Iraq is a political subject.
Weapons of Mass Destruction and Iraq
-
Unfortunately, the current administration has gained a reputation for mendacity, in other words: lying. This has been the case in both domestic and foreign policy issues. What really surprises me, at the least in my most cynical moments, is how they could have missed the chance (so far, anyway) to plant plenty of convincing material. The cynical me had always assumed they would go into the war with such follow-through all planned out and the stuff ready to plant! So, is the lack of evidence a sign of incompetence? On some level, it must be.
or appropriate timing.
it might be more suspect if they walked in and presto there are all the weapons that 12 years of searching by inspectors missed. -
In my opinion, you guys are simply setting up your excuses for disregarding any finding that Bush makes, whether you see it as legitimate or not.
-
@Deviant:Scripter:
Anyways, I can’t say I agree with you CC. You’re laying out hypothetical situations that probably don’t have a shot in hell of actually happening.
Like the Iraq possessing WMDs (hypothetic!)? Like the Iraq trying to buy Uranium in Africa (proven wrong!)? etc.etc.
LOL, I wish I was brave enough to give Saddam Hussein the benefit of the doubt also. :)
I believe you, it really takes some courage to defend one of the highest values of democracy and freedom.
-
I would not give SH the benefit of anything, any time anywhere!
Meanwhile, for my mind, the Bushies have just about used up any reservoir of trust or even of dispassionate consideration.
Think about the way they crowned Halliburton with an open-ended profit gusher with the exclusive, no-bid, middle-of-the-night award of fixing and running the oil biz in Iraq. Bechtel, with Reagan-Bush ties up the wazoo, got a similar deal.
The thing about Halliburton is that they have a demonstrated and well-documented pattern: get contracts with the U.S. Army, overbill the hell of you and me, get caught, pay the fine, do it again – and again – and again, including during Cheney’s tenure. Paying the fine is just a minor cost of doing business. What’s a $2 million fee when you are doing a $2 billion oil and gas deal? (the math says it is one-tenth of one percent)
-
You might as well start a new thread about Haliburton, cuz your just simply wrong about that, and it might take awhile for us to discuss it. :wink:
-
@Deviant:Scripter:
In my opinion, you guys are simply setting up your excuses for disregarding any finding that Bush makes, whether you see it as legitimate or not.
And the opposite is true - i.e. the Bush admin has been setting up excuses for disregarding international law to invade a sovereign nation in light of not finding WMD.
My proplem is that although i used to think of and trust the US as an ally of countries that seek to do right in the world, it is increasingly more difficult to see the US in this way but rather as a bully who will push around who it might for lunch money while terrorizing others into being its friends (terrorizing might be an inappropriate word, however it fits - those who do not cow-tow get nailed with crippling trade penalties, do not get visits from the president, etc.). -
Let me quote UN Rresolution 1441…
"U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441…
Para. 5…Recognizing the threat Iraq’s noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
Para. 9…Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material…"
The UN majority said Iraq had WMDs…
The UN would not act(recall Chirac’s promise of a “veto to any resolution.” -
what happened to all that documentation that the US confiscated anyway?
-
I think that documentation was proved irrelevant from the beginning, as the Iraq government never even mentioned the biggest concerns we were worried about.
-
@El:
"U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441…
Para. 5…Recognizing the threat Iraq’s noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
…The UN majority said Iraq had WMDs…
Actually, they do not say so. It appears that they do, but they don’t. Let me re-state the first, to make it clearer:
“Recognizing that as well Iraq’s noncompliance as any proliferation of WMDs pose threats”
So, they talk of 2 dangerous things … never expect that diplomats say something that could be used against them ;) -
@Deviant:Scripter:
I think that documentation was proved irrelevant from the beginning, as the Iraq government never even mentioned the biggest concerns we were worried about.
curiously - did anyone other than the US get a chance to see the un-edited version of these documents?
-
Yes, the weapons inspectors, for about 24 hours or so…. AFAIR
-
and other countries too. I don’t recall at this time which ones (i’ll look it up as soon as possible), but the original document was sent to multiple countries, not just the US.
-
Okay CC, I’ve found it.
Here’s direct quotes from a CNN article ( http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/12/07/sproject.irq.inspections/ )
the U.N. Security Council decided Friday to delay distributing the Iraqi documents to its member states until U.N. arms inspectors could review them
From Baghdad, U.N. officials were to bring copies to U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission chief Hans Blix in Cyprus; International Atomic Energy Agency Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei in Vienna; and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan in New York.
-
@F_alk:
@El:
"U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441…
Para. 5…Recognizing the threat Iraq’s noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
…The UN majority said Iraq had WMDs…
Actually, they do not say so. It appears that they do, but they don’t. Let me re-state the first, to make it clearer:
“Recognizing that as well Iraq’s noncompliance as any proliferation of WMDs pose threats”
So, they talk of 2 dangerous things … never expect that diplomats say something that could be used against them ;)F_alk,
Are you saying that because it doesn’t say…
"Para. 5…Recognizing the threat Iraq’s noncompliance with Council resolutions and
IRAQ’S proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
…
They are talking about two different things?Another side of that argument could be that because there is no qualifier in front of “proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles,” then Iraq is still the POSSESSOR here.
…and they are talking about one topic.
-
of course it has still yet to be proven that Iraq IS the possessor of these weapons.
