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

BTA,
it's nothing about me beeing unfair. Actually the point is pretty ironic. The US were unwilling to grant the inspectors the time they demanded to find WMDs in Iraq, given there were any left. Now the US find themselves in the same dilemma the inspectors had: Lacking time.

And in reference to the "evidence" Rummy presented I wouldn't wonder if it takes a little eternity until something on a scale "imminent threat", something that would justify a war, will be found.

There, of course is an alternative interpretation of the denial of time for the inspectors - an explanation by Richard Perle:

The time for the inspectors was seemingly of very secondary importance to the US decisionmakers. The question that interests me is that this also applies to evidence.

 

The point is eventually that the US never cared for evidence. They wanted the regime change. Nothing less.

But they made this big show about how dangerous Saddam was and how dangerous his equipment was. You say he was a threat to the region? With his disorganised, weak military or with the WMDs he probably didn't even had? Come on!

There is the slight possibility, just consider it for a sec, that the inspectors indeed have managed to destroy Saddam's arsenal and that he wasn't dangerous for his neighbours anymore, much less to the US.
There is the chance that the neocons, led by Perle and Wolfowitz, promoted that war to state an example and to make a step forward on their US dominance agenda, and after the decision for war was made they searched for a reason to sell it and started to lie on large scale.
Doesn't this possibility worry you a little bit at least? I mean it could result in the US ending up in tension with the rest of the world within 5 more years ... Isn't that a reason to want to see evidence asap ... be it only to sleep better?

[ April 17, 2003, 20:13: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

In the end, the US-Goverment damaged severly the image of the US. I listened to a radio show about the WMA's who haven't been found. One caller said, quite bluntly:" Now it's proven, that Bush is full of ....". And I think that represents the leading opinion in my country.

Inside the US, the WMA bogeyman might have helped the goverment to find approval for their war, outside, it has lead to a PR-desaster. If the Americans can not show up with proof, that WMA's really existed in Iraq, than they should do, what they should already have done a long time ago, hire someone to counsel them in public relations.

And this has implications for the second stated goal of the occupation: Iraq for Iraqis. I know, Americans believe this is the case, but really, trustworthiness and Bush is a contradiction.

 

Way to turn the arguement around on them.

You are good BTA! Real good!

 

Ah, BTA. My understanding is, give the inspectors more time, so the can figure out, if there are any WMA's in Iraq. And many people doubted that there ever were any since the destruction of the WMA program.

Powell came and held his speech in front of the UN. And a famous Russian quote from that time is, Powell has proven that inspections are neccesary, because he has proven that there is a POSSIBILITY that WMA's MAY exist in Iraq.

So, postions:

USA/UK: We know they got WMA's.

Germany, France, Russia: It's not clear if they've got WMA's. It may be possible. Let's inspect so we find out. It's certanly NOT enough evidence yet to START A WAR.

(And if, inspections find WMA's, the inspectors could destroy them without war, like they ALREADY did in the time (guessing dates) 91-96.)

Ps: The Problem for the Americans is, they have no time, because the have to declare Iraq WMA-free asap. Because that's needed for ending the sanctions. They're stuck between a rock and a hard place.

 

Actually the only things the west knew for sure were the results of what the inspectors have discovered and destroyed. That information source dried out once the inspectors were, with US aid, kicked out of iraq. After that there was silence.

The iraqis were seemingly pretty successful in covering their country from western intelligence; that was pretty well shown by the inability of either the MI6 and the CIA to provide founded intelligence about iraq's WMD programs in the prelude of the war. So the west only has been able to *guess* what Saddam was up to or not, along with satellite imagery and intercepts. As the iraqis knew they were watched (and when not) and listend to they knew when to shut up and when not to show. So even these resources were of limited effectiveness.

So what's left? Tales of iraqis with questiobnable intentions and even more questionable background? Like the tale of that "defector" who claimed to know about Iraq- Al Quaida contacts?

