Comments on: WMD http://downingstreetsays.com/briefings/2004/09/10/884 Every day the Prime Minister's Spokesman meets a small coterie of political journalists known as 'the lobby' for a topical chat, or 'briefing'. Mon, 12 Jul 2010 20:21:10 +0100 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Uncarved Block http://downingstreetsays.com/briefings/2004/09/10/884/comment-page-1#comment-2245 Uncarved Block Mon, 11 Oct 2004 20:43:25 +0000 #comment-2245 The Iraq declaration in December 2002 was in response to the UN Security Council resolution 1441 (passed in November 2002) on WMDs which imposed new arms inspections on Iraq and precise definitions of what constituted a material breach of the resolution. The resolution also threatened "serious consequences" if there was a breach. Iraq then produced their declaration - a huge dossier giving details of everything to do with WMDs - hoping to drown the inspectors in paper and delay the whole process. I don\x92t think anyone is trying to claim that Saddam was a nice person who was totally open and honest. Like many other national leaders he didn\x92t want to be forced into doing things by other countries and would refuse to cooperate wherever he could(another example of this is the US not signing UN treaties on torture and chemical weapons or the Kyoto agreement on environmental protection). However as far as the evidence shows Iraq was complying with the UN resolutions, either by choice or the success of sanctions, and so there was no reason to go to war. Under international law the war was always dubious based on a supposed breach of UN1441 backed up the threat of "serious consequences". Now that it appears that Saddam was complying with the resolution, the war was completely unjustified and illegal. Many would argue that Bush/Blair et al should be tried as war criminals. [Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information. This discomfort leads people to re-interpret the new information to either devalue it or twist it to support their original belief rather than admit they were wrong in the first place.] The Iraq declaration in December 2002 was in response to the UN Security Council resolution 1441 (passed in November 2002) on WMDs which imposed new arms inspections on Iraq and precise definitions of what constituted a material breach of the resolution. The resolution also threatened "serious consequences" if there was a breach. Iraq then produced their declaration – a huge dossier giving details of everything to do with WMDs – hoping to drown the inspectors in paper and delay the whole process.

I don\x92t think anyone is trying to claim that Saddam was a nice person who was totally open and honest. Like many other national leaders he didn\x92t want to be forced into doing things by other countries and would refuse to cooperate wherever he could(another example of this is the US not signing UN treaties on torture and chemical weapons or the Kyoto agreement on environmental protection). However as far as the evidence shows Iraq was complying with the UN resolutions, either by choice or the success of sanctions, and so there was no reason to go to war. Under international law the war was always dubious based on a supposed breach of UN1441 backed up the threat of "serious consequences". Now that it appears that Saddam was complying with the resolution, the war was completely unjustified and illegal. Many would argue that Bush/Blair et al should be tried as war criminals.

[Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information. This discomfort leads people to re-interpret the new information to either devalue it or twist it to support their original belief rather than admit they were wrong in the first place.]

(Report comment as abusive?)

]]> By: Perhaps it wasn't so obvious http://downingstreetsays.com/briefings/2004/09/10/884/comment-page-1#comment-2244 Perhaps it wasn't so obvious Mon, 11 Oct 2004 17:33:33 +0000 #comment-2244 Well what I don't understand if these WMDs were destroyed after the first gulf war then why did he not submit this "declaration" until 2002? "cognitive disonnance" any chance of an explaination of what that means, I was only four in 1991 by the way. Well what I don’t understand if these WMDs were destroyed after the first gulf war then why did he not submit this "declaration" until 2002?

"cognitive disonnance" any chance of an explaination of what that means, I was only four in 1991 by the way.

(Report comment as abusive?)

