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

Remove all ads!

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Saudi_Arabia

The problem with Saudi-Arabia is, that it's politics are founded on a very backwarded ideology. It's an artificial state, which was united by a guy who made himself king. To legitimize his rule and the existence of Saudi-Arabia, he forged a religious-nationalism which was taught to the people there. His rule needs this "religious"-legitimation. Problems with it arise, because Saudi-Arabia doesn't shuts itself versus the outside when it's about luxury. Then it's actually a cleptocracy. It's a powder keg. And as the American troops where stationed in Saudi-Arabia, they became a domestic issue in Saudi-Arabia, they came into the frontlines.

As the "political" or "legal" language in Saudi-Arabia is based on "religious" terminology, they put their goals into "relgious" words, however mundane their goals are.

So, acutally, most of the muslims around the world give a rat's ass, if or if not American troops are in Medina and Mecca. Only the Saudis give and some allies of them, which are dreaming of a pan-Arabian cooperation. The most of the terrorists are usually from Saudi-Arabia. If the Americans would be seen by the people as "guests", no hair would be damaged. Because the islamic law says "guests" are holy. But they are there, because the Saudi-goverment, which is seen by the terrorists as "infidel" too, allows it without the consent of the people. So, foreigners on foreign soil, which are seen as occupation -> They occupy our soil, even worse, Mekka and Medina, the most important part of our soil.

Yes, that's what I meant. Evaluated the risk and said it's worth it. Now, they are in Iraq, where the same risk exists, a.k.a. beeing seen by the people as "unwelcome occupation force". In this case, the same thing would happen again.

So, the risk is still the same. Which makes the movent of the troops out of Saudi-Arabia into Iraq, which got likewise plenty of "holy sites", not so brilliant in my view.

 

Satire:

How to attempt to win a debate without taking a particular stand on any issue:

Fisrt, choose a mode of rhetoric: say, ethos. In this way one can appear authoritative to one's audience. "When I worked with the Army, EPA," and so on (Roman orators were particularly good at this). It is important to establish yourself as an authority on the topic, even if you are not. Also, use "topics of invention," even if they have nothing to do with the issue at hand. Remember it is important to appear to be an authority:

"The topics of invention will add to ethos or the credibility of the debater as long as these are logically persuasive, and insofar as one cites the kinds of proofs that are seen as authoritative to one's audience." Remember to talk about yourself.

paraphrasing Aristotle.

Second, misrepresent your opponent. This is important because you don't want to, nor have the "courage" to address a particular topic yourself directly. Even if your opponent says one thing, try to rephrase it as something else. "When you said this, you really meant this..." or "you really don't mean that you are opposed to war because it kills children, you are really oppossed for such and such." (even though you may be a parent yourself and may understand the implications). The children can always be reduced to mere "rhetorical figures" and not seem so "real" to your audience.

Third, pretend not to be something you obviously are: "I'm not really a so and so supporter," even though you will take the side of almost every issue of so and so. If a large enough smokescreen can be cast up no one will notice, hopefully.

Fourth, show empathy with a cause, without having the courage to take up that cause. "I was a peace demonstrator or card carrying such and such." In the audience's eyes you will appear sympathetic and not overly aggressive in your attacks.

Important: cast yourself as being honest, even if you are not taking a particular stand on an issue, your attacks will seem legit. Say something like, "I may be mistaken" (even if you think you are not.) This way you always have an easy out. Most of all talk about yourself, maybe no one will notice that it is really, really far off topic anyway.

Have a nice day!

[ June 02, 2003, 23:23: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Yes, but it needs the troops in Iraq as completition, as far as I understood. It still is mainly the HQ of operations in Iraq. The deal with Qatar and "Iraq" as operation fields work together hand in hand.

Yes, yes, my dearest saying, stuck between a rock and a hard place. The problem is, Pandora's box has been opened, in this case, Iraq maybe we'll be torn apart by a civil war or gets a stable goverment, which supresses one of the ethnic groups. It's not so much in anyones hands I guess. Upside, they got rid of their old goverment, downside, what's coming now ?

