In an effort to explain why no chemical or biological weapons had been found in Iraq, the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said yesterday the regime may have destroyed them before the war.
Speaking to the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations thinktank, he said the speed of U.S. advance may have caught Iraq by surprise, but added: "It is also possible that they decided that they would destroy them prior to a conflict."
Somewhere deep in an Iraqi bunker... The Americans are coming! Quickly, destroy all the weapons we've been hiding from them so history won't look bad on us... but we'll all be dead from a smart bomb anyway... and we're destroying the weapons we were hiding which is the reason they're coming... and we're disarming in the face of an invasion. Does anyone think this plan has a few flaws?
Over in Great Britain, Tony Blair is taking a lot of heat because those weapons were the primary reason for our unpopular invasion. Over here in "love it or leave it" America, you don't hear a lot about it. Colin Powell cites plagiarized intelligence reports (which Britain later admitted) and forged documents (that no one claims to know the origin of) and yet no seems to care.
So we're going after Saddam for the weapons but we couldn't find them. Eh, maybe we were going after him for his role in 9/11. Well, even the US intelligence community admits that there's no evidence of his role. So we go after him for his links to Al Qaeda
Somehow, those who support the war seem to have no problem that every justification for it has fallen flat and they're quite happy to pounce on another one. Witness the people who said "yeah, but the Iraqis are happy we liberated them!". (Never mind all of the protests about our occupation).
I guess the ends justify the means.
Re:We destroyed our logic before invading
chromatic on 2003-05-28T22:01:36
Careful; I seem to remember believing that the threat of force is a credible deterrant and I'm rather displeased by the feeble apologetics of a shifting justification. If there's no serious evidence of a credible threat, the action was unjustified. I think a lot of people are better off, but a lot of people are dead and still more are suffering through a lot of chaos. Someone ought to answer for that.
Then again, I have serious doubts that an intelligence agency that couldn't even find its pants to have them down around its ankles a couple of years ago has suddenly transformed into a lean, mean, spying machine.
Re:We destroyed our logic before invading
jordan on 2003-05-28T22:05:55
The justification to invade Iraq was that Iraq didn't live up to their commitment to 'fully, proactively and immediately' disarm as required by Resolution 1441. Everyone who signed on to Resolution 1441, the entire UN Security council, was clear on the fact that Iraq did possess such weapons.
It was clear that they were playing games with the UN Inspectors. It's also clear from what we are finding that they had an active program to develop or research WMDs.
The fact that they may have been busy destroying (or hiding in Syria) their weapons of mass destruction in a process outside of that dictated by Resolution 1441 should give one pause. Certainly, if Iraq had no WMD, they could have fully cooperated with the UN Inspectors and made a mockery of the US and probably gotten the sanctions lifted in no time.
I'm satisfied that Iraq had them, had intention to build them again and may have destroyed them in a cat-and-mouse game with the Inspectors that was aimed at not eliminating their ability to rebuild them in the future.
- Well, even the US intelligence community admits that there's no evidence of his role. So we go after him for his links to Al Qaeda
... that we can't establish.
Really? I've never heard the US Intelligence Community say there's no evidence. I hear more and more about links to Al Qaeda all the time. It's pretty clear that Iraq was harboring and support Ansar Al-Islam, a group associated with Al Qaeda.
Perhaps you would be interested in what Clinton CIA Directory Woolsey has to say about the matter.
- Witness the people who said "yeah, but the Iraqis are happy we liberated them!". (Never mind all of the protests about our occupation).
I don't see many protests. Most reports indicate that most Iraqis are happy we are there. Somehow, the few protests seem to gain a lot of attention, especially in the Arab and European press.
Of course, just the fact that there now can be protests in Iraq is certainly a good sign as the previous administration allowed such things.
Re:We destroyed our logic before invading
Beatnik on 2003-05-28T22:57:24
Also consider there are at least a few other countries that have WMD and are not considered a threat to world peace by the US and its allies?
You're not going to break into the house of someone living across town because you suspect he has a weapon (while all he has is some fire crackers) and you're afraid he is going to break into your extremly well protected mansion, while other people in your neighbourhood do have weapons and brag about it?
