There is no evidence AT ALL of an Iranian nuclear weapons program. What we have are claims about a “weapons capability” which applies equally to 40 other countries since any country with nuclear technology is theoretically capable of making nukes at some indefinite point in the future. The whole purpose of the IAEA is therefore to catch the diversion of civilinan nuclear programs to military use — and the IAEA has found no such thing in Iran.

Nor is there evidence that Iran wants nuclear weapons. They have offered to place additional restrictions on their nuclear program well beyond their legal obligations — such as opening the program to multinational participation and enforcing greater inspections than required — yet these offers were simply ignored. Iran’s Amb. Zarif listed the offers in a NYTimes op-ed: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/opinion/05iht-edzarif.html

“I’ll retire from this exchange because I do not know enough about Gulf War 1. I’ll just say that we (the West) have butchered that country.”

Join the club dude/tte – (re not knowing much about Gulf War 1).

I think the West has caused Iraq great damage. The few Iraqi Muslims I know say it’s ‘up for debate’ who was worse (Saddam or the West)!.

That girl is in fact the ambassador’s daughter. Just do a quick google-follow-up on the info presented in the video.

You’re right that the fact that those people lied w/ the assistance of a huge PR firm does not definitively prove the claim was a lie (the original lie is that THEY had seen the blah blah).

But if the content were true, surely they’d find someone to confirm it rather than the charade?

That’s my point. The incubator thing has never been proven either afaik. So when I factor in the charade + lack of real witnesses to the content of the charade + the timing of the charade + the effect of the charade = ….I think the content too was a lie.

How does all this relate to your original comment? I felt you told an ‘official story’ type of justification and I just wanted to show you one tidbit (significant tho) that conveys my skepticism and cynicism.

I’ll retire from this exchange because I do not know enough about Gulf War 1. I’ll just say that we (the West) have butchered that country. They were led by crappy people like Saddam but the pain we inflicted on the Iraqis is that scenario that you say we avoided. Not nuclear devastation but immense devastation nonetheless.

I don’t know why it bothers me so much to have Iraq incorrectly referred to as a Gulf state, but it does. Maybe I just don’t like having it put in the same category as the real Gulf states. The only one of those I find even remotely worthwhile is `Oman.

And by the way, Iraq is not a Gulf country, therefore calling an attack on Iraq a “Gulf” war makes no sense.

Just a minor quibble, but Iraq does have a small piece of Gulf coast at the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab.
The 1991 war was properly called “Gulf war”, and so was the Iraq-Iran war in the ’80s (at least here and then).
Then again, the war in NW Pakistan is called Afghanistan war, so I guess we can’t be too picky about any other name for the rose…

“the girl looks like the some girl of an Arab minister who was trained.”

Not exactly. The girl was, in fact, the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the U.S. (didn’t you notice her perfectly American accented English?) who in fact had not been in Kuwait during the period she claimed to have witnessed the atrocities involving the incubator babies. I suspect that she was convinced by those who coached her that such an incident had occurred, and that therefore her tears were real for what she genuinely imagined had happened.

Saddam did not use weapons “to cause damage to people in the region”. He used chemical weapons, often with the assistance of the United States, against forces that were fighting against Iraq in a war, and threatened to overrun it. Even his use of chemical weapons in Halabja was of that nature.

None of this justifies or excuses his use of chemical weapons under any conditions, but it puts it into its correct context which does not justify the notion that he would have used chemical or nuclear weapons capriciously just to do harm.

b) Avram: “the latest piece where he told his ‘interview buddies” he didn’t let the UN in in the end b/c he feared Iran was propaganda?”

But he DID let the UN in in the end. I am surprised you do not know that. In fact, Saddam repeatedly invited the U.S. to send anyone they wanted to look anywhere they wanted, and was repeatedly shown the middle finger until Bush, under pressure, agreed to have U.N. inspectors sent in. To his dismay, the Iraqi government accepted them with open arms, and cooperated with them until they were forced to leave by the impending invasion.

As for that alleged statement to his interrogators, who knows what he really said, or why he said it? The record leaves no doubt that he allowed the inspectors in, and ordered his subordinates to cooperate with them, which, according to Hans Blix and others, they did.

c) Avram: “he essentially led to Iraq’s destruction by not admitting he had nothing of any danger before the Gulf War II.”

That is simply incorrect. He allowed the inspectors in, and his government cooperated with their efforts. His government also issued in December, 2002, on very short notice, a comprehensive report – 12,000 pages as I recall – which by the way was edited by the Bush regime before it was released to the UN, so that what UN officials saw was not the complete report.

And by the way, Iraq is not a Gulf country, therefore calling an attack on Iraq a “Gulf” war makes no sense.

As for your last paragraph, once again you have constructed an edifice sans foundation, and for that matter sans much in the way of building materials as well. Your edifice is, I fear, based far more on your own biases than on my views and thinking on the subject.