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

Remove all ads!

BTA, Tal? Isn't this getting a little laboured here?

 

Only to a point. It is quite saddening to a good rest. At least something is moving at your side of the pond:

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108/pdf_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_nuclear_evidence_june_10_let.pdf

I mean, nice and good, standing to a position and not moving shows consistency, which is sold as a value by politicians in their election campaigns. Worse, this bull even works. But doing so in face of new information for the sake of not-waffling is stubborn persistence in stupidity

The attempts to find new interpretations of arguments proven wrong already, only to hold up the illusion to have had a good honourable reason for a war, is the expression of that very thinking. Don't waffle, don't doubt in your president - it's unpatriotic. We are right.

Moral integrity and beeing right is nothing you have with citizenship. Or along Bill Maher's words: It may well be that the US are god's chosen country, but they should try to act as if not, just to cover their asses.

 

An interesting background report on the decisionmaking process on the war on iraq:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A43909-2003Jan11?language=printer

The equasion could be: pre-occupation (then neocon stance toward iraq) + 9/11 brought devastation to the castle keep of national security, the pentagon, and, another first, brought devastation into the civil centerns of america - and the realisation of an imminent threat of terror from the arab world + anthrax-mail, scaring the gvt and bringing the threat by terrorists possessing unconventional weapons (aka WMD) into the center of power.
The people in washington were scared, scared sh*tless, and fear is a bad advisor. Seemingly this unique constellation paved the ground for the miraculous emergence of iraq as a threat.

Once the decision was made the train was underway on a one-way track. The lies about iraq and the fictious threat originating from it underline that. As the goal was clear, the methods used to achieve public support for it were secondary. And the reckless diplomacy also underlines that perception.
Wether Saddam had WMDs or not was secondary, the fear he might have had some was reason enough. That might be the explanation for the inability to counter the wildly off accusations against iraq with rational arguments.

The US were a scared giant tramepling his path to crush iraq - with blinkers.

I have no illusions about this post's effect on the americans on this board.[/QUOTE] Cheers

 

That one's too good to be left out: http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8139

Repetition - about that Saddam has WMDs and wants to eat american babies? Wou would doubt that anyway, after soaking it up with the news over 15 years, with an extra dose over the last one and a half ...

Oh yes, and pigs fly - pigs fly - pigs fly - pigs fly - pigs fly - pigs fly - pigs fly - pigs fly - pigs fly - pigs fly - pigs fly - pigs fly - pigs fly - pigs fly - pigs fly - pigs fly - pigs fly - pigs fly - pigs fly - pigs fly - pigs fly - pigs fly - pigs fly - pigs fly - pigs fly - pigs fly - pigs fly - pigs fly .....

 

I find it sad that the people who advocated war and those who now justify it, assert the position that Saddam was a danger to the region and cite his numerous crimes against the citizens of Iraq. The premise for U.S. invasion was that Iraq, ruled by Saddam posed a danger to the U.S.

Obviously, Saddam was an evil man and ran a vile criminal organizatoin, but there are many evil men and many vile criminal organizations.

War in Iraq wasn't about that. None of us are so truly blind to the truth. The war against and subsequent occupation of Iraq had justification, oh yes....but economic and political justification only. If you are looking for a moral justification, then you are going to cause yourself unhappiness.

Bush defied the international establishments and prosecuted a war of violence on a sovereign nation as part of his sanctimonious world view that I, personally feel to be immoral.

I am a veteran. I fear for my liberty under the heel of the growing religious right.

Regime change in the U.S. NOW!

 

And the show goes on: http://www.moveon.org/distortion/misleader.pdf

People indifferent of their own gvt, not knowing they have been lied to are bad enough. But, at least this time, there is no excuse "But I didn't know ..."

Wether there have been WMD or not is no question for historians - it's a question that has to be answered NOW as it is in todays people's interest. It's up to YOU. Uncle sam needs you, not in the army, just pondering, thinking, SPEAKING OUT.

In the interest of the US people (who are paying the wars and are morally responsible for leaving their leader almost total free hand in lying and frying - checking gvt decisions *is* a peoples duty), the US soldiers (who are sent out to do the Bush goon's dirty work) and the inhabitants of the next country to be bombed to rubble because it interferes with neocon foreign policy hybris.

