddam's presidential secretary Abid Hamid Mahmud as saying: "If the sanctions would have been lifted and there is no UN monitoring, then it was possible for Saddam to continue his WMD activities and in my estimation it would have been done in a total secrecy and [with] concealment."

Continue reading the main story
Related stories
Blair's memoirs: Key quotes
Blair's 'radical Islam' warning
Blair memoirs 'break sale record'
The phrase "if... there is no UN monitoring" is relevant. Mr Blair assumes there would have been none. But if there had been, then Saddam would have had huge problems to overcome and might have been found out. Monitoring might have been the price for lifting sanctions which Mr Blair says were bound to collapse in due course.

The second source was Saddam himself. And here the role of FBI agent George Piro is central. Mr Piro managed to gain Saddam's confidence in captivity.

In a 2008 interview with CBS, Piro said: "[Saddam] wanted to pursue all of WMD. So he wanted to reconstitute his entire WMD programme."

Asked by the interviewer whether this meant chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, Mr Piro answers definitively that it did.

'What is necessary'

In his book Hide and Seek, Charles Duelfer writes about the moment when Saddam allegedly confessed to his future aims.

"It was the second week in June when Piro came to me, beaming. He related a thoughtful discussion on WMD by Saddam. Saddam clearly stated that it would be his goal to reconstitute his WMD, especially his nuclear, to reassert Iraq's place in the region," Mr Duelfer writes.

However, the report of the Piro-Saddam interview, released under freedom of information laws, is not quite so clear.

The report unfortunately is not a verbatim account. It simply quotes Mr Piro as suggesting to Saddam that, if sanctions had been lifted, and Iran remained a threat, then "it would appear that Iraq would have needed to reconstitute its own weapons programme in response".

The reports goes on: "Hussein replied that Iraq would have done what was necessary and agreed that Iraq's technical and scientific abilities exceeded others in the region."

The claim by the ISG, from Mr Piro through Mr Duelfer, and now to Tony Blair, seems ultimately to rest on this. Saddam does agree that he would do what was necessary. However, he is not specific.

Tony Blair admits in his book that his thesis is not an "indisputable one". He offers this thought: "My point here is not to persuade that we were right to remove [Saddam Hussein], but only to make those who adhere to the conventional wisdom at least pause and reflect."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11285071

Fredkc
15th September 2010, 17:16
Woulda, coulda, shoulda.... pathetic.

Can you imagine the reaction if a nuclear power, dropping bombs on either the US, or UK because
They "might" attack Iran?
Might invade Pakistan?
Might "let" Israel do the same?

The world, or at least the US & UK would call it "Outrageous!"
food for thought,
Fred

frank samuel
15th September 2010, 17:28
Does anyone remember Libya and Moammar Kadafi , after Libya was bomb by the US Kadafi backed off.
This is some of Kadafi's comments:

Libyan leader Col. Moammar Kadafi described as “arrogance” Iran’s turning a deaf ear to a pack of incentives offered by the West in exchange for shutting down critical parts of its nuclear program.
Kadafi went on to warn the Islamic Republic that it may face the same military humiliation as Iraq.

To the question,would Saddam have rebuilt his WMD? The obvious response is," he was crazy but not that crazy".

Celine
15th September 2010, 17:38
Man does not run the world.. Ego's do.

Ego has no foundation

Ego's walls are flimsy

Ego does not like being under the light.

=[Post Update]=


Does anyone remember Libya and Moammar Kadafi , after Libya was bomb by the US Kadafi backed off.
This is some of Kadafi's comments:

Libyan leader Col. Moammar Kadafi described as “arrogance” Iran’s turning a deaf ear to a pack of incentives offered by the West in exchange for shutting down critical parts of its nuclear program.
Kadafi went on to warn the Islamic Republic that it may face the same military humiliation as Iraq.

To the question,would Saddam have rebuilt his WMD? The obvious response is," he was crazy but not that crazy".

Wasnt it kadafi that said..

"You cross this line in the sand..You Die!!"...backing up..."ok ok ...you cross THIS line.. you die!"


