How come the US haven't found any nukes in Iraq? (some more scrutiny)

Remove all ads!

If that's true, then that's a very dumb statement, cause we all know if Saddam had his way, Saudi arabia was going to be the next on his list. Eventually he would have had control over every oilfield in the middle east region, and the US, could have never let that happen. Hell, not even us divided Europeans could have tolerated that.

And don't be acting like oil isn't something worth fighting for. If for some reason an entire nation would run out of oil, the economy would collapse in an instant. There will probably be a few more wars over oil in the future, until someone comes up with a replacement for fuel. And then there will be wars for whatever substance that's gonna be.

And to the people here who are actually defending that poor innocent Mr. Hussein, you should try talking to an Iraqi refugee. They shouldn't be too hard to find, there's thousands of them in every country here in Europe. Ask them how they feel about this whole invasion thing. I'm sure you'll get a pretty onesided answer from them.

 

Nobody here is defending Saddam and everybody knows that Saddam is a butcher. The people, who you think that are defending Saddam, are just against the right of any government to be above international law and to declare war when it wants to promote its interests, because this it can only lead to one thing, chaos.

 

Well, that international law of yours, was protecting saddam in every which way. He was making a mockery out of it, and the rest of the world stood by watching how he gassed entire villages and tortured thousands of people.

No matter what the US proposes, countries like China and Russia are always going to veto it, because that's just the way they are. As if the Russians and the Chinese are such peaceloving nations. Gimme a break for crying out loud.

 

That international law is like any law, in the first place a pain in the ass and food for lawyers. It's created in the first place because there is no thing as a "peace loving nation".

But than on the other hand, isn't it nice, that Germany and the Germans have committed themselves so much to international law. They even would respect the neutrality of Belgium now.

 

Bad choice, the Germans didn't have any other options. If they would have had it their way, they would rule Belgium today, and the rest of Europe as well.

 

This is from someone on another board on a topic regarding an 'international law/regime' etc. and for some reason it's stuck with me and is probably somewhat relevant and thought provoking. It's not copyrighted, and he wouldn't mind, so I'll just cut and paste thank you very much.

From 'Antiquated Tory'(South African I believe):

Seems to make a fair bit of sense to me, which has implications regarding this neverending topic I imagine.

[ July 20, 2003, 04:54: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

Pac man,
you have a problem to get your timetables clear. Your argument "If they had their way ..." isn't valid. Sure, and we'll fortunately never know that, if Saddam might have had his way he might have also attacked Saudi-Arabia ... yes, but that was 12 years ago, but now his formidable war mashine has evaporated. How likely is the chance that he would repeat that?

Hey, why not invade mongolia? Had Jingis Khan had his way the netherlands would be mongolian today! Or how about italy? Had the romans had their way rome would still rule supreme in europe.

How about *trying* to think differenced for a change? That 12 years ago Saddam was a threat and had options to make his evil plottings come true is one thing - to bomb him *today* you need more than that. You're way of thinking is pretty irrational.

 

And as for the accusation that international law is a joke beause it protects Saddam. Well, yes it does. And it also protects the US, another notorious international law breaker who happens to be in the security council and therefor is untouchable. The US very much enjoy that certain aspect of international law.
Well, international law is far from perfect, but it is a way to handle things peacefully. And the countries who do not want to do that, well, there was the Don example ...

International law is always a political thing. And it has advantages. When aircraft from overseas land in the US, that's because of international law. When you can leave your country Pac-man, that's because of international law. When canada doesn't set up dirty factories blowing their toxic exausts over to US territory that's because of international law. When the netherlands know where the border of their EEZ in the north sea is that's because they settled their dispute with germany on that at the international court instead of losing a war against us.

As Laches rightly hinted on, the lawyers help the politicians who are the people who hold power. You cannot expect law to work well, when the lawyers advice rogue-politicians or even rogue-lawyers rogue-politicians.

And as Pac-man, Laches thinks too short too: When the US don't think they need international law that's myopia, they just haven't recognised their dependency on it. Because even they cannot coerce every other country into obedience without risking loosing their friends in the end.

So, on the other hand, the fact that there is mafia, corruption and criminality indifferent to the criminal law, is not really a reason to dissolve courts and burn the lawbooks, isn't it?

