UN still looking for Iraqi WMDs

[ElHombre]

Looks like somebody (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/01/AR2007060102358_pf.html) has found themselves a comfy gig.


More than four years after the fall of Baghdad, the United Nations is spending millions of dollars in Iraqi oil money to continue the hunt for Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction.

Every weekday, at a secure commercial office building on Manhattan's East Side, a team of 20 U.N. experts on chemical and biological weapons pores over satellite images of former Iraqi weapons sites. They scour the international news media for stories on Hussein's deadly arsenal. They consult foreign intelligence agencies on the status of Iraqi weapons. And they maintain a cadre of about 300 weapons experts from 50 countries and prepare them for inspections in Iraq -- inspections they will almost certainly never conduct, in search of weapons that few believe exist.

The inspectors acknowledge that their chief task -- disarming Iraq -- was largely fulfilled long ago. But, they say, their masters at the U.N. Security Council have been unable to agree to either shut down their effort or revise their mandate to make their work more relevant. Russia insists that Iraq's disarmament must be formally confirmed by the inspectors, while the United States vehemently opposes a U.N. role in Iraq, saying coalition inspectors have already done the job.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Although I honestly believe there is nothing there. It is assuring that they are still looking. Iraq is a wild place, they did have stockpiles of the stuff so until Iraq becomes stable it's money well spent to ensure some warehouse that has been forgotten doesn't contain anything.

[name already taken]

Looks like somebody (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/01/AR2007060102358_pf.html) has found themselves a comfy gig.
Diplomatic pressure from the rest of the world.

[Firetxmi]

Best of luck on the wild Goose chase. :lol:

[budgie]

I'll say this for GWB: at least he's honest about his apathy.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

The UN was already given the opportunity to inspect for WMD - and the result was a 12 year joke, culminating in the largest scam ever perpetrated by humanity, and a war. What kind of an idiot would hand them the same job a second time?

[name already taken]

The UN was already given the opportunity to inspect for WMD - and the result was a 12 year joke, culminating in the largest scam ever perpetrated by humanity, and a war. What kind of an idiot would hand them the same job a second time?
The rest of the world.

[Brzezinski]

un is searching for WMDS while america brings peace?.. how cute... we killed 2 thousand iraqis in may... i think we are really starting to win the war on terror...

so did the oil companies finalize the plans to pump oil out of iraq yet?... wonder whos going to protect the oil companies while they steel the oil?

as long as they dont forget to keep me free im ok with everything... cuz lets face it....iraq was a threat to the american constitution......right?

[Flyingfoot]

The UN was already given the opportunity to inspect for WMD - and the result was a 12 year joke, culminating in the largest scam ever perpetrated by humanity, and a war. What kind of an idiot would hand them the same job a second time?
Based on the current evidence and the now known reasons for the war, your post is ignorant. The UN searched for 12 years and found no WMD's, the war was started by the US and the "coalition of the willing" not the UN. The UN may be inept, but it's also governed by the member states which also makes them inept.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

The rest of the world.

A lot of the rest of the world wallows in it's own excrement, and would sell their own mother for $50. Sorry, but our patience for amateur hour wore out a long time ago.


Based on the current evidence and the now known reasons for the war, your post is ignorant. The UN searched for 12 years and found no WMD's, the war was started by the US and the "coalition of the willing" not the UN. The UN may be inept, but it's also governed by the member states which also makes them inept.

I suspect that the "known reasons for the war" that you subscribe to are quite different than the ones that I do. Inspecting Iraq for WMD should have taken 6 months. The UN was entrusted with the responsibility to conduct and audit the cease-fire from GW1 - a duty at which they proved to be even more than incompetent. The fact that it took the UN 12 years - and they still hadn't completed the job- is proof that they - just as they are now - were more interested in profiting from the process rather than completing it. What you say about the behavior of the UN being a reflection of the intentions of it's member states is quite correct - it would appear that the same nations who previously demonstrated their corruption and incompetence are desperate to reclaim some relevance.

[name already taken]

A lot of the rest of the world wallows in it's own excrement, and would sell their own mother for $50. Sorry, but our patience for amateur hour wore out a long time ago.

A large parking lot would be better !