Yes, Saddam probably has broken Geneva Convention regulations, International Embargos and God knows what else. And yes, I do think it was necesarry that SOME action was taken. But dozens of other countries broke those regulations, and others too. For some reason, loads of people still smoke Cuban cigars and have been for many years while the trading embargo with Cuba was still in place. Many countries (even western ones) harbor Islam Extremists. Maybe it's a good thing to clean out their own back yard before occupying someone else's.
If I recall correctly, the US supported Iraq in the whole Iraq/Iran issue in the 1980's. I also recall the US supporting Afghanistan (and the Taliban) back when the russians tried to occupy Afghanistan (most part of the 1980's).
This is all way too political for a perl site and this will probably result in an anonymous van being parked outside my house. I'll ask em in for some coffee if that happens...Re:We destroyed our logic before invading
Ovid on 2003-05-28T23:52:07
You know, when I read a news story about Iraq on Arab News, I am painfully aware that they have their own agenda and will see things from a different viewpoint. I think this is an important thing to remember, particularly when I notice (and I have on more than one occassion) that their coverage of an event is often radically different from US coverage.
If one accepts that to be a reasonable point of view, then it's also fair to point out that a news site such as News Max (linked to by you) which does not even remotely pretend to be impartial, just might be inclined to report things a bit differently than others do.
I can quote allegedly impartial news sources who would be happy to suggest that perhaps things are not what we thought:
(CBS) CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.I can find plenty of other citations, just as I am sure that you can. If they're to be found, though, it would be nice that they not come from such a blatantly biased source. For example, the former CIA director's "bombshell testimony" (their words, not mine):
"I believe it is definitely more likely than not that some degree of common knowledge between [al-Qaeda and Iraq] was involved here."Ignoring how terribly wishy-washy that statement is, I turn to the headline, which reads "CIA's Woolsey Tells Court: Iraq Involved in 9/11". The story doesn't say that. The story doesn't even remotely say that. According to the story, Woolsey lays out many suggestive references, but the title is completely misleading (something that is not uncommon on News Max). Of course, I could just rebut this by pointing out another blatatantly biased site and just argue "but they're right"
:) Re:We destroyed our logic before invading
jordan on 2003-05-29T02:19:15
CBS News impartial! Give me a break. Read former CBS news reporter Bernard Goldberg's book Bias about the extreme liberal bias at CBS.
Hey, maybe you should become a journalist, the way you spin the facts and selectively quote. First, you impune Woolsey as being a former CIA Director (under Clinton, BTW, so that should help to eliminate Republican slant). Then you take that one quote out of the article and spin it to make it seem like Woolsey only supports my point tangentially or weakly.
You said that we could not establish a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. I pointed out that we already have and you ignored Woolsey when he clearly stated:
At the very least, Saddam Hussein is guilty of aiding and abetting the activities of al-Qaeda, Woolsey contended.
He also offered evidence suggesting that Baghdad had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks.
A July 21, 2001, article in an Egyptian newspaper, headlined "America, an Obsession with Osama bin Laden," indicated that Baghdad knew what was coming less than months later, the former U.S. intelligence chief told the court. The report, written by an Iraqi, predicted bin Laden would target both New York City and the Pentagon.
Woolsey noted a line in the story warning that bin Laden would "strike America on the arm that is already hurting," explaining that the phrase was likely a reference to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.
No Iraqi journalist would write such a report without his government's knowledge and approval, Woolsey testified.
There's no doubt that Iraq had a nuclear program. There's also no doubt that Saddam still had regional aims, having never given up his claim to Kuwait (as he was required to do as part of the Gulf War I armistice, BTW). The only way he could have possibly supported his regional aims was to remove the US and Britain from the picture.
Saddam had every reason to develop nuclear weapons and give them to Al Qaeda in order to strike crippling blows on America. I think what we did in Iraq goes a long way toward preventing that threat.
Your cynicism about how we used the "really bad man" argument against Saddam is disgusting. By the UN's own figures, around 10,000 people every MONTH died from systematic starvation and medical deprivation of the Iraqi people, while Saddam used the Food for Oil money to build more elaborate palaces and mobile weapon labs.
I think we've put an end to that horror, as well. Or, don't you care, at all for the Iraqi people?