So there was evidence known all the 12 years since the end of the gulf war, BTA? No pun intended, but that just babbling. What did the US know? That Saddam's evil? What has been known for 12 years but so consequently overlooked?
The defiance of UN sanctions was punished by a brutal embargo already, coupled with the inspections.

 

The sanctions weren't lifted because of Saddam's non-compliance But even this non-compliance didn't give a reason for war. Non compliance is a sanctionably behavior, not a proof in itself. You're getting sophistical BTA. And it is not really a good proof that Saddam was up to something.

Not complying and secretly working on WMD programs to threaten neighbour countries are two seperate things. You're making it too simple. For a "preventive war", that was the term Bush iirc used you'll need a little more.

Israel for example is non-compliant for three decades or more now. Does that mean that any country is allowed to attack them if it takes offence on that?

 

As Yago's quote said so nice, the rest of the world will not be satisfied with "circumstancial evidence". And as for having this discussion for the x-th time Same here I only wanted to make the counterargument as clear as possible.

 

"As Yago's quote said so nice, the rest of the world will not be satisfied with "circumstancial evidence". And as for having this discussion for the x-th time Same here I only wanted to make the counterargument as clear as possible"

Well, this all boils down to a difference of opinion. I for one find the conflict to be pretty cut and dry.

1. Iraq instigated, and lost the first gulf war. Period. They agreed, as part of the CEASE FIRE agreement to do certain things. Most importantly, to destroy all of their WMD within 6 months, and they were to give a full accounting to the UN during this destruction. They failed to comply. This is indisputable Even the most adamant will agree that Iraq lied to, mislead, misdirected, and gave the run around to the UN for over 12 YEARS. Remember, and this is most IMPORTANT. The UN weapon inspectors were not meant to be weapons detectives. They were neither, intended to, nor expected to look for WMD. They were to verify Iraq's compliance with the Cease Fire. My biggest beef with this whole conflict is that it didn't happen sooner. The UN should have moved in and ousted Saddam and his regime on month 7, that is after the first 6 months of the CEASE FIRE, when there wasn't full compliance with the resolution, we should have moved in. We didn't. And that was the biggest mistake the UN made. I've read too many articles referencing the 500,000 Iraqi children that died because of the UN sanctions imposed on Iraq. Let me say that again. UN Sanctions. They were not US sanctions. They were good old, multilateral, UN sanctions. And one of the simple facts is...If the US government hadn't brought this issue, once again, before the UN, the sanctions would have continued indefinitely. Why, because the UN has been, for 12 years now, unwilling and unable to back up the first demands they made on Iraq during the cease fire of the first gulf war. Not to mention all of the other resolutions that were passed between 1991 and 2002.

I may be a little simple minded. But I firmly believe that if you agree to do something, by God you do it. Iraq agreed to comply to the CEASE FIRE, and the UN said, basically, "You better or else." Neither side did what they said they would do. And I for one think both sides are to blame.

The bottom line for me is that we should have done this sooner. Unfortunately, we didn't, and the world is worse off for the UN's inaction.

2. Terrorism, and WMD.

I for one never saw a compelling, direct link between Saddam and Osama Bin-Laden. It didn't make much since. Osama is a fanatical Muslim, and Saddam was extremely, for an Arab, secular ruler. However, it is undisputed that Saddam does support terrorists. Hammas, for one, was openly supported by Saddam's regime. Abu Nidal, and the recently captured terrorist (damn I can't remember his name, come on, you know, the guy from the Achille Laro cruse liner) are more clear examples for his harboring of terrorists. So I think we can all agree that he supports international terrorists.

Now here is the big question, the one that the US could ill afford to ignore. If he had the chance, would Saddam support a terrorist attack against the US? And more specifically, would he go as far as giving terrorists access to WMD? Remember this is the same guy that invaded Iran. That invaded Kuaite. That openly supported terrorists. That used WMD against Iran. That used WMD against the Kurds. That used WMD against his own people. That ignored/failed to comply with UN resolutions and sanctions for over 12 years.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the threat is clear and present.