Ego rules in that man.

Swanny
15th September 2010, 21:12
Tony Blair is a twat and should be tried for war crimes

norman
15th September 2010, 21:29
Tony Blair is a twat and should be tried for war crimes

Swanny..... errr...[mate]..... being absolutely right, as you are, of course, is a dangerous impolite objective stance that will get you noticed..! haha

hope you've got CCTV all over your estate! they're bound to come for visit.....


edit:

Antony Blair said:

"I have often reflected as to whether I was wrong. I ask you to reflect as to whether I may have been right... But the true facts do provide the clearest possible basis to assess that he [Saddam] was indeed a threat ”

a quote from a professional wig wearing legal freemason who indulges in his utermost cryptically abstract legal fantasies in "his" full knowledge that anyone who could/might actually checkmate him will be placed on a rope hanging from a London bridge by his blood brothers.

A thriller, but not something to read at bedtime, me thinks.

Swanny
15th September 2010, 22:09
Thanks Norman but if they were going to start watching me because I know Blair is a war criminal then they would already be watching me :)

Lost Soul
16th September 2010, 00:19
It is unlikely that he would have done so. His propaganda machine helped create the impression that he had them and he feared Iran would go for round #2.

Steve
16th September 2010, 04:26
I remember reading an article about Saddam, I think it was in TIME a few years back, post first George Bush... pre "W".
I walked away from the article with the impression that he was more interested in developing a more western type society, with cable TV, cars, and industry.
He said he was for women being educated, and really seemed to join the international community. He didn't seem hungry for war or the eradication of our way of life.

Now I'm not a political whiz, and I know that articles can be spun. I know that he did some wicked things, but I also fully believe someone like Dick Cheney or Geo Bush Senior could be as evil as anyone anywhere, so what went on in his country as far as human rights, religious wars, or whatever don't really concern me. I feel like I have enough of that here to worry about, and it is no reason to bomb and invade a country and start a money draining war against no one in particular.
I don't think he would have made WMD's, except possibly as a deterrent to Iran, and nothing that would have threatened us. I don't believe he had any particularly urgent vendetta against Israel, (Not nearly as much as other players in the Middle East).
I think he had nothing at all to do with 911. I honestly believe this entire expensive, (in money and lives), pointless, stupid war was fought over a personal vendetta that George Bush Sr. had for Saddam. Can't even give you a reason why I feel that way, but I do. I don't think he was ever a threat to us, or had WMD,s capable of doing more damage than any other country has in it's arsenals.

tone3jaguar
16th September 2010, 11:59
Global Pre Crime? I guess you don't have to be smart to be a talking head.

pyrangello
16th September 2010, 13:05
I remember hearing on a radio interview once , that the WMD's were moved out of Iraq into syria for a hefty fee paid by sadam. The russians special forces moved them and US new about it but if it went public , relations would be strained . Don't know if it was true or not but after seeing the jets buried in the ground and they did find a cache of chemicals out in the desert anything would be possible . After all what about all the breifcase size nukes that were in the old soviet uinion that disappeared as well. Where did they go?

Would Sadam have re-built, if he had them in Syria he wouldn't have to. Points - he did use the gas on the Iraq people in the north, they did find mass graves with 2-300,000 people buried and the video tapes left behind of torturing people, boiling them in hot oil , dismembering, was beyond comprehension as a human being. And if you thought Sadam wasn't that bad his 2 sons Uda and Cuda were far worse and more evil, thank god there history.

History of evil, wars , torture, starvation, I for one am tired of it all , we are better than this as a people, I believe 90% of the worlds population are genuine and good, It's the 10% that really create the problems and it's up to us 90% to stop that in it's tracks. Unfortunately "when good men do nothing evil will prevail". Time will tell indeed. My 2 cents

Zook
16th September 2010, 14:29
Hi pyrangello,


I remember hearing on a radio interview once , that the WMD's were moved out of Iraq into syria for a hefty fee paid by sadam. The russians special forces moved them and US new about it but if it went public , relations would be strained . Don't know if it was true or not but after seeing the jets buried in the ground and they did find a cache of chemicals out in the desert anything would be possible . After all what about all the breifcase size nukes that were in the old soviet uinion that disappeared as well. Where did they go?