[Atlantic Friend]

The UN was already given the opportunity to inspect for WMD - and the result was a 12 year joke, culminating in the largest scam ever perpetrated by humanity, and a war. What kind of an idiot would hand them the same job a second time?

The same kind who claimed Iraq was able to strike any target in the Uk with WMDs in 45 minutes ? or maybe the kind who produced vials during UNSC meetings and said the world was under the threat of Iraqi mobile labs who happened to be trucks used to inflate weather balloons ?

The WMD issue hasn't been a great moment in History so far, let's face it. And amateurship has been rampant on both sides of the aisle here, to say the very least.

[Hollis]

The same kind who claimed Iraq was able to strike any target in the Uk with WMDs in 45 minutes ? or maybe the kind who produced vials during UNSC meetings and said the world was under the threat of Iraqi mobile labs who happened to be trucks used to inflate weather balloons ?

The WMD issue hasn't been a great moment in History so far, let's face it.


One aspect that seems to elude many people was, "What was Saddam telling people?".

A guys says he has a gun and will shoot the teller, how should the cops go in on that?

The WMD may or may not unravel as time progress. I would suggest that one should read/find out what the captured Iraqi generals had to say.

Saddam was a cagey old fox beside being a sadistic baster....... That also seems to elude a lot of people.

[Atlantic Friend]

I think the issue has moved way past Saddam's atrocities here. Yes, Saddam kept saying he had a gun - and maybe he was told he had one, too. And yes, he was a bad guy, and toppling him was a good enough war objective.

But now it seems the point is to prove the US/Uk administrations were never wrong about anything. Even though doubts have been expressed among the intel community about the WMDs, even though the UK government admitted it used data that was 15 years old, the WMD Myth must be defended by "negative proof". The UN cannot find the WMDs ? Well, it is the proof they're incompetents. The Coalition forces haven't rounded up a few dozens of the thousands of scientists, technicians and army officers that HAD to be involved ? Then it is the proof that Saddam hid everything very well.

There is a point in every issue where flogging a dead horse stops looking assertive and begins being counter-productive. And where the horse seems not only dead but non-existent, what is the point ? I'll be the first to eat crow if a hidden WMD lab suddenly pops up from the Iraqi sands, of if these technicians and scientists and officers show up on stage to say "yes, yes, everybody was wrong but President Bush", but really, that doesn't seem very likely...

[name already taken]

..........................

[Hollis]

AF, I don't know. I don't think the UN is going to do the US any favors.

small note, from my understand, crow is not that good. Maybe a robin or two.

[helomech]

Another boondoggle from the UN...what's next a fact finding mission to see what they can do about Darfur?Morons'.........:bash:

[ElHombre]

The UN was already given the opportunity to inspect for WMD - and the result was a 12 year joke, culminating in the largest scam ever perpetrated by humanity, and a war. What kind of an idiot would hand them the same job a second time?

This is still the same job they were doing before the 2003 invasion.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

The same kind who claimed Iraq was able to strike any target in the Uk with WMDs in 45 minutes ? or maybe the kind who produced vials during UNSC meetings and said the world was under the threat of Iraqi mobile labs who happened to be trucks used to inflate weather balloons ?

The WMD issue hasn't been a great moment in History so far, let's face it. And amateurship has been rampant on both sides of the aisle here, to say the very least.

Call me crazy, but I tend to think that running a war is a bit more difficult and demanding than running a peacetime inspection program in a defeated nation. So I'm willing to cut Bush more slack than I'm willing to cut Kofi.

The anti-war crowd put all their faith in the UN. Fine, let's use thier logic...but then, if there were no WMD in Iraq - why was the pre-war UN inspection program not completed? And if there were no WMD - why is the UN still in there looking for them? Seems to me they can't have it both ways.


This is still the same job they were doing before the 2003 invasion.

If they had done their job before the invasion, there wouldn't have been an invasion.

The UN can't help but be incompetent/corrupt. It's their bread & butter. It's the mother's milk of any bureaucracy. Their entire reason for existing is to save us from something. But if they finish the job, they all go back to beet farming or selling bootleg T-shirts in the hot sun. No more office work. They botched the job for 12 years, milked it for all it was worth...and now it appears they'd like to keep suckling on the teet of Iraqi oil for another couple of decades. I'd be willing to farm out the job to one nation - who would be fully accountable for a results-oriented program...but the UN? No way.