I only wanted to make the counterargument as clear as possible.

 

Now that may sound a little naive, yet still: Art.39 of the UN charter states (and mind, the US are still in that club)

Now that's a simple legal question: The security council was evidently *not* convinced. But they are "rest of the world" to be convinced. That's what the US failed to do.

No, no matter what you think about the UN, it's effectiveness and democratic legitimation (which is a joke in itself regarding international bodies), their charter represents international law that has to be obeyed by every country. The US included.

The sad fact is they give a ****. Ask Perle who wants to make the UN to become a "club americana":

Well, I can imagine that one of the first things that Perle dislikes is that there are 4 other countries able to "veto" as well. About point two ... ... it might perhaps be that dangers to international peace and stability are to be determined by the president of the US and perhaps that circumstantial evidence is enough to start wars ( you behaved in a way that made me suspicious .... ).
With iraq the US have shown that their current gvt doesn't care to ignore international law if they like to. That is a dangerous, destabilising development.

 

At Llandon

What is obvious, we don't even agree on history:

We even call the wars differently in german:

Frist Gulf-War: Iraq-Iran
Second Gulf-War: Iraq-Kuweit and the world
Thrid Gulf-War:Iraq-USA/UK

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_iraq_timeline/html/default.stm

Uprisings and what some perceive as Bush the elder's betrayal:

The weapon inspections:

Now, some they Blix hasn't found anything, because this was the END of the Iraqi WMA-programme. So, now the American-authorities have to prove their accusations. As I said, they're stuck between a rock and a hard place.

And stop being schizophrenic about the UN. Albright said, she found it the right way. And UN-members all over Europe, from Norway to Spain say, the handling of Iraq was a US plan and the US pushed hard in this direction. And to put it straight, yes I trust them more than the Americans.

Now, we're back at the beginning of the dispute, aren't we ?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that there never was a clear and present threat and that American politicans who said so, were full of .....

löhnt nüt als scheiss use -> full of .... -> that's a 1 to 1 translation

 

It is very intersting that Bush Sr. gvt in the early 1990s rejected a stretegy paper ordered by Cheney and made by Wolfowitz (ironically, parts of it are today known as the Bush (Jr) doctrine) as Bush Sr. disargreed with the neocon way of unilateralism after the soviet union was gone. Quite interesting, Bush Sr. is an "internationalist".

Much unlike Bush Jr's foreign policy advisors. My Perle quote above shows more than clear what they think about the UN, coalitions and international bodies. This echoes in the neocon oriented media, namely the Wall Street Journal. The cancellation of Kyoto and the withdrawal from the ABM treaty are clear signs for that trend.

For the neocons in the US Albrigt is something like a betrayer of the US as she went a much softer way ("appeasement") with North-Korea for example than they liked (which iirc included bombing north korean reactors). Of course, the iraqis sending her a broom (for the witch ) speaks a good language about her toughness with iraq. Anyway, you're mentioning her will not convince them anyway.

As for your demand for proof, you're absolutely right.

[ April 18, 2003, 14:51: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

I think that's not so surprising, because Bush the elder was pilot in the WWII war. He was young in the time of FDR and Truman (Marshall-Plan), so he actually was very well aware, why the "internationalist"-system was founded and how Germany acutally was rebuild.

And secondly, impo, he went out of Iraq (they already had 1/3 of it), because after considering the situation in the Middle East, the idea of "occupying, rebuilding and reshaping" Iraq and the Middle East seemed to him to utopic and way to dangerous, because it's pretty complicated to steer the decisions of "free" people, so you're actually profit from them.

 

Just popping in to argue that calling the first Bush an "internationalist" is revisionist history at its finest. To me there is a massive difference between the Kissingeresque realpolitik practiced by the first Bush administration and the internationalism you allude to. The neo-cons are a reaction to the realpolitik of Kissinger and company.