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

Remove all ads!

It was less about kurdish belief, much more about the notorious tenedency to want autonomy. The british had about the same trouble with them when Bomber Harris got his first combat xp bombing kurds in the british controlled iraq after WW-I. The kurds are rebellious, by tradition - that was Saddam's problem with them.

 

Yes, the Kurds want autonomy back (they had it now for the short time of 10 years). But giving the Kurds autonomy, which they deserve, has impacts on the Kurds in other countries and their struggle for autonomy. Kurdistan is for a lot of countries (not only the Kurds) a reason for a lot of annyoance.

 

The most likely consequence of a kurdish state in north iraq would be a turkish invasion to crush it.

 

I wouldn't have dared that to say it so straight.

But it also would make other lines on the map which were drawn in Europe a long time ago highly questionable. Another Pandora's Box.

 

Well the Kurds of Iraq may hate Saddam but the Kurds as a nation do hate and fear the Turkish administration because of many reasons more than just a massacre.
During the 1922 where the destruction of Smirni occured the slaughter of the Greek population was made by the Kurds mainly who were promised by Kemal Attaturk their independence. Of course they were cheated and one of the principles that Kemal gave to the Turkish "democracy" was the unity of the nation which meant that the Kurds had no option other than forgetting their independence and the fact that they are Kurds.
Untill this day the Kurds are not allowed to speak their own language, have possesions, have a kurdish tv/radio station in Turkey (which was quite the opposite in Iraq during Saddam's regime)and they are being occasionaly hunted by the turkish army.
The only reason the Kurds helped the US army was the same promise independence and now they can't get it because the Turkish officers said that if Kurds manage to have a nation of their own next to the Turkish borders the nation will attacked and destroyed.
Now if you think that the kurds are a little

i think it is reasonable since they try for about 100 years to gain independence and every time they are cheated, mistreated and annihilated

They did not had any autonomy, there was a no fly zone not a no mans zone. Saddam's regime had the control of the "Kurdish" territory
BTA do you mean that the UN inspectors were not allowed to get into the Iraq? Because if i remember correctly they were in and the regime was working with them. Do you have any other reason? WMD's there were none and the US invasion proved it as well as the non existence of biological/chemicals weapons. Mistreatment of nationalities; Then why don't you attack Turkey for the same reason or Israel or China?
Now if Saddam had them and as a selfish man he was wouldn't he had used them? i think yes, i think that you think the same thing too but you are afraid to accept the fact that oil was the reason not a selfless act. Anyway I don't believe you are protecting this US administrations choice because you now all the facts and think it is ok but because according to the feedback you have (which in my opinion is guided from your administration) you think it is the right choice or you can't believe that the US administration has just use one of the ideals of the USA just to hide the real reason which was the oil. I respect you very much BTA but i can't agree with you on this.

[ June 05, 2003, 18:21: Message edited by: Mithrantir ]

 

BTA, that hasn't anything substantial in it. It's just a valuation, which can be easily turned around to: You can claim that the UN wasn't pragmatic, but that is not political reality.

Another example for accepting a fact, by not approving the ways that let there, is that a stolen car can be sold, but the buyer, if hasn't known nor should have known it, can be seen as the legal owner. But even the new owner is seen as the legal owner, that doesn't legitimize the theft. It's just accepting the fact, that it would lead to a busload of problems, if all stolen goods have to returned to their former owner, after they've been sold and sold and sold again.

It doesn't mean that theft is legal nor does morally aprove theft.

The no-fly zone made it impossible for Saddam to put military pressure on the Kurds, the had a de facto autonomy. They could do in their territories what they liked, and they did. They started democratisation there and are now afraid againg to come under a centrilized goverment in Baghdad. They even had a decent economical development in this ten years. They fear to lose everything again.

[ June 05, 2003, 18:21: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

If that's everything you have to complain about my post in response to you that's fine for me; that little dissent remaining is quite a wonderful achievement for a days posting

I'll convince you about the rest later

[ June 05, 2003, 18:45: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

We HAVE gone round and round this same discussion at least seventy times seven times. Different threads, same positions. But it's still fun.

 

Yeah.

 

Only sometimes, only sometimes ...

 

@ Mithrantir

That excuse DOES have a valid point. I know exactly how the Kurds are being treated by the Turks. There are plenty of Kurdish refugees here in Holland that told the story from top to bottom. But at least the Turkish government never decided to wipe out entire villages with nervegas, like Saddam did after the first gulfwar.

Well... at least not yet.

 

@ Pacman
The nervegas was used iirc before the first gulf war. And the Turkish army (not the Turks) has wiped out entire villages with conventional weapons for the suspicion of supporting PKK, does this makes it less brutal? In my opinion no.