I personally would of course prefer, the troops would leave as soon as possible. Building everything which is immediatly needed as fast as possible and giving over control to the people there. No longer plans for eternal stay of the troops. What then happens with Iraq, only god knows, but at least, they would have their destiny in their own hands. And the people who actually live there, propably know best, what would be good for them. And if it means, that they install an islamic goverment. So be it. The neighbouring Iran does quite well, on it's own, I think. And I am still betting on Iran, becoming the first democracy in the middle-east, even if the road seems to have gotten rockier lately.

 

Wow Chandos, you pretty much outlined the entire ongoing Democratic election strategy in one post. Nice going!

 

Darkwolf - Yes, it is. Unfortunately they are not very good at it.

 

BTA,

And it worked. The US, UK and france watched and bombed him in the enforcement of the no-fly zones. Iraq was under the harshest embargo ever set up. Saddam's menacing army got swept or bought away in a blitzkrieg. So what. Actually, Saddam was inprisoned in iraq and like a prisoner in jail - still evil but relatively harmless.
So what sort of a menace was he? His WMD program seemingly didn't exist. The call for solid evidence gets louder and louder. Bush has a serious credibility problem, the later finds them, the less convincing they will be. And worse: After the record of lies and forgery (someone remembers that saddam-niger connection documents) the point that anything they find lacks international verification will further degrade the credibility - anything found will be met with the concern it might have been planted. Not really nonsense.

I can only support Yago's remarks on the holy land. You're misunderstanding Saddam when you put him in the same ideological pot with Bin Laden. That leads to misleading results. Your second remark is about as weak as the first.

Some more points:

• Saddam and terror? Well, the Al Quaida connection kinda crumbled away and brought Tony Blair in serious trouble. Claims of forgery were heared. Sure, Saddam has supported Anwar Islamiya (or so) - but these were focusing on fighting kurds and acted in iraq only - making them not really what you could see as a menace to the US and international peace and stability.
  Saddam indeed has supported real terrorists. Even the renowned german RAF and Haddad's PFLP. That was back from the late 1960s to the early 80s when the arabs still fought side by side against israel. But, admittedly, that's now gone for quite a while - and no reason for a war 20 to 30 years later. Actually, that was common in about all arab countries, including goodies like Tunesia, Egypt and Jordan.
  Iraq's support never reached the level the support of syria reached, for the simple reason that israel was syria's direct enemy so syria had much more to win with supporting guerrillas in an attrition war against their foe. With the tensions between israel and syria fading away, focusing only on water and the golan, the terror of their groups has been fading away as well. So the US claim of self-defence against iraq as a terror supporter as part of the perpetual war against terror, even under the broadest understanding is ridiculous.
• Self defence against a planned iraqi WMD program? Well, israel claimed exactly that when they bombed iraq's Osirak ractor. And israel was violating international law doing it. Unlike the US evidence theirs was convincing enough to be met with agreement around the world, even when it wasn't able to legalise the israeli action.
• And self-defence itself? Well, to handle that, there is the formula the US secratary of state Daniel Webster formulated for the calorine case in 1837. It requires "a necessity of that self-defence, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation" and the act of self defence itself must be "justified by the necessity of self-defence, must be limited by the necessity and kept clear within it".
  I feel tempted to say that without US troops in the in reach of iraqi missiles, iraq wouldn't have been a threat to the US anyway - that, however, isn't the point here. Assuming that iraq was a threat, a regime change and occupation sure elimitated a hypothetical threat originating from iraq - but doesn't it somehow go beyond self defence?
• A regime change as with iraq always violates Art.2 Nr.1 and Nr.4 UN-Charter and common international law unless decided in the security council in respect of this very government being a danger to international peace.
• The US intervening because iraq violated the armistice conditions? Well, the armistice was negotiated between the UN and iraq. The US simply don't have the competence to state such a violation and to react on such a violation. It needs the security council to do that and to allow use of force against iraq.
• Resolution 1441 eventualy: The resolution stated that the UN could undertake measures after chapter VII (mans: use of force) to enforce iraq's disarmament oblications.
  It is necessary that a breach of or threat for peace form iraq existed. Such a threat for peace could be the threat potential of iraqi WMDs, the violation of UN resolutions and the violation of diararmament obligations. The security council is tasked with deciding if the threat is big enough to justify further steps.
  The resolution 1441 has threated iraq with "serious consequences" in case of disobediance. That completely leaves open if the security council has even threated with the use of military force. The term "serious consequences" isn't included in chapter VII. This hints on that the UN security council wasn't willing to go into detail and to include the measures explicitly - which further means that the UN security council not only didn't mean of force but also wanted to decide on it another time.
  The resolution only adresses iraq so it can't be assumed that the security council has delegated its competence to the US to decide on and to execute the consequences on iraq. After all, the US did not get a "blanco cheque" from the UN.
  As before, the US just don't have the competence to decide on such issues alone. After all that, the iraq invasion was a vilolation of international law, a military agression. That is consensus among international law experts almost everywhere, outside the US and to a part (unheared) even in the US.
• Btw, even the US force buildup at iraqs borders was a violation of international law already, an unjustified threat with the use of force.

