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

Remove all ads!

Yes, and the ones that we can really prove that he had, because the US sold them to him. I'm sure there are a few US corporations that still have the receipts for them. Some of you may remember that this little Hitler was one of our "friends" in the old days, when we were out to get Iran.

But I'd like to hear more about this program of developing WMD and the guy with the parts buried in his garden (must have been a program of startling proportions). My dog buries a lot of things in my backyard. Maybe I should check on him; he may be a Saddam sympathizer in disguise. I thought his bark sounded a little "foreign" lately.

[ July 21, 2003, 05:36: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

What overarching system ? The UN, mainly initated by the Americans after the second world war ? The different kind of European co-operations, the EU and other European treaties ? Or do you mean that the English bulldog is kept from getting back to his old bellegrient (sp ?) ways by some kind of iron fist which keeps him in check ?

And by the way, getting again back to the 30-years-war. It changed the status quo. It weakend the old iron fist of the mighty Empire of Charles V. The one where the sun never set. After that war, in which the French, Dutch and English prevailed, a new status quo was in place and the French, English and Dutch had again much opportunity to fight eachother wherever they met. So, peace didn't came because someone gained a definitive victory, peace came because all had run out of money. And food. And soldiers. And it became propably boring to march through countries which were completly rid of any human population. Nothing to loot.

 

Oh, don't say that, in the end you'll awake doubt in the minds of those who think that peace and law both needs a sword to back it up!
Besides, the 30 year war was one of the events that brought international law into existence; guess why ... And so, let's put it that way, in europe we don't have peace today because the belgians do not go to war against luxemburg even though belgium is militarily and economically stronger ... it's some different alien concept.

BTA,
saying that you don't know what Saddam had is one thing. Concluding, considering he's been cheating, that he must hide them is another one, and by no means logically concludent.

And to go to war because of what more and more points out to have been nothing else but a sexed up assumption is inexcusable: Because that is accepting to kill some few thousand people where sending in inspectors might have been just as effective (that way they could have even searched unlooted gvt buildings ...).
Remember, when you search something like WMD in iraq and you don't find it - that can as well be because that very thing has been destroyed.

But then again, the inspectors were unwanted, mind, whatever they had found, the case for war was forged already - which isn't even denied by the people who made the decision. So in the end the WMD haven't been the reason at all, they were just the most menacing and successful spin for the case of the war.
The phantom menace is so great we have to attack pre-emptively ... ... will we risk Saddam prooving he has WMD by placing a mushroom cloud over D.C.? The WMD did a great job scaring the US into beeing pro-war; now that this isn't necessary anymore and the doubters come it's just that "WMD haven't been the true reason (agreed)", "but Saddam had them (once)" and that "he deserved it anyway!"

So it isn't about wether Saddam deserved to be toppled or not. Questioning the Bush administrations case for iraq is not defending Saddam. It is just about if the Bush crew did the right thing the right way - and they did it in neither case.

[ July 21, 2003, 18:29: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Lol, it just occured to me. The Europeans are kept in check by the largest military force in Europe. The Swiss-army.

 

Back to the reason for going in according to BTA:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jschild - Let me quote myself from another thread:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In general, my answer to "why Iraq and not these others" is that "these others" didn't invade a neighbor country, get thrown back through military force, agree to disarm as a condition of a cease fire, and then not live up to that agreement...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is one serious flaw with this argument in terms of international law:

The cease fire resolution of 91 is not conditional. It is permanent and does not open up for further action to enforce the agreements made at the time. A new resolution would need to be made to enforce the previous one, and the closest we ever came was 1441 which is ambiguous to say the least when it comes to justifying invasion.

Better lawyers than us will no doubt debate this in view of the recent admissions about the inteligence used to justify the invasion.

 

I completely agree on your UN statement. The cease fire-resulution was between UN and Iraq. No way for the Us to take things in their own hands based on that. And the ressolution 1441 also didn't approve for measures of force, and also did not empower the US in any way.

The international lawyers are pretty unambiguous about the illegality of the war on iraq - even the sheer force-buildup and threat with force were illegal already. The only dissenters can be found on the far-out right in the US, Israel and UK, most of them not even lawyers but politicians. So there actually is a broad consensus on the illegality of the war on iraq. Just check this for more info.

And once again, the UN also didn't change anything about the illegality of the US attack on iraq with the first post-war resolution, that was just the mopping up the broken diplomatic china.

The use of intelligence to justify this war is an internal US constitutional problem - if people in the US don't get lulled into coma by the tune that it wasn't all that bad, iraq is free, and that the opposition as well as the rest of the world are just jealous for Bush's glorious victory.

 

Well, as for doing the right thing. There we are again at the motives. Unfortunately the neocons advisors of Bush probably do not share yours. So wether you find it right - you do it for your reasons, they did it for theirs, and probably much different reasons: Iraqi freedom, in the end, is perhaps a nice spin-off of the desire to achieve free oilflow and the chance to ... err ... form the middle east according to neocon ideas.