]]> By: square peg http://downingstreetsays.com/briefings/2004/09/10/884/comment-page-1#comment-2243 square peg Mon, 11 Oct 2004 11:53:27 +0000 #comment-2243 "Now are you telling me that Saddam got rid of his WMDs and did NOT tell the UN? Would that make any sense? Does it? Would he secretly destroy all of his WMDs and not tell the UN, therefore meaning that there would still be UN weapon inspectors in his county and sanctions still against him?" No one is saying this. Saddam did tell the UN he got rid of them. UN security council resolution 1441 required that he submit a complete declaration on Iraqi WMD to the UN. He did this in December 2002 - saying they were all destroyed after the Gulf War. Bush and Blair immediately dismissed this as a load of lies. Somewhat ironically, this is the definitive statement on Iraq's WMD programmes, and it turns out the "intelligence" was a load of lies. "Now then, the UN empose economic sanctions on Saddam until he agrees to dismantle his WMDs." Wrong. The weapons were destroyed after the Gulf War under the oversight of the weapons inspectors. The purpose of the sanctions (and continued inspections) were to prevent Saddam from regaining WMDs. There are a lot of people suffering from a lot of cognitive disonnance over this war. "Now are you telling me that Saddam got rid of his WMDs and did NOT tell the UN? Would that make any sense? Does it? Would he secretly destroy all of his WMDs and not tell the UN, therefore meaning that there would still be UN weapon inspectors in his county and sanctions still against him?"

No one is saying this.

Saddam did tell the UN he got rid of them. UN security council resolution 1441 required that he submit a complete declaration on Iraqi WMD to the UN. He did this in December 2002 – saying they were all destroyed after the Gulf War. Bush and Blair immediately dismissed this as a load of lies.

Somewhat ironically, this is the definitive statement on Iraq’s WMD programmes, and it turns out the "intelligence" was a load of lies.

"Now then, the UN empose economic sanctions on Saddam until he agrees to dismantle his WMDs."

Wrong. The weapons were destroyed after the Gulf War under the oversight of the weapons inspectors. The purpose of the sanctions (and continued inspections) were to prevent Saddam from regaining WMDs.

There are a lot of people suffering from a lot of cognitive disonnance over this war.

(Report comment as abusive?)

]]> By: Uncarved Block http://downingstreetsays.com/briefings/2004/09/10/884/comment-page-1#comment-2242 Uncarved Block Sun, 10 Oct 2004 19:21:39 +0000 #comment-2242 "There is no way that it is possible to be sure that they are not hidden somewhere in Iraq" - I totally agree, in the same way that it is not possible to prove that Lord Lucan isn't concealling Iraq's WMD at his dodo farm in the western desert. But the important thing is that there is no need to prove that there were no WMD - the onus is on those people who started a war to prove that there were WMD in Iraq that posed a credible threat. Most people who have looked into this accept that Iraq's WMD were destroyed following the first gulf war. The weapons inspectors have concluded, based on all available evidence, that there were no WMD in Iraq immediately prior to the war and there are none there now (apart from the ones the US/UK have). The only people who have ever claimed that there were WMD in Iraq are Bush, Blair et al and they have not produced a single piece of evidence to back this up. If you are going to order the deaths of tens of thousands of people then I would expect you to base this decision on something more than ill-informed guesswork. "There is no way that it is possible to be sure that they are not hidden somewhere in Iraq" – I totally agree, in the same way that it is not possible to prove that Lord Lucan isn’t concealling Iraq’s WMD at his dodo farm in the western desert. But the important thing is that there is no need to prove that there were no WMD – the onus is on those people who started a war to prove that there were WMD in Iraq that posed a credible threat.

Most people who have looked into this accept that Iraq’s WMD were destroyed following the first gulf war. The weapons inspectors have concluded, based on all available evidence, that there were no WMD in Iraq immediately prior to the war and there are none there now (apart from the ones the US/UK have). The only people who have ever claimed that there were WMD in Iraq are Bush, Blair et al and they have not produced a single piece of evidence to back this up.

If you are going to order the deaths of tens of thousands of people then I would expect you to base this decision on something more than ill-informed guesswork.

(Report comment as abusive?)

]]> By: Lets Point Out The Obvious http://downingstreetsays.com/briefings/2004/09/10/884/comment-page-1#comment-2240 Lets Point Out The Obvious Sun, 10 Oct 2004 11:35:29 +0000 #comment-2240 It seems people have a very short term memory. Iraq had WMDs. Iraq used WMDs. That my friends is a well documented fact. So, follow my line of thinking here, Saddam has WMDs in the early nineties. Okay. Now then, the UN empose economic sanctions on Saddam until he agrees to dismantle his WMDs. Now are you telling me that Saddam got rid of his WMDs and did NOT tell the UN? Would that make any sense? Does it? Would he secretly destroy all of his WMDs and not tell the UN, therefore meaning that there would still be UN weapon inspectors in his county and sanctions still against him? Of course he wouldn't, he isn't stupid. Iraq is a big country, a massive country. There is no way that it is possible to be sure that they are not hidden somewhere in Iraq, its the needle in a haystack on a gigantic scale. It seems people have a very short term memory. Iraq had WMDs. Iraq used WMDs. That my friends is a well documented fact.