Whatever way you look at it and try to justify it, the US loose big deal. After the WMD tales their credibility is seriously damaged. Their attitude towards international law doesn't improve their reputation either. They might even have managed to bring down their best ally, Blair. In britain lies haven't paid out. I'm astonished that there haven't been comparable consequences in the US.

When the Bush administration thinks they can ignore international law at will justified by nothing but the overwhelming power of their armed forces they will face a troublesome future. As an occuppation force in iraq they probably will have to learn you can't sit on bayonetts comfortably.

As for abandoning: The neccessity of the presence of US troops in iraq as a force filling the vaquum left after the collapse of saddam's regime is a sad irony.
By conquering iraq the US themselve have caused the mess they have to manage in the streets of iraq today - even the armed mobs as they, lacking forces, weren't able to prevent the looting in iraq. The occasional acts of underground war against US troops in iraq are a selfmade problem, familiar to about any unwanted occupation force.
Unfortunately the only alternative to US troops in iraq would be to send in UN troops to take care of stability in iraq - which would be doubly silly as it would force the war opponents to mop up the mess the US caused with their illegal war - and to pay for it.
But even from that point of view it isn't satisfying to see the US having to take care of their own brew - as that also means to allow them the fruits of their violation of international law. And the emerging iraqi resistance isn't satisfying either - no one can find it satisfying to see a dictator be followed by the chaos of a failed state - or the US in an occupation force role in an intifada scenario. Even Saddam in power would be better then. The world's screwed with the US policy eitherway.

As for the perpetual war for perpetual peace on terror and evildoers in general: It is unlikely that the US public will make a big difference between acts comitted by iraqis in resistance to US troops in their country and the terror of Al Quaida - so the perception of threat from terror is maintained and a public support for further military actions likely.
The reasons for the respective acts terror are irrelevant then. Someone fires at our boys and they need our support! So at the home front everyone's in line, that's the good news, and with elections in mind that's perhaps the only thing that counts in the US.

[ June 04, 2003, 13:42: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Laches,

Well, on that I have only to say that I am indeed misunderstood. Honour to whom who masters his field. Not more, not less. A good part of the gvt's news releases were blunt propaganda and blatant lies. The US, despite their credibility flaws, showed great skill in forming the public opinion, and put a very high emphasis on that field.

Well, with "one arab's as good as another" I wasn't implying racism. I was referring to the failure to make no difference between the reasons for miltary action in the middle east. I was referring to how the campaign against terror and Bin Laden mutated into the war on Saddam. And I was referring to that the US public seemingly is happy with that, displaying a remarkable lie-tolerance.
Personally I think the apparent feeling of still beeing under attack after 9/11 might be a key to that phenomenon.

Well, that's a strong form but the US public has showed an amazing patience for the continuous parody the US gvt performed in bringing up solid evidence over the last year. They managed to give a totally new meaning to the term "solid evidence" and "intelligence work". In britain about the same lies have brought Tony blair under substantial attack, making an administration member retire from his post. I didn't notice a comparably notable form of protest of questioning even in the US.
It is tempting to say you are a perfect example for that, but it would indeed suggest you can't think for yourself and that is indeed quite a stretch. It is a step from noting the dissent and asking the questions on the why and to make hypothetical considerations on that part - that not really adds to a useful dispute. Admittedly that was a calculated provocation.
Well, I have applied quite a caustic and polemic tone, no doubt. Exaggeration is a tool. It takes quite a punch to move a rock. When that drove you into insulted retirement it missed it's intended goal - to rattle the tree.