Re:We destroyed our logic before invading
Ovid on 2003-05-29T06:14:55
jordan, I try write carefully, so please read it carefully and do not accuse me of saying things that I did not say. I'm a pretty easy going person and I don't mind at all if you disagree with me. I do mind if you misrepresent what I say. I did not write that CBS is impartial. I wrote that CBS is 'allegedly' impartial. Further, I pointed out that Woolsey was no longer the director of the CIA because you did not and I felt that it was relevant to whether or not he is privy to current information. However, whether or not he served under Clinton is irrelevant to whether or not he is correct.
The point that I was making was twofold. First, your source was a site that has a very strong conservative bias and it's fair to keep that in mind while reading what they have to say. Second, the headline was flat out wrong. It read "CIA's Woolsey Tells Court: Iraq Involved in 9/11". The problem is, the article didn't say that. Woolsey didn't say that. The article repeatedly quotes Woolsey as "suggesting" (their words, not mine) that Iraq may had foreknowledge of 9/11. Reading through it carefully makes it clear that this man was speculating about an involvement. That is not what the headline read. I was pointing out the fact that the article didn't match the headline. That bears repeating: the article did NOT MATCH THE HEADLINE. If this is "journalism"
... well, that leads to the next paragraph. And as for the "liberal bias" of CBS news, if you truly believe that the multinational conglomerate that owns CBS news is somehow some hotbed of liberalism, I must say that I don't understand your rationale. Goldberg's ridiculous book is a typical example of the sloppy "journalism" that is accepted without much comment. I remember picking it up and reading through it at a bookstore and I was absolutely aghast at it, but so many people want to buy into whatever supports their personal belief system. Mind you, most so-called liberals in the US are just as ridiculous in their thoughts and arguments, so please do not take this as an attack solely on conservative politics in the US!
(and I wrote a lot more here, but I realized that it would not serve any purpose, so I deleted it)
Re:We destroyed our logic before invading
jordan on 2003-05-29T15:02:13
- I did not write that CBS is impartial. I wrote that CBS is 'allegedly' impartial.
Oh, come on, if you weren't presenting CBS as impartial in contradistinction to Arab News, what were you doing? I thought the use of 'allegedly' was just an attempt at irony. It seems that there is support for this as you imply below that CBS could only be expected to have a conservative slant due to their ownership.
- Further, I pointed out that Woolsey was no longer the director of the CIA because you did not and I felt that it was relevant to whether or not he is privy to current information. However, whether or not he served under Clinton is irrelevant to whether or not he is correct.
Look, when I point out that Woolsey was the 'Clinton CIA Director' there is a very clear implication that he is no longer CIA Director. Otherwise, I would have said just 'CIA Director'.
Anyway, we're talking about bias and slant, I wanted to give you an intelligence source that you couldn't impune as being in the direct employ of George W. Bush.
Actually, I've heard Woolsey speak and as a former high up Intelligence official, he says that he is privy to current intelligence briefings. In any case, the man who was CIA director during the period that Al Qaeda grew to power might have a lot of good information, I would think. I guess your unsourced ramblings about how intelligence sources have found "no evidence" are better?
- And as for the "liberal bias" of CBS news, if you truly believe that the multinational conglomerate that owns CBS news is somehow some hotbed of liberalism, I must say that I don't understand your rationale.
The News organizations pride themselves on a great deal of independence from their corporate sponsors. The New York Times is also owned by a large corporation and it takes the liberal side of every issue I can recall in its editorial pages. They also specialize in the slanted headline, that you find so totally unacceptable in NewsMax.
- Goldberg's ridiculous book is a typical example of the sloppy "journalism" that is accepted without much comment. I remember picking it up and reading through it at a bookstore and I was absolutely aghast at it, but so many people want to buy into whatever supports their personal belief system.
Of course FAIR, an organization whose entire d'etret is to counter AIM, a group that was formed to point out liberal bias in the media, would find Goldberg's book 'ridiculous'. I find their review to be long on attack and short on substance, however.
Do you recall, specifically, what you found so horrifying about Goldberg's book? Since it's not big on the one-liners or quick hit, I don't see how you can immediately get a flavor for it in just a quick browsing at the book store. In particular, I think his original WSJ Editorial is thoughtful.
- (and I wrote a lot more here, but I realized that it would not serve any purpose, so I deleted it)
Well you won't get any points from me for restraint after you posted this baiting comment:
Somehow, those who support the war seem to have no problem that every justification for it has fallen flat and they're quite happy to pounce on another one.