So, follow my line of thinking here, Saddam has WMDs in the early nineties. Okay. Now then, the UN empose economic sanctions on Saddam until he agrees to dismantle his WMDs.

Now are you telling me that Saddam got rid of his WMDs and did NOT tell the UN? Would that make any sense? Does it? Would he secretly destroy all of his WMDs and not tell the UN, therefore meaning that there would still be UN weapon inspectors in his county and sanctions still against him?

Of course he wouldn’t, he isn’t stupid. Iraq is a big country, a massive country. There is no way that it is possible to be sure that they are not hidden somewhere in Iraq, its the needle in a haystack on a gigantic scale.

(Report comment as abusive?)

]]> By: Uncarved Block http://downingstreetsays.com/briefings/2004/09/10/884/comment-page-1#comment-2239 Uncarved Block Sun, 10 Oct 2004 11:27:59 +0000 #comment-2239 Dave, who are 'they' and what evidence do you have for this? As far as I know there is no such thing as a legal limit for a weapon of mass destruction - either it is a weapon or it isn't. Dave,

who are ‘they’ and what evidence do you have for this? As far as I know there is no such thing as a legal limit for a weapon of mass destruction – either it is a weapon or it isn’t.

(Report comment as abusive?)

]]> By: dave http://downingstreetsays.com/briefings/2004/09/10/884/comment-page-1#comment-2234 dave Wed, 06 Oct 2004 23:17:52 +0000 #comment-2234 There have been many sites of WMD found, yet they are below "legal" limits. They aren't stupid! They keep the WMD spread out so they aren't considered a serious threat. There have been many sites of WMD found, yet they are below "legal" limits. They aren’t stupid! They keep the WMD spread out so they aren’t considered a serious threat.

(Report comment as abusive?)

]]> By: Uncarved Block http://downingstreetsays.com/briefings/2004/09/10/884/comment-page-1#comment-2132 Uncarved Block Fri, 17 Sep 2004 14:40:41 +0000 #comment-2132 There are plenty of WMD in Iraq but the Iraqis didn't have any, the americans brought them: http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=2080&mode=thread&order=0 There are plenty of WMD in Iraq but the Iraqis didn’t have any, the americans brought them:

http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=2080&mode=thread&order=0

(Report comment as abusive?)

]]> By: PapaLazzzaru http://downingstreetsays.com/briefings/2004/09/10/884/comment-page-1#comment-2131 PapaLazzzaru Fri, 17 Sep 2004 13:41:43 +0000 #comment-2131 What kind of friends are these then, Paddy? Weapons inspectors? Because they haven't found a thing - I'd suggest you get your mates to get in touch with them! What kind of friends are these then, Paddy? Weapons inspectors? Because they haven’t found a thing – I’d suggest you get your mates to get in touch with them!

(Report comment as abusive?)

]]> By: Paddy O'Reilly http://downingstreetsays.com/briefings/2004/09/10/884/comment-page-1#comment-2124 Paddy O'Reilly Fri, 17 Sep 2004 04:03:53 +0000 #comment-2124 Are people stupid or what, OFF cause there was WMD, what do you think GAS is ??? there is plenty of proof that the Kurds and southern shia were gassed ! there is no doubt what so ever that there were WMD, the question is what happened to it. I have many friends who have been in Iraq or are there now, and they all say plenty of WMD is being found in small doses. Are people stupid or what, OFF cause there was WMD, what do you think GAS is ??? there is plenty of proof that the Kurds and southern shia were gassed ! there is no doubt what so ever that there were WMD, the question is what happened to it. I have many friends who have been in Iraq or are there now, and they all say plenty of WMD is being found in small doses.

(Report comment as abusive?)

]]>