Rattling the tree because the dispute here led to a trench war where the combattants barely move an inch. Personally I made quite a move from beeing pro-war at first to beeing strictly against it. When I post here it's not because I think the US gvt is the ultimate "evil".
They are unscrupulous and cause serious damage to the world, as well as in their own country. And as their own people seemingly think that in times of war it is inadequate to question gvt policy the questioning has to be done somewhere else. My posting here only has one reason - to take away the chance for you to later honestly saying: "Oops, how comes ... ?" or "But I didn't know anything!"

 

This may be overly simplistic, but to my mind it stands up to all the statistics, opinions, rhetoric, and all the rest.

My point is this -- everyone knew that Saddam WANTED Weapons of Mass Destruction. He was striving to get radioactive material, biological stuff, and all the rest. I'm glad that the US and their allies struck before he managed to get anything put together. A stitch in time saves nine. An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure. As has been mentioned before, if Hitler had been attacked and contained before his programs reached "critical mass", a lot of lives would have been saved.

 

But he IS guilty. I'm sure the Kurds in the north and the Shi'ites in the south can tell you all about it.

 

I liken the situation to a convicted felon trying to get hold of a handgun. Should we let him get that gun and kill someone, or strike BEFORE he gets it (and even the attempt to do so being a violation of his parole) and save the lives of the people he would most assuredly kill?

 

[sarcasm]
Hurry, go invade Luxembourg! Perhaps some day, their leader will WANT to acquire nuclear weapons.
[/sarcasm]

 

OMG - Depaara - The NRA will strike you down for that illustration. Gun control advocates have been trying to make that argument for years.

 

BTA,

Your interpretation of Saddams "Holy land" stuff is biased, explainable only by interpreting it with Saddam as an islamist in mind. As a matter of fact, he was everything else but that. That was what I meant with throwing both in the same pot. And that doesn't work:
Saddam was obviously not referring to saudi-arabia, his fear for his own country was, let's say, somewhat more pressing. So Yago's point about the holy land beeing Iraq actually, his own land, is by far more convincing.

A little bit very indirect. Despite beeing logical and stringent in thought you kinda stretch the causal chain. That argument even may have been the rationale behind the US attack. But that cannot be a justification, especially not in terms of international law.

There are even more indirect links between the iraqis and Al-Quaida: Both groups are arabs. They use kalashnikovs, perhaps even from the same lebanese or pakistani arms dealer. Maybe some Al Quaida people have set foot into iraq. There are slso indirect links between Al-Quaida and germany: The 9/11 bombers planned and prepared for their deed in hamburg. Indirect links cannot justify anything.

The US could try to justify a war against iran that way too: As US presence in iraq is needed to prevent the country from falling apart (a state the US caused) and to prevent the iran-led mullahs (mind to exaggerate that *threat* adequately) to take power we best solve that problem by invading iran too - attacking the shiite support base Teheran and installing a regime that does not support mullahs!
How about that? The US presence on Okinava is needed to defend japan against china. It is also unwanted by the civilian population. Imagine some terrorist acts by okinawa citizens on US soldiers. To solve that problem the US could then invade china to make a regime change to avoid the necessity of closeby basing to keep an eye on them ... the war on china would be part of the wider war on terror ...

That argument could be used for about any war. The best about that argument is that it's foolproof and universal. Maybe you're right with your line of thought - that's then the ratio behind the perpetual war for perpetual peace.

The stuff I reiterate here is what I learn on university as "international consensus" and "leading opinion". There isn't much dispute about it, if any. I'm not so foolish to invent new interpretations only to make the US look poor. It's bad enough the way it is.

As a matter of fact the UN has not legalised the war against iraq, they only found a solution how to manage the mess the US caused without any side loosing its face. You may remember some of the more sceptical posts on that point here on AodA.

[ June 05, 2003, 12:02: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

I think you don't know how well are the Kurds treated in Turkey or the Shi'ites in other countries.
This excuse is not standing.

I think that the court responsible for these charges is not acknowledged by the USA administration. (they refused to sign the founding agreement of the court) so they can't be charged, convenient ehhh?

 

@ Mithrantir, well the Kurds once hated Saddam and his regime for imposing harsh laws on them for their religious beliefs. However, many Kurdish villages were destroyed by American shell fire, so I don't know who they hate more now...