[name already taken]

AF, I don't know. I don't think the UN is going to do the US any favors.

small note, from my understand, crow is not that good. Maybe a robin or two.
Next thing we'll hear is that the UN was hiding Saddam's WMD all those years. p-)

[budgie]

Next thing we'll hear is that the UN was hiding Saddam's WMD all those years. p-)

LOL, yeah in Syria ;)

Sad that the UN still clings to hope when the Promoter in Chief of the WMD story has long since found other distractions...

[Cralis]

Well, considering that I've seen some of the chemical weapons trucks abandoned on the side of the road (without the chemical weapons thank God), and that an insurgent trying to make an IED using an oddly marked shell instead made a sarin-gas bomb, I'd say that the 20 months I spent over there I saw waaaaaaaaay more evidence of WMD's then I'd want to see.

Second, I guess
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/040427/2004042714.html
the fact that the terrorist left Syria
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1125481/posts
with chemical weapons
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/news_story_skin/423059
doesn't mean
http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/duarte/2004/0426.html
jack?

Please. I know the US government is not releasing much of what it really knows about the WMDs. But its not my decision. I just know that anyone who thinks they never existed - well that person is wrong.

[budgie]

Well, considering that I've seen some of the chemical weapons trucks abandoned on the side of the road (without the chemical weapons thank God), and that an insurgent trying to make an IED using an oddly marked shell instead made a sarin-gas bomb, I'd say that the 20 months I spent over there I saw waaaaaaaaay more evidence of WMD's then I'd want to see.

Second, I guess
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/040427/2004042714.html
the fact that the terrorist left Syria
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1125481/posts
with chemical weapons
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/news_story_skin/423059
doesn't mean
http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/duarte/2004/0426.html
jack?

Please. I know the US government is not releasing much of what it really knows about the WMDs. But its not my decision. I just know that anyone who thinks they never existed - well that person is wrong.

Nobody believes the WMD never existed, only that the vast stockpiles that were touted had been destroyed or had decayed to an unusable state. The few missing shells and old trucks that have popped up since seem to confirm that theory rather than lending any credence to the administration's assertion that Saddam had a ready arsenal or working programs. And let's not forget Rice's 'mushroom cloud'...

[Atlantic Friend]

Call me crazy, but I tend to think that running a war is a bit more difficult and demanding than running a peacetime inspection program in a defeated nation. So I'm willing to cut Bush more slack than I'm willing to cut Kofi.

Well, I won't call you crazy on the mere basis of this reasoning. It's just that, 4 years after the defeated nation was defeated again, and fell either under direct control of Coalition forces or a supposedly friendly and completely un-Baathist Iraqi regime, you'd think all these intel reports about the large ongoing WMD program and the vectors ready to strike western targets within 45 minutes would have been confirmed long ago.

A WMD program has to involve hundreds, if not thousands, of people able to give some information about what it is they were doing, from researching biological weapons to building the mobile lab trucks to certain, significant specifications. And you have to have fixed assets somewhere, from fixed labs to warehouses. And these missiles supposed to hit the West within 45 minutes have to be somewhere. Even if part of the evidence had been moved somewhere, that kind of exfiltration involves people, and people talk.

Call me biased or crazy, 2Sheds, but I think it is significant that nothing has turned up to back up this stuff we had been told was a realitiy intel agencies were tracking closely. I'll be the first to eat crow (or robins) if I end up being dead wrong about this issue, but I find it strange political leaders, who never hesitated to blame military officers for mistakes made during the conduct or preparation of the war, cannot admit they might have screwed up themselves.


The anti-war crowd put all their faith in the UN.

Indeed, just as the pro-war crowd have put theirs in attacking it whatever the UN says or does.

Both attitudes puzzle me, as I thought the answer to the WMD issue had more to do with facts and analysis than with faith and dogma.

The UN is not infallible, and nor is the 2003 US Administration. Pretending one is all good, and the other all bad seems to me a strange way to deal with the issues we are facing in this day and age.


Fine, let's use thier logic...but then, if there were no WMD in Iraq - why was the pre-war UN inspection program not completed? And if there were no WMD - why is the UN still in there looking for them? Seems to me they can't have it both ways.