 

To add to that, some nice Tom Paine articles: and In Bush We Trust?, All the president's Lies and eventually, why not Let the record speak.

Cheers.

 

Well, WMA they did not find. But at least they have found some oil to console themselves.

Berlin-Baghdad railway

What where the Germans, British and French searching in Baghdad anyway ?

Again ?

Oooh, good, that no one goes to war for oil anymore, like they did in the past.

 

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/comics/updating/bennett.jpg
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/comics/updating/siers.jpg
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/comics/updating/kal.gif
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/comics/updating/nick.gif
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/comics/updating/kirk.jpg
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/comics/updating/donwright.gif
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/comics/updating/ohman.gif
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/comics/updating/wasserman.gif
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/comics/updating/memecan.gif

Doh.

[ June 29, 2003, 20:23: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

NO NUKES HAVE BEEN FOUND CAUSE IRAQ DOESN'T HAVE (and never had) ANY... DA.

 

Who said anything about nukes ? That was never the issue here. We all knew Saddam didn't have nukes. Not that he didn't try to get his hands on them, cause he did, and certain European governments were willing to help him with that too.

 

Iirc it was Bush Jr. himself who referred to an iraqi nuclear program, suggesting indeed a *threat* by iraqi nukes, seemingly imminent enough for a war. This are excerpts from Bush's state of the union adress from january 28th 2003 :

I mean, iraq, under permanent bombing for a decade, was clearly an imminent threat for the US, with his crushed air-defence and his decimated army.
And don't forget the iraqi forces of sprayplane drones ... ... haven't heared of them for quite a while ... they can't have all been destroyed, and intact they'd be such a great proof for the iraqi chem-war program - beeing delivery vehicles for WMDs Must have slipped their mind, weird, such a great opportunity to proove the world what a menace Saddam was.

All the doubt on the current administration is because of silly facts. In fact, facts are misleading. Leaders need intuition, not only facts. Wolfowitz told reporters a while ago, that only two days after 9/11, he had the gut-feeling that iraq was somehow involved and I mean this guy's an expert, educated, professional lobbyist, Dr. phil and such. His gut feeling is much more reliable, unbiased and scientific than mine. Like: "Mr President, I have the profound ball-feeling that we should nuke russia! I more and more feel they are a threat! Soon they will haunt my dreadms and you wouldn't like to have a whacky whacko-advisor, right? MWAHAHAHA" Wee!

That made him suggest the attack on iraq to the president then and Rumsfeld ordered plans for a war in iraq then already And that even before the investigations were compete or any proof for Saddams proven and active cooperation with Bin Laden were there. With a gut-feeling that exact I'd probably be a lottery milionnaire already

As for the certain country: Every european country with a notable industrial competence sold stuff to iraq: the germans the chem tech, the french the osirak reactor and aircraft, the brits sold them radios and electronics, iirc the dutch provided chemicals, the US the chem know how and intelligence (the good old fashioned reliable variant) - so what?
Arming up Saddam in order to kill islamiac iranians was bloody good business all over the early eighties and all western countries made good business with the butcher of baghdad, a jolly old friend then.

The israelis bombed the Osirak reactor, throwing the iraqi nuke program back several years. When the UN inspectors destroyed the rest, namely the uran enrichment centrifuges, the program was crushed entirely. The aluminium tubes found were, to the disappointment of the Pentagon, for normal artillery rockets and not for centrifuges. However, the nuke legend was alive and kicking and some may remember the crudly faked yellowcake deal papers the british and the US tried to sell as proof for an iraqi nuke program.

The same applies to the chemical program, it was crushed by the UN inspections. Leaves the infameous "Winnebagos of death" ... the variant they found till now were hydrogen vans for artillery baloons. The decontamination trucks Powell presented to the world were normal tank trucks but surely one day they'll find something real. Like 15 lonely mustard gas shells from anno 1985, with some goo in them.