Regardless of whether they are found at this point or not, it would not demonstrate that this was an appropriate invasion and occupation. It would just demonstrate that the US guessed correctly. -
@cystic:
of course it has still yet to be proven that Iraq IS the possessor of these weapons.
Regardless of whether they are found at this point or not, it would not demonstrate that this was an appropriate invasion and occupation. It would just demonstrate that the US guessed correctly.Huh?
Guessed correctly? It’s a little more serious than just throwing darts and hoping you score with one of them. The US doesn’t simply “hope it’s right” while at the same time sending 500,000 troops into war.
What it does is validate our case for war. The UN resolution 1441 authorized us to use whatever means neccessary to ensure that Iraq does not obtain or develop WMD’s. Finding those WMD’s will make the war legitimate in most people’s eyes. The other people who still don’t find it legitimate will never agree that the war was just (regardless of ANY facts that prove to be correct), becuase they either:
A) don’t want to see the US be correct
or
B) have a politically slanted viewpoint that makes any reasonable assessment of the situation out of the question.
CC, what WOULD demonstrate that this was an appropriate war against Saddam?
-
@Deviant:Scripter:
@cystic:
of course it has still yet to be proven that Iraq IS the possessor of these weapons.
Regardless of whether they are found at this point or not, it would not demonstrate that this was an appropriate invasion and occupation. It would just demonstrate that the US guessed correctly.Huh?
Guessed correctly? It’s a little more serious than just throwing darts and hoping you score with one of them. The US doesn’t simply “hope it’s right” while at the same time sending 500,000 troops into war.
Well no. This is assuming that the actual reason that the US went to war was because of violation of res 1441. The fact is, after the US invasion, they did everything they could to divert attention away from the appearance of using 1441. They used the tragic occurrances of 9/11 as an excuse to go to war. They used the removal of an evil tyrant as an excuse. Once the invasion began, res 1441 slid into the background. For me the whole idea is a joke. The US used 1441 as a way to justify to people like you (and the rest of the world) furthering their agenda in the middle east.
What it does is validate our case for war.
no it doesn’t. And now it never will.
The UN resolution 1441 authorized us to use whatever means neccessary to ensure that Iraq does not obtain or develop WMD’s. Finding those WMD’s will make the war legitimate in most people’s eyes. The other people who still don’t find it legitimate will never agree that the war was just (regardless of ANY facts that prove to be correct), becuase they either:
A) don’t want to see the US be correct
or
B) have a politically slanted viewpoint that makes any reasonable assessment of the situation out of the question.
how can you invade someone legitimately in retrospect? A paranoid US could ultimately see French and Canadian opposition to the invasion as anti-Americanism. If they invaded and found documents that suggested that we were going to cut them off from the oil and water we supply to them, then they could turn around and justify their invasion.
I don’t care if the US is correct or not. It makes no difference to me in my little life (and i’m certain that the opposite is true as well - the US cares not if i’m correct). The fact is Cuba is not Castro, but they live with his propaganda. The US is not Bush but they live with his propaganda (i.e. right-wing news organizations). I have few feelings on my desires for the US to be correct or not - aside from the desire to see that they are correct before they invade someone. As for a politically slanted viewpoint making my ability to reason out this situation you need to ask yourself if i’m a reasonable person in general. I think that at one point everyone on this board might have agreed that i wasn’t because of my varying posts/replies. The fact is, i have yet to firmly establish a political view. I never vote the same way in federal politics, i typically do vote Liberal in t provincial politics (pretty much close to the Conservative party in Manitoba, just fewer ties to business, but less wacko then the NDP). But this all has next to nothing to do with my views on Iraq.CC, what WOULD demonstrate that this was an appropriate war against Saddam?
at this point there is nothing. The fact is that the US invaded without enough information, against the will of much of the international community (which, believe it or not, is not just France and Germany).
I suppose that if the CIA was able to demonstrate that they had information a year ago which was unequivocal in its proof that Saddam was going to invade them (or an ally) first, but was slow to release it for some excellent reason then i’d say well, if it was known that they were going to attack first then ok.
Right now there has been no solid evidence of this, and they have not even had a shred of evidence that Saddam possessed any WMD - never mind that they were about to use them. -
So, it sounds like you’re taking the position that it’s alright to allow rogue countries to possess any weapon they choose, as long as they’re not firing them at us, even given the fact that they’ve used them in the past?? :o
-
@Deviant:Scripter:
So, it sounds like you’re taking the position that it’s alright to allow rogue countries to possess any weapon they choose, as long as they’re not firing them at us, even given the fact that they’ve used them in the past?? :o
I do not think you are looking at this problem the right way. the US has possesses WMD Yet it has no legitimate or logically reason to possess and use them (oh yeah you nuked us so therefore I’m going to take this nuclear warhead and blow all your women and children and you to smithereens…). We have no (or I have not heard of any) DIRECT(notice how I worded that) threat from Mr. Hussien that he was going to use them (WMD) on us… Al-queida might have said they were going to use them but not Mr. Hussien himself… as far as you mentioning Rougue states yeah rougue states are not necessarily the ones you would want to have and use WMD but thay use other forms of terror each day that you do not hear about that they use. But even worse do you know that the USG (Goverment) supports them and Quote “normal” Goverments every day… there is a document (I cannot tell the exact place it is at, but I know it is on the state department website buried…) that was released stating the horrible stuff goverments, like the ones in Central America and Mid. east do to there citizens that was terrible but you never hear about those do you. And the Goverment supports it. just something to think about…
Suggested Topics