From the strict point of logic, the non-completion of the pre-war inspection program and the non-existence of WMDs are not mutually exclusive. If you come searching my flat, looking for a hidden nucler warhead and leave before inspecting all the rooms, it doesn't mean I have a nuclear weapon stashed somewhere, just that you either did not or could not finish your inspection.

The reason the UN is looking for them is - IMVHO of course - that there was reasonable doubt before the 2003 invasion, and also that, well, the UN does what its members decide it has to do through the whole UN Resolution system.

But after the utter defeat of the Baathist regime, 4 years of occupation of all of Iraq, the establishment of a friendly regime in Baghdad and the active presence of Coalition troops and intel assets, I think the non-appearance of the WMD labs or reserach teams we were told about becomes significant in itself and should be taken into consideration.

Especially if it consumes human resources that could be used elsewhere, in countries where WMD/missile programs are active and which contrary to Iraq haven't had a change of regime or of heart...


The UN can't help but be incompetent/corrupt. It's their bread & butter. It's the mother's milk of any bureaucracy. Their entire reason for existing is to save us from something. But if they finish the job, they all go back to beet farming or selling bootleg T-shirts in the hot sun. No more office work.

They botched the job for 12 years, milked it for all it was worth and now it appears they'd like to keep suckling on the teet of Iraqi oil for another couple of decades. I'd be willing to farm out the job to one nation - who would be fully accountable for a results-oriented program...but the UN? No way.

To play the devil's advocate, the UN is what its members make of it. If nations, and particularly Western nations who give all the funding, really wanted an all-powerful and all-competent UN, they could get it overnight, either by fixing this UN we have or by creating another one. The fact that they prefer this UN, with its obvious faults and merits, seems an indication it fits their purposes...

[roland]

- Sill looking for Iraqi WMD is called UN mismanagement,
- lying to go to war, divert energy from the real war: the war against Wahabism and Salafism and insult and split the allies in time of war is called traison,
- still believing in baby Bush gang's lies like Iraqi danger because of WMD or Saddam link with religious extremist terrorism is called superstition.

[helomech]

- Sill looking for Iraqi WMD is called UN mismanagement,
- lying to go to war, divert energy from the real war: the war against Wahabism and Salafism and insult and split the allies in time of war is called traison,
- still believing in baby Bush gang's lies like Iraqi danger because of WMD or Saddam link with religious extremist terrorism is called superstition.

You're looking another nomination are'nt you?

[Pigdog]

Come on, I thought it had been well established that the real reason Bush and Co. wanted to invade Iraq was to bring freedom to the Iraqis. The threat of WMD was to make overhauling Iraq more acceptable to the 'mercan public. It was all with good intentions.

[name already taken]

You're looking another nomination are'nt you?

- Sill looking for Iraqi WMD is called UN mismanagement,
- lying to go to war, divert energy from the real war: the war against Wahabism and Salafism and insult and split the allies in time of war is called traison,
- still believing in baby Bush gang's lies like Iraqi danger because of WMD or Saddam link with religious extremist terrorism is called superstition.
Well, it's the age of Rethoric (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/060107E.shtml). Confusion abounds. So someone has to do a bit of cleanup from time to time.

[roland]

Come on, I thought it had been well established that the real reason Bush and Co. wanted to invade Iraq was to bring freedom to the Iraqis. The threat of WMD was to make overhauling Iraq more acceptable to the 'mercan public. It was all with good intentions.

I can agree with that.

Petain too had good intentions.

[mas-36]

AF, I don't know. I don't think the UN is going to do the US any favors.

small note, from my understand, crow is not that good. Maybe a robin or two.


Pray tell, you're experienced in this special diet? I think AF's point is that everytime we hear of something happening/not happening in Iraq, our glorious administration and it's supporters come up with yet another reason why we're there.

Because of our fragile egos, it has become impossible to admit to even the slightest failing lest we're called cowards or defeatist, and as a result we spend more time trying to prove we're right than anything else.

[name already taken]

Come on, I thought it had been well established that the real reason Bush and Co. wanted to invade Iraq was to bring freedom to the Iraqis. The threat of WMD was to make overhauling Iraq more acceptable to the 'mercan public. It was all with good intentions.
And this, without even doing any nation building.