I'm someone who supports the war and I don't think ANY justification has fallen flat.
Re:We destroyed our logic before invading
schwern on 2003-05-29T22:45:22
It was clear that they were playing games with the UN Inspectors.You don't invade a country because they're playing parliamentary games.
Certainly, if Iraq had no WMD, they could have fully cooperated with the UN Inspectors and made a mockery of the US and probably gotten the sanctions lifted in no time.I'd love to see how the US would react to UN weapons inspectors and what sort of reception they'd get (and, of course, our subcequent invasion of ourself based on their shoddy treatment). Just think about the diplomatic fire and bile the US govt would spew at the suggestion of having foreign weapons inspectors violate their sovereignty, regardless of what they had to hide.
The fact that they may have been busy destroying (or hiding in Syria) their weapons of mass destructionA) Does it really matter how they destroyed them as long as they got destroyed? If the Iraqis wanted to save some face by wiping out the weapons they claimed they didn't have, FINE BY ME! Same result either way, weapons destroyed. You don't invade a country because they didn't fill out the proper paperwork.
B) HOoooboy, you've been reading too many White House Press Releases. "The fact that they may have been..." You can justify anything you want using that prefix. "The fact that George Bush may have been a card carrying NAMBLA member..." "The fact that you may have been a baby seal clubber..." "The fact that I may have been the King of Norway..." You don't invade a country based on what they MIGHT be doing. This is called paranoia.
It's also clear from what we are finding that they had an active program to develop or research WMDs.Had. HAD.Ya know, the whole point of my journal entry was Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense, a guy that should be pretty up on what we're finding in Iraq, is stating feeble excuses for why they're not finding weapons in Iraq. Here's another Why? Perhaps because they destroyed them like the UN told them to!
You're right, clearly that's too far fetched. They obviously moved them all to [insert neighboring country here] just prior to being invaded so they can use them... after their country has been taken over and their power base destroyed and half the leadership is dead or captured? Wait, I know there's a flaw in this logic somewhere...
Re:We destroyed our logic before invading
jordan on 2003-05-30T02:22:32
- I'd love to see how the US would react to UN weapons inspectors and what sort of reception they'd get (and, of course, our subcequent invasion of ourself based on their shoddy treatment).
The US didn't lose a war where one of the conditions of Armistice was full accounting and destruction of their Weapons of Mass Destruction. Iraq signed on to conditions of inspections in 1992, thus no sovereignty was being violated. We were just enforcing the terms of that Armistice.
No matter how hard you try to spin it, George W. Bush is not Saddam Hussein, Weapons of Mass Destruction in the hands of the US are not the same as in the hands of Iraq.
- You don't invade a country because they didn't fill out the proper paperwork.
When that "paperwork" are the conditions of an unconditional surrender, you'd better fill it out properly or be prepared to pay the consequences.
- Why? Perhaps because they destroyed them like the UN told them to!
They clearly didn't destroy them like the UN told them to. The UN told them to destroy them and provide a full accounting for them.
We didn't invade a country because they were playing "parliamentary games" (what that means in this context I couldn't guess). We invaded them because they failed to live up to the conditions of armistice that they agreed to after Gulf War I. This included full, complete verifiable destruction of WMD which the UNSCOM inspectors actually identified and renouncing all territorial claims to Kuwait (Iraq instead reasserted it's claims to Kuwait).
Resolution 1441 was just their last chance to live up to their commitments and the allies determined that it was just more of the same old games.
UN Security Council members like Russia and France clearly had no intention of enforcing the Gulf War I Armistice, with their Billions invested in Saddam's continued existence. Those two even clamoured for lifting of all sanctions in 1999.
Sometimes, you just have to do the right thing no matter the diplomatic opposition. I think this is one of those times.
Lost in all this is the mysery of the Iraqi people. Saddam literally starved them to death and was allowed to blame us for it, enflaming the Arab street. The best of both worlds for Saddam and the worst for us. And, you anti-war types just don't seem to care a bit.