 

No, but this was never about the Turks. This was about Saddam and his willingness to use womd.

Perhaps the Turks will have to answer for their actions when they're up for EU membership. Something that should never be allowed imho.

 

That one's worth a read: http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8034

Personally I think this dude is hopelessly optimistic. However, he speaks out what I feel, in a more charming way.

[ June 10, 2003, 14:47: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

That is actually what I meant when I wondered loud about the "Oh-I-feel-so-bashed" folks. When a gvt seriously lies to the people that has reasons - and it has to have consequences.

Indeed, the part the prof didn't ask was: Why do people, as a matter of fact, do give Bush the benefit of doubt? I interpreted it in a malicious way when I asked Laches if he is unable to think for himself - as he seems so happy to believe in the lies his president and his advisors presented to him. Do you need a president that lies to you? If not, why do you feel so good as the fool around?
It's almost tragic to see people's search arguments to justify a war and to keep up an image of their country having been just and right getting frantic.

Why did Bush II. lie? There are just a few possibilities:</font>

1. Because his actual reasons were unacceptable for the public (then he'd be a manipulative liar)
2. Because the evidence was very thin and needed to be boosted up to match the felt threat by the US gvt (in which case they'd be paranoid)
3. Because they were neglegient, claiming things in hope to find the proof later once they are in Iraq (in which case they'd be irresponsible fools)
4. Because the presidents aidees are incompetent and fed him with wrong info (second least likely option)
5. He did not lie but the dreaded WMDs </font>
   • were dug in by Saddam (but then, where?),
   • were destroyed by Saddam (in which case he would not only not have been a treat, he'd have done what he was obliged to do),
   • spirited away to neighbour rogue states (which of those would be so stupid? The term "rogue state" doesn't adress the mental abilities of their leaders; it rather questions the mental abilities of the user. Both Syria and Iran have WMDs of their own and don't need to augment them by poisonous waste from Iraq) or
   • ghosted away to the hands of terrorists (which would have been provoked by the US unability to establish order while invading iraq - as the Al Quaida connection simply was another lie - and that'd perhaps be the most brilliant of failures)
   Perhaps incomplete list of the least likely scenarios.

Maybe the key problem was that Bush II is, more than many of his predecessors, dependent on his aidees for judgement and situation asessment. I bet the situation in the white house would have been a very interesting case for a sociological study on decision dynamics.
It would trouble me if my gvt started a war, and end up unable to verify the reasons they gave for the attack.

IMO Bush II. and his crew *evidently* lied (there are plenty of bits and pieces and links about that here in the alley, namely in this thread) about the necessity and case for a war against iraq - blew up a few billion dollars in ammo and fuel, got some 20 or so GIs killed, plus an uncounted (and significantly larger number) of iraqis. America needs a hercules to clean out that stables named Pentagon and White House. Or a correct and quick next election.
America needs to care about such a thing like a gvt that fraudulently plays up dangers and even - to sell a war.

 

That is the real problem Bush is totally incapable to be a president and the only reasons he won are that Gorr was less appealing than him and the heritage of the name he is carrying. Other than that nothing. But in that case he is responsible for not trying to play by his measures and taking risks he could not handle.
His advisers are coming from companies and most of them are still on their payroll so they would protect the companies interests and if that meant waging a war then it would be war.
I hope that they will get what they deserve

 

I don't think that, as you suggest, Bush is an imbecile - or, as Darkwolf put it, a Forrest Gump. Neither is he a machiavelli. He's just a very average man; there are many people like him. In every country.

The problem is not so much Bush Jr. himself but the crew he summoned. His neocons have dealt with nothing else but defence for almost half a century. They are focused on this narrow field. People like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle and Cheney have been active in US policy for more than two decades. Experienced and intelligent men no doubt.

They experienced the cold war, the iraq-iran war and the terrorist crisis of the 1980s. I can immagine them getting caught in a bias towards many groups in the middle east. One example: After the teheran hostage crisis I can't imagine Rummy ever dealing uncramped with iran, how nice they however may become.

And there is another thing: The vision they had when they made PNAC and their statement of principles. It may well be, but that will most certainly be put in the category "conspiracy theory", that these people either impressed Bush Jr. with their ideas or, worse, fed him with info to make him decide what they wanted him to decide.

Whatever it was, there *is* something wrong in the US gvt and it is high time for the americans to recognise that and to deny the benefit of doubt.

[ June 10, 2003, 14:44: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

No i did not imply that Bush is imbecile i just said that he is not capable to be a president. He is a man with many complexes and simply he is not fitted for this job.
He could be a physics genius but this does not make him capable for president