The US administration knew why they vaguely referred to iraqi "WMDs". If they can find *anything*, either a piece of uranium (depleted uranium for example should be aplenty in iraq), some old and dead anthrax spores (courtesy of Fort Detrick) and some rotten chem warheads overlooked in the inpections and the iraqi cleanup it's: "Yay! A threat!" And, abracadabra, the war is justified, uh-hu. And who cares anyway.

Why are all these people getting upset because of WMDs and some irrelevant contradictions? The iraqis are free! This was a liberation. Right? Deep in my guts I always knew the iraqis should be free.

PS: Ah well, I've done it again.

 

So, Ragusa, to summarise your post (and especially the last part), what it appears you’re trying to say is - “Happy Independence Day!”

Or did I misunderstand you?

 

No, i think he meant to say that saddam is a jolly good fellow, who didn't deserve this kind of treatment, that he should be reinstated, so that the Iraqi's are truly free again.

 

Splunge,
oh you did. I don't intend to spoil that party. It was just a response to Pac-Man's post, stating:

Well, someone did and I pointed that out. Nothing more, nothing less. Except for the "gut-feeling" part, that actually happened while replying.

So, all in all, no reason not to enjoy this day. Actually, Bush will tomorrow be just as yesterday, so why not have a beer and a barbeque in peace? Cheers

Pac-man,
it's just a question of honesty: See, when a dude who dreamed from a regime change in iraq for the time he sat out in the cold, aka since Clinton was elected, suddenly, after a terror attack that brings the people in a mood for war - after speaking of an event needed to bring the americans in a mood to accept war to restructure the middle east according to neocon preferences - so when this guy suddenly get's a gut-feeling that Saddam is a threat and that the US have to attack him to survive and to maintain peace and stability in the middle east I really start to wonder.

And when that very dude tries to justify this gut feeling starting with WMDs, then changing over to cooperating with Al-Qaida and eventually, discovering his soft side, with bringing peace and freedom that's a thing that doesn't make me stop wondering.
And when his paperthin case and his bringing up of claims and so-called evidence turns out to be not even worth the paper it's printed on that doesn't help much to improve the credibility.

And when he now feels the urge to bring freedom to iran as well ... err ... because they have a nuclear reactor and missiles I start to suspect a lack of honesty. It's entirely a credibility issue. But that may be just me.

 

Well, what can i say... the US hasn't always been lucky when it comes to making friends. They also helped Bin Laden and the Mujahedeen against the Soviets, and now he stabs them in the back.

They helped Saddam against Iran, and he stabs them in the back by invading Kuwait, and destabilizing the entire middle east region with his actions.

What kind of reaction did you expect from the Americans ? That they would throw in a bunch of never ending debates, like probably most European nations would have done ?

No, they crossed the pond and kicked his ass, and i for one applaud this action. Saddam was taking a piss on each and everyone of us, and most people were either too blind to see it, or too chicken to put the hammer down on him.

The only thing you can blame the Americans, is that they keep picking the wrong friends. But that happens to almost anyone once or twice in a lifetime, so you can't really hold that against them either.

 

It seems a strange thing that anyone who is critical of the War is viewed as "spoiling the party." Is it just me, or does Bush seem more obsessed with Saddam than he does with Bin Laden? Remember him, the guy who masterminded the murder of 3000 people in New York City? These are strange days, indeed.

Here's an interesting tid-bit I ran into on a tech site. Who would have guessed?

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10273

[ July 05, 2003, 03:49: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Pac-man,
in what respect Saddam stabbed the US in the back? Please explain that as I cannot follow you here. Except for beeing a mass murderer he always was a *good*, obedient villain. You know, the kind of "our a**hole". He *asked* the US before invading Iran. He was even kind enough to *ask* before he invaded Kuwait.
The semi-official US stance on day one of the iraqi invasion was somehow like that: "What do I care if a gas station is named texaco or BP?"

The traditional british approach to middle east stability was, since they drawed the maps of the region, was: Splitting oil control in the middle east among three countries at least to avoid a monopole. It was along the roman imperative "rule and divide".
Iraq, by invading Kuwait endangered that. It were the british who made the US recognise Saddams evil and force the US to adopt a new enemy, replacing Gaddafi as Evil Nr.1.