* Which is precisely one of the few things I really dislike about the US and their policy.

[ July 20, 2003, 14:52: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Irrational ? You only read what you want to see, don't you ? I ask you again, try talking to Iraqi refugees, they ARE around, whereever you live. Tell them that Saddam wasn't a threat, and wait for their reaction. Tell them that there was no need to attack him. Go ahead, give it a try.

I dont mind people calling me irrational, but if the ones in question are either deaf, blind, or both, i can't let it slide.

 

Pac-man,
I see the world a little more differenced, that is: We are speaking about a reason for war - like a *threat* to international peace and stability. And having been a threat 12 years ago is no reason to be attacked today. A simplicistic - "They are cruel and evil there so let's go and get them ..." doesn't work - the world isn't a marvel comic.

And the world is harsh: Saddam killing his own population is an internal iraqi problem unless the security council decides different.
Not to make that difference, but judging by gut-feeling is that, irrational. Yes, that is unsatisfying.

When you're motive is to help the iraqis, that's noble. But then be consequent and help everyone, starting with palestinians, egyptians, burmese, chechens, congolese, liberians, somalis and everyone else suffering under murderous regimes.

But unfortunately, due to national soverignty, the "humanitarian intervention" as exercised in Kosovo is still illegal and not established international common law.
One day, perhaps, an international criminal court will handle cases like that, but that may take a while ... and as for now agression also isn't a solution. That may not please your gut-feeling but such is reality.

So, as said above, you're foolish to believe the Bush crew shares your idealism. I can only recommend to read Krauthammer again - they don't!
And it's not your reason that counts, their reasons do, so don't feel too pissed off by my criticism, it's not about you.

 

Prozac

I don't agree with the Bush administration regardless, no sir. They have a lot of flaws, i do realise that. And i'm not a warmonger, but i really believe something had to be done in Iraq, and an invasion was the only option unfortunately.

Saddam would have never stepped down, and with his son ready to take over the throne, things would have gotten only worse. Iraq may have no longer posed a threat to it's neighbours, but the common man in the street was living in a nightmare, and i really think, that those who have the power to stop that, should act against it. I feel the same way about Liberia for example. If nothing is being done, a dissaster will take place, even worse than it is now. Although i'm not too sure if someone will go in there and restore peace. The thing is, Liberia has nothing to offer in exchange, like Iraq has it's oil, if you know what i mean.

Let me ask you this: how do you feel about North Korea ? Do you think they are a future threat, or that'it's all bluff ? Should someone put the hammer down on them, or is it okay to just look the other way, and act like everything is okay ?

 

Pac-man, I agree with you. Getting rid of a regime isn't too bad at all. The problem is, in my view, there are so many despotic regimes in so many countries, are and have been, but getting rid of them was and is never easy. Mainly because it is a very complicated issue and a very ressoures draining issue.

The cost for a country for getting into a another country and change it's organization for good is comparable to the loss of blood of a human which slits his veins.

And the simple point is, if it would be really possible to a reasonable cost, all the former colonies wouldn't have found themselves in such a state of chaos, as they gained their independence. And other countries would never have been too long in a mess neither.

 

Well, lets put it this way, instead of risking a confrontation between North- and South-Korea - a war that would result in both koreas devastated, perhaps a million plus koreans dead, an east-asian economical crisis and all that - I can't see why North Korea's case deterrence should not work - it even worked with Stalin and Mao in the cold war.

Germany wasn't reunited because the US attacked east germany. And so the US only need to continue supporting the south.

The sad truth is that North-Korea didn't promise a quick and easy victory, more blood for much less profit. That's why Bush Jr., or better his advisors, have focused on the phantom menace provided by the fairytales of Saddam's WMD.

One day the North Koreans will be sick of their leader, and rid themselves of him. That's better than devastating the whole peninsula for the sake of beeing hard on the north.

 

In the end, the behemoth named russian empire crumbled from inside, a thing no one could have foreseen even a year before. And that could as well work with north korea and could have happened in iraq.

I'd like to know what madman set the flea into some peoples heads that it needs a guns and violence to make a revolution. The legally non-binding declarations on citizen rights (forgot the english acronym) between the west and the east have more than anything accelerated the processes of perestroika and glasnost.