With all due respect, you're merely repeating assertions that have been put out by the same mainstream media outlets that have given us lie after lie; propaganda after propaganda; distortion after distortion. If the tall Arabian tale of Osama bin Laden (a Brzezinski acolyte) and the nineteen Saudi boxcutting sheikhs didn't impress upon you the mendacity of mainstream media, then you've become part of the problem and not part of the solution.



Would Sadam have re-built, if he had them in Syria he wouldn't have to. Points - he did use the gas on the Iraq people in the north, they did find mass graves with 2-300,000 people buried and the video tapes left behind of torturing people, boiling them in hot oil , dismembering, was beyond comprehension as a human being. And if you thought Sadam wasn't that bad his 2 sons Uda and Cuda were far worse and more evil, thank god there history.


Here's the rub: nothing was ever found. Yet the MSM encourages speculation in this direction. Please look up the definition of fearmongering. About the gas, ask yourself this: who provided him the gas? In fact, I encourage you to research the history of Saddam's rise to power. You'll find western intelligence agencies every step of the way. To wit, the Frankenstein monster doesn't act independently (at least, at first) of Dr. Frankenstein. By the time Saddam had evolved into the frankenmonster that the western military corporate establishment no longer controlled, or cared to control (and he was a frankenmonster, make no mistake about it), his use in the region was no longer needed. After all, he was originally installed to seed division in the region (e.g. to set the Perisans against the Arabs; the Sunnis against the Shi'ites; the progressives against the conservatives, etc.) ... and to facilitate western manipulations of global oil prices. With 9/11/2001, a new phase in the implementation of the New World Order had begun, and this phase required a panIslamic boogeyman, not merely a panArabic one. Enter bin Laden. Exit Saddam.



History of evil, wars , torture, starvation, I for one am tired of it all , we are better than this as a people, I believe 90% of the worlds population are genuine and good, It's the 10% that really create the problems and it's up to us 90% to stop that in it's tracks. Unfortunately "when good men do nothing evil will prevail". Time will tell indeed. My 2 cents

Excellent point. I agree wholeheartedly. Focusing on ephemeral elements (Saddam, bin Laden, Bush, Blair, etc.) when the scheme to enslave humanity runs higher up, with bigger fish and with bigger purpose ... is just what the toplevel psychopaths want us to do. Saddam, bin Laden, Bush and Blair ... are not banksters, themselves. They are tools of the banksters. It's the banksters that are the snakehead and/or the dragonhead, i.e. Dr. Frankenstein.


Cheers
Uncle Zook

Rimbaud
5th October 2010, 06:56
I remember reading an article about Saddam, I think it was in TIME a few years back, post first George Bush... pre "W".
I walked away from the article with the impression that he was more interested in developing a more western type society, with cable TV, cars, and industry.
He said he was for women being educated, and really seemed to join the international community. He didn't seem hungry for war or the eradication of our way of life.

Now I'm not a political whiz, and I know that articles can be spun. I know that he did some wicked things, but I also fully believe someone like Dick Cheney or Geo Bush Senior could be as evil as anyone anywhere, so what went on in his country as far as human rights, religious wars, or whatever don't really concern me. I feel like I have enough of that here to worry about, and it is no reason to bomb and invade a country and start a money draining war against no one in particular.
I don't think he would have made WMD's, except possibly as a deterrent to Iran, and nothing that would have threatened us. I don't believe he had any particularly urgent vendetta against Israel, (Not nearly as much as other players in the Middle East).
I think he had nothing at all to do with 911. I honestly believe this entire expensive, (in money and lives), pointless, stupid war was fought over a personal vendetta that George Bush Sr. had for Saddam. Can't even give you a reason why I feel that way, but I do. I don't think he was ever a threat to us, or had WMD,s capable of doing more damage than any other country has in it's arsenals.

I think that you're absolutely spot on chum!

Rimbaud