[Pigdog]

I can agree with that.

Petain too had good intentions.

But you know, the more I think about it the more I question how Bush was supposed to know Iraq wasn't indeed an imminent threat? How could he have known the Iraqis wouldn't come over in the middle of the night, break into our homes and steal our freedoms? He did it for the good of Amerca too.

[Atlantic Friend]

Pray tell, you're experienced in this special diet? I think AF's point is that everytime we hear of something happening/not happening in Iraq, our glorious administration and it's supporters come up with yet another reason why we're there.

Actually my point is limited to the WMD issue here, not about the war rationale as enunciated by the White House. It can be summarized as follows : as far as this WMD issue goes, the non-appearance of solid evidence after 4 years seems pretty significant to me.

As for the rest of the rationale for this war, I am of two minds.

Toppling Saddam was a good enough war objective for me, if only because he was our collective Frankenstein. Sooner or later, IMHO, Saddam would have kicked the bucket, and Iraq would have erupted into a very similar sort of civil war, with the exaception it would have had a rather strong Baathist side to it.

Was actively provoking the moment Iraq would go into post-Saddam mode a viable strategic option ? IMHO yes.

Was this strategic option and its foreseeable consequences given enough consideration in 2003 ? IMHO no, hence the present imbroglio.

But this is off-topic anyway, and has been debated at great lenghts in many a thread on this very forum.

[Atlantic Friend]

AF, I don't know. I don't think the UN is going to do the US any favors.

small note, from my understand, crow is not that good. Maybe a robin or two.

I'll use the traditional French recipe for crow :

- Put the dead crow on a brick
- Put the brick and the crow in a hot oven
- When the brick is edible, so is the crow.

[Pigdog]

Without doing any nation building.

Ah, more of a jump start to freedom.

[Freibier]

Come on, I thought it had been well established that the real reason Bush and Co. wanted to invade Iraq was to bring freedom to the Iraqis. The threat of WMD was to make overhauling Iraq more acceptable to the 'mercan public. It was all with good intentions.
And there I thought that it had been well established that the real reason Bush and Co. wanted to invade Iraq was to fill his cronies pockets and to get a firm grip in ze ME.

[name already taken]

And there I thought that it had been well established that the real reason Bush and Co. wanted to invade Iraq was to fill his cronies pockets and to get a firm grip in ze ME.
Fairy tale. /*Fox News*/

[name already taken]

I can agree with that.

Petain too had good intentions.
Roland, your comparison is not very nice for Petain.

[roland]

Roland, your comparison is not very nice for Petain.

Well despite I'm not the last one to despise this US admin and got quite well upset by the US attitude toward France (the more you loved, the more you're upset), I'm not ironical and now really think Iraqi invasion was made to impose democracy and with good intentions (all this being reiniforced by some private interests of course)
Just that it was done such an arrogant, stupid and immoral way that I wouldn't be surprised if some finish with a rope around the neck in the future (witch btw, would do only good to Franco-American relations imo p-) ).
Lying to go to war is not a little offense and is very immoral as are immoral all the lies spread against France, some being odious, all that while at the same time they were giving lessons of moral to everybody including about private matters and religion)

But well like AF said, all this have been debated to death, it's useless now. I've no doubt the Yanks are going to solve there internal problem themselves and the right way. Leave it some time.

[name already taken]

Well despite I'm not the last one to despise this US admin and got quite well upset by the US attitude toward France (the more you loved, the more you're upset), I'm not ironical and now really think Iraqi invasion was made to impose democracy and with good intentions (all this being reiniforced by some private interests of course)
Just that it was done such an arrogant, stupid and immoral way that I wouldn't be surprised if some finish with a rope around the neck in the future (witch btw, would do only good to Franco-American relations imo p-) ).
Lying to go to war is not a little offense and is very immoral as are immoral all the lies spread against France, some being odious, all that while at the same time they were giving lessons of moral to everybody including about private matters and religion)

But well like AF said, all this have been debated to death, it's useless now. I've no doubt the Yanks are going to solve there internal problem themselves and the right way. Leave it some time.
Time (http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/7868) seems to be starting to work overtime... :)