 

When did I say that? Ah forget about it - your view on the collapse of the USSR being bloodless is naive imo though - you're forgetting about war by proxy. You're also forgetting that Russia probably still doesn't qualify as a nation where the people with wigs tell people what to do and they listen. They're currently breaking skulls to enforce their way. Forget Stalin. WWII. The garrisons across Europe pressuring the Soviets. The bombs. etc.

Seriously, is it mad to think that peace has historically come at the edge of a sword, or just realistic? Here we have someone criticizing another for being irrational (while using an ad-hominem attack which is a logical fallacy) and at the same time another denying that one of the few constants over the millenia of human history -- the peace of the King -- is necessary.

[ July 20, 2003, 18:55: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

"The law of the king" a.k.a. Leviathan. The problem is, is the whale big enough to swallow the world ? Or is the world to much for the stomach of the whale ? The downfall fo the russian empire, which tried to swallow too much could be a hint, in my view.

Seen from Leviathan is the best solution perspective, the European nations should have given in to the Leviathan on this continent, to Germany.

Nation-states are whole different issue, but somehow related true. As the idea of the nation-state took hold at the end of the 19th century, it was the reason for a giantic bloodshed, which were necessary to turn fiction to reality, still is. That's true. I just think Spain is a wonderful example, for what a price as to be paid for the "peace of Franco" and to be "one nation".

But mentioning nations-states, the birth of India as a nation was at some stage an unevitable process and at some stage, as ethnic-tension grew at a certain height, unavoidably connected with a giantic bloodshed. But what Leviathan was there to stop that bloodshed ? And who could have solved all the problems which caused this ? Even if the Leviathan most think of possesd much more might and power about the middle of the last century than he does in this, I don't think he would have been able to do anything.

And even worse, the Leviathan thinking is what will, in my opinion, be a cause of much danger in the nearer future. Because the whale has to face a lot of other whales, which have grown in the last 100 years and are no 3rd world countries anymore. To secure the position of the whale, it is necessary to gain an advantage verus the other whales.

Oh, yeah, by the way, the 30-years-war, still the by far worst war in Europe, has given birth to a a set of rules concerning war, which were broken on European ground only 300 years later, 1914. Following the lead of the USA in their civil-war.

 

I think people may be missing the point. The point isn't 'rah rah let's take over the world!' The point is: history teaches us taht peace comes only at the edge of a sword.

Regarding Russia, it's addressed in the initial quoted post and that doesn't even account for the legacy of that Stalin fella and the blood he shed. Look around the world and lets find large peaceful spots where the peace didn't come at the price of blood.

South America? Nope, hardly fits the bill. Bloody in the past and still bloody.

North America? Certainly not the US. How about Mexico - ok, stop laughing. How about those peace loving Canadians? Nope, they've bathed in blood too.

Europe. Please.

What about the Middle East? Snicker.

China? Um, there was that whole Mao fella.

Japan? Their peace didn't come at the edge of a sword, it came from radioactive fallout.

What about.... well, you get the point.

This international rule of law people crow about will never have place unless there is an iron fist beneath the velvet glove. Until that reality is accepted then an international order will always only be the Emperor without clothes. If Europe wants an international rule of order then it must either determine a way to develop enough strength of its own to shove that order down the throat of the rest of the world or rather than isolate the US determine a manner to persuade it to use its force to bring that about. As it is now, there is no international rule of law.

 

Yes, I am missing the point. There have been wars and bloodshed, so what ? Lately, the ever warhungry British didn't bomb Kopenhagen, like they used to do in earlier times. Neither did the Spaish crack down on the Dutch. Nor did the Germans invade Poland lately. And the warmongering Swedes didn't attack norway in the last 10 days, so ? And we dind't attack Italy, to get back what is rightly ours.

But I guess that's near to the main issue. Don't wanna be mercenary for foreigners no more. Don't wanna go to colonize anything. Don't wanna go to foreing places far, far away to get things straight. Can't tell the Chinese, Russians and Brazilians how they should lead and live their lives.

 

Sure Europe isn't quite into bombing each other as much as they used to be (though they still do) but that's because there is an overarching system in place. How'd that system get into place? Lots of people were killed.