This link might be interesting ass it highlight the US policy from the late 70s on in the gulf:

Originally Carter justified US presence in the gulf like that:

That was soon corrected to:

That much for iraqi freedom as beeing of interest to US policy.

An interesting aspect is the US anayltical assessment of the gulf situation in the early 80s, written by an old buddy of Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld (remember PNACs statement of principles? If not, have a look at the signators again), Francis Fukuyama:

Not that much has changed. In brief it can be said, Fukuyama exaggerated the threat by the russians to justify a US military presence.

And I can only second that. Saddam's only threat was the he, by beeing evil and out in the cold, blocked free oilflow, and that was the reason for the desired regime change. A US foreign policy interest inhumanity? Iraqi freedom?
You must be on opium when you believe in that. The neocons have dealt two decades with planning wars and pumping up the defence budged under so-perceived threats. Their accessment usually was way out and exaggerated. Their solutions are traditionally forceful. In any case, they haven't changed a yota - they still work the old way, no real surprise as they are almost the entire old crew from the Reagan/ Bush Sr. days. I fail to see how serving under Bush Jr. should have changed their thinking - much less after they practically copy-pasted the Bush-doctrine from their pre-Bush Jr. PNAC papers.

Saudi-Arabia, Bin Laden's main supporter, gained way too much weight by beeing the lonely major producer in the gulf politically obedient to the US after Iraq went under sanctions. That was clearly undesirable, especially with the increasing fundamentalist resistance growing in Saudi-Arabia, so the re-exploration of Iraq had to be started with priority. And the gut feeling about the involvement of Saddam in 9/11 came just in right in time.
Not to mention the sharply increased threat by WMDs from Iraq, especially after the decade of bombing and the dismantling of the arsenal after the war by the UN inspectors ... err ... A THREAT yessir! All in all the situation in the gulf now is easier for the neocons as they have (a) weakened Saudi Arabia and OPEC (new-Iraq will perhaps *not* join; and if they do, the US will have a saxophone there) and (b) now have an option to directly threaten Iran and Syria with an invasion, allowing to pressure both easier.

The iraqi people's benefit from the quick reconstruction of their oilfiends with US aid is a mutual one. Now that Saddam is away, the US have a counterweight for Saudi-Arabia. And that's a bloody good deal. And when someone dares to interfere with that interest, like the iraqi people demanding something outrageous as self-determination, they see themselves at the receiving end of US military force. How much will the US be willing to accept a free, democratic election result where a shiite religious party might be victorious?

But all that hardly sells as good as calling the whole thing "Operation Iraqi Freedom"

[ July 06, 2003, 11:44: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Interesting point Chandos and an interesting link too.

I have only recently thought what made the US administration, the whole crew actually, forget about Bin Laden in their public speeches so quickly, wasn't he public enemy Nr.1? The only thing mentioned now is Al-Quaida. Why? So do they have a new leadership? Is Bin Laden powerless now? Has he ever had control and power short of charisma and money?

In any case, he dropped down to place two (upper right) on the top ten of the FBI billboard charts, among with some petty amateurs, like whacky triple killers while he's Nr.1 (upper left) on the terrorist list. Speak about setting priorities But on the other hand Bin Laden's not likely to hide in the US so that might not make a difference for the efforts to capture him ...

I mean, he killed some 7.000 people, or at least aided or inspired that deed. Decentralised as Al Quaida is said to be he may not have even known exact details for the deed and may only have supplied the money. Interesting aspect that is.
Anyway, I sure think that, if the US ever find him, they'll kill him rather putting him to jail or, worse, on trial even - as he might tell silly stuff about the generous US and saudi sponsorship for him and his crew in afganistan and pakistan over the late 1980s. Dead he's the more comfortable trophy.

But getting that trophy will have two silly consequences: The US will create a martyr and loose a splendid threat lurking out in the dark. Or how about the worst case scenario: He denies the claim and the US might not be able to proove he actually was the mastermind behind 9/11. So the strength of the interest in really getting him is the really questionable point. IMO.

[ July 05, 2003, 20:53: Message edited by: Prozac ]