And that problem is the key point of legitimacy.

Tow flies win one swap, one goody for the neocons and feel-goody for the people. But at what a price?
The rest of the world is sceptic, to say the least. The US need to convince the iraqis that they will *quickly* regain control in their own country or the US will face a costly and unpleasant time there.
But as one of Rummy's aidees, asked for the flaws of the occupation, said: "We'll get better as we do it more often."
So, anyone else to rescued? I wonder if the to-be rescued people atm feel the need to be rescued and if their coutry perhaps is</font>

• close to israel or
• close to iraq, the most developed country in the region and, aside from beeing evil and mullah-driven, rich of oil too.

"... better as we do it more often." ??! Now that's scary

 

BTA,

Well, then trust a lawyer focusing on international law, the illegality is *crystal* clear.

And for wether it was the right thing, I'm sceptic. I am pretty much convinced that inspections could have removed a potential mencae originating from a Saddam having WMD, rather, I'm convinced the thread had been eliminated already.

But evidently that wasn't what the neocons wanted - with war plans scheduled and planned from september 12, 2001 on already. And insofar I second Prozac, iraqi freedom is just the spin off.
And by celebrating that you cannot overcome the flaw the main motive had. Just read Krauthammer for a neocon point of view on humanitarian motives:

And yes, that's the pivoting point of the question if it even was the right thing to do; for sure it was the wrong way.

 

BTA,

Well, the very things that made him dangerous, his massive army crushed and his arsenal of WMD evaporated. The factories were destroyed, munitions destroyed and the stuff he might have hidden - well, they're harmless goo today. So what kind of a threat, except for beeing evil and plotting war (like .. perhaps ... Perle and Wolfowitz), was Saddam in 2003?
Well, unlike Perle and Wolfowitz, Saddam probably lacked the assets that would have made him a threat for foreign countries.

The very fact that none of iraqs neighbour countries, except US-pet Kuwait, really feared Saddam in 2003 should tell you something.
The whole spin about the menace originating from Saddam has more holes than a swiss cheese. The question of honesty and truthfulness in the Bush administration, and the question of responsibilities in Washington is also an interesting aspect.

Even more interesting is the question if the US public will enforce consequences after the white house spin-docterism and adventurism. But that may need a few more GIs dead, because no one cares about the "ragheads" killed as a result of that adventure, which ... officially ... were planned to be rescued but unfortunately did not live long enough to see that day. Ah yes, freedom has a price

And that is the depressing part, seemingly the US public opinion will only change as a result of US soldiers dead, and then they will punish Bush for getting americans killed, and not question him for messing up other countries on advice of his daddy's old buddies. But look ahead, the right wingers try to bring you in the right mood for the future: "We Can Take It" (casualties)" ... Well, good fun then. Coupled with "We'll get better as we do it more often." that's really bad prospects.

Isn't it kinda amazing that most of the pre-war concerns - that the US have no real plan for post-war iraq, the doubt about the spin around Iraq + Al-Quaida and the WMD - most of which were scoffed in right media as godless Saddam-hugging - pointed out to be in fact right? That also tells a tale about the efficiency of the campaign against critics in the US.

[ July 22, 2003, 00:24: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Ring around the rosies, pocket full of posies, ashes, ashes, we all fall down.

 

As he trudg'd along to school,
It was always Johnny's rule
To be looking at the sky
And the clouds that floated by;
But what just before him lay,
In his way,
Johnny never thought about.

 

Aah, exchanging niceties Well, BTA rised the question on what this thread is actually still useful for. There were a few points on that above, and I'd like to add another one:
For some americans this here seems to look like a nice Kindergarten, where we silly euros, hopelessly biased, bash america (yes, hatred mut drive us, so evil are we) wherever we have a chance to do so. Well that's for sure, whatever we post here, it can't stop Bush making stupid things. But that isn't the point: The constant babbling here is about a reason and this thread's title indeed is program: "How come the US haven't found any nukes in Iraq?"

In the months leading to the war, administraton officials laid out a case that the Hussein regime posed a direct threat to the United States that required immediate military action.
That was, foremost, justified with Saddam's WMD program. Well, the threat originating from it wasn't ... err ... quite as imminent as declared, and frankly the intelligence community actually just didn't know - but no problem. The politicians *knew* where the spys didn't. It shouldn't be that way.

And so the question - was there a *need* for war? makes sense. It's about finding and providing reasons, motives and background info. The stuff you read here is most certainly not on FOX.

By keeping the discussion alive we can also witness how the US gvt is revising the facts every two weeks to meet the advancing public criticism - and that's also a thrilling thing to experience - when you don't mind to look close.

Even though Blair is shaking for this spin, the US public still, against all odds, seem to need more, seemingly convinced that Saddam was a threat to the US ... somehow. It's about questioning gut-feeling and keeping the questions awake before things get lost in everyday business.

 

It sure needs a special breed of people to be happy with White House spokesman Scott McClellan who on thursday, when asked wthere the president mislead the american people, said:

Eyebrows anyone? Well, I think it's at least not a satisfying reply ... not to mention that it is no answer ...

 

My point was, this behemoth started April 14. On April 17 the exact same stuff was posted that was posted 3 months later. Ring around the rosies.

It's old and its non-productive in that everyone has stated their view and look back three months ago nothing has changed. I like how it is insinuated if you point this out that you are inferior to those who would like to rehash the same thing over and over - either naive or stupid is the implication. Now, I'm also struck by the attitude expressed by more than one poster, both publicly and through unsolicited PM, that they are trying to 'educate' Americans and 'tell them the truth' about what is happening. This holier-than-thou attitude is also old. So, I'll just assert what I perceive to be a couple of common feelings - just because some tire of an unproductive argument doesn't make us stupid, nor does it make us uncaring or oblivious. I mean, look back over this thread. Try to objectively look at how it was kept alive for months by the same people saying the same thing every bit of it negative. No wonder Schroeder ran on his platform and won - he could do whatever he'd like domestically if the 300+ negative topics about the US vs. the handful of threads mentioning Germany is any indication.

It's like when a dog insists on rolling around in a dead rodent - it stinks.

 

What stinks is what is happening to my country. It is being run into the ground by incompentence and people who wouldn't know the truth if it fell from the ceiling and landed on top of them.

It's a shame that some have more loyalty to their party leaders than to the best interest of the nation. There are a few neocons who would like nothing better then for this debate to go away, because their "guy" is paying the price for being an arrogant, incompetent liar. Well, this debate is not going away, because real American soldiers are dying everyday. That stinks. So you may not like this debate, but just deal with it anyway.

 

Well, when all in this thread sounds as familiar to you and kinda just like 3 months ago, that's perhaps because not much has changed since: The Bush crew still does the same silly things, tries to keep up the same half-truths, except that they are now forced to justify themselves, trying to avoid that by digging in.

I find it striking that the "They will have a good reason" changed to "Ok they hadn't, but at least Saddam is gone" and go on as usual humming the happy tune. US public opinion is very much inert.
Just read the posts in defence of the points the Bush administration has brought up and compare them with what you know today, like perhaps the very much persuasive Powell speech and compare it with info available today.
The Gulf War II preparations were run like an elections campaign - all mights, ifs, perhapses of the intelligence reports beeing cut as they wouldn't persuade the people into attacking iraq.
I would say the difference between "Saddam might have WMD; we don't know. If so he could ready them as fast as 45 min." and "Saddam has WMD and he can make them ready at 45min" is one that qualifies as a lie.
And that is just one point in this jungle of spin doctored half-truths and ... gross exaggerations.
Today, with all the "clear intelligence" crushed and relativised in about every detail there are still no consequences in the US. Everything's fine it seems.

Fine, this pisses you off and perhaps this is my Radio Free USA but we here also suffer the Krauthammers, Perles and even Kissingers (the man who installed Pinochet), coming over, writing in newspapers and popping up in TV shows, giving us lessons in true humanity and explaining to us the menace by Saddam and his phantom WMD while actually promoting geostrategy - so I can't see how much holier-than-you I should be.
I do my very best to question and counter the arguments brought up in defence of Bush Jr.

If you don't like it, don't read it. But if you read it, give it a chance. There is something wrong in the US - and looking into the air insulted while going on as usual because we continue bugging you with that silly stuff you don't like, in that silly sound you don't like - is not going to change it.

 

Some interesting insight about Mr. Probst, ex-Pentagon official and his informal link to ultranationalist think-tankers (which make even Wolfowitz look tame and sane), namely renowned Daniel Pipes, heading a think-tank named Middle East Forum. Pipes think tank defines it's task so:

Pipes, an ideologue in first place, got himself a name for demanding to deal with un-american professors teaching heresy at US universities - in a project dubbed campus watch. It is IMO perfectly in line with the current US administration policy to nominate a rabid warhead like him for the United States Institute of Peace, created by Congress to promote the peaceful resolution of international conflicts.
But that's not really a surprise as he's a strong fan of the Pax Americana which he characterises as follows:

He's seemingly convinced that arabs are less civilised, suggesting that it is necessary to reconstruct their polities along civilised lines. Hmm, the fox guarding the henhouse?

So the question discussed there is: Was Probst crossing the line?

I find it kinda illuminating considering the influential think-tankers which are strongly represented in todays NSC. This sort of think-tank work is lobbying beyond public control. How does that match the demands of transparency and democracy?

 

The key problem with think tanks, as they are lobby houses, is that they to some degree reflect the desires and opinions of their donors. And the think-tanks are usually silent about who's paying them for what.

That's the second point about transparency: It's about who's infuencing the think tanks for what and then it's about how the think tanks influence the policymakers.

That's the key problem with them: They aren't neutral.