Re:We destroyed our logic before invading
schwern on 2003-05-31T07:16:27
I'd love to see how the US would react to UN weapons inspectors and what sort of reception they'd get (and, of course, our subcequent invasion of ourself based on their shoddy treatment).The US didn't lose a war where one of the conditions of Armistice was full accounting and destruction of their Weapons of Mass Destruction.You miss the point. You put forth Iraq playing games with UN inspectors as an admission of guilt. Consider the hypothectical situation of UN weapon inspectors in the US. You know the US would scream bloody murder if they came into our country, regardless of the reason. Hell, we're the country with the law stating we'll extract US citizens from war crimes trials! You know we'd harass them every step of the way. This would not be an admission of guilt but an expression of overinflated national pride. I'm sure you can see how this relates to Iraq playing games with the UN inspectors.
Iraq signed on to conditions of inspections in 1992, thus no sovereignty was being violated. We were just enforcing the terms of that Armistice.See, here's the problem with that: That Armistice was signed with the UN, not the US and Britian. We can't charge in under the pretext of enforcing an argreement signed with a different political body.
The belittling of the UN's authority, straining our relationship with Europe, pissing off the Arab world by occupying a Middle Eastern country and setting the precident of US vigilantism is what I fear from this whole mess.
Lost in all this is the mysery of the Iraqi people. Saddam literally starved them to death and was allowed to blame us for it, enflaming the Arab street. The best of both worlds for Saddam and the worst for us. And, you anti-war types just don't seem to care a bit.We went into Iraq to help the Iraqi people about the same as we went into Kwauit to fight for democracy. How do I know we didn't do this for humanitarian reasons? Because we're not in Ugunda or Sudan. Because we walked out of Somalia after getting a bloody nose. Because we do nothing about East Timor or Tibet. Because the US contributes only 2% of the UN peacekeeping force. Because we actively undermine the International Criminal Court. Because there's millions of people around the world that need help that we ignore because they don't happen to be sitting on a big chunk of the world's oil supply.
The answer is, of course, oil. We invaded Iraq alone to carve it up for ourselves and we don't even have to share any of it with the UN.
Furthermore, you see this as a black and white issue. That either the US went in or Saddam remains in power. It was not that way. The UN was still considering its options. And if you scoff at them, remember who made the decision to invade 12 years go.
You don't invade a country because they didn't fill out the proper paperwork.When that "paperwork" are the conditions of an unconditional surrender, you'd better fill it out properly or be prepared to pay the consequences.If you feel we should go to war for such trivial reasons, then you do not truly understand what war is.
Re:We destroyed our logic before invading
jordan on 2003-05-31T17:35:51
- You miss the point. You put forth Iraq playing games with UN inspectors as an admission of guilt.
When Resolution 1441 required 'full, immediate and proactive disarmament' and a full accounting for weapons that previous UN inspectors had identified and they play games, that is not an admission of guilt, that is, in itself, a violation.
I think you miss the point our insisting on the language of Resolution 1441 requiring "full, immediate and proactive disarmament". You see, inspections have never worked. They didn't work after WWI in Germany, they didn't work in Korea, they didn't work in Iraq in the 1990s (the inspectors found little or nothing until defectors told them where things were, including one facility that was 'inspected' no less than 3 times before Kamel Hussein defected to Jordan and identified it as a Bio-weapon facility) and more recently they didn't work in Iran. We knew that inspections don't work, especially in the long run. The International Community always loses its will, as they did in Germany in the 20s and 30s or the country inspected plays games with the inspectors and eventually arranges for the inspectors to leave. That's why Resolution 1441 required FULL and IMMEDIATE disarmament.
Even Hans Blix admitted that Iraq had fallen short of this standard. That should have been that, and required 'Serious Consequences'. But no, there were those on the Security Council who seemed to have another aggenda.
- See, here's the problem with that: That Armistice was signed with the UN, not the US and Britian. We can't charge in under the pretext of enforcing an argreement signed with a different political body.
The US and the UK have had to take the lead role in enforcing those terms. The US is blamed by the Arab World for being at war with Iraq for a decade. On Al Jazheera they called the last 10 years the "US War on Iraq".
When the UN Security Council has been so compromised as to include those who have an interest in maintaining Saddam Hussein in power, we have to take action. Ultimately, it's about insisting on International agreements. The UN clearly did not, we did. We had the power and I feel we had the right.
- We went into Iraq to help the Iraqi people about the same as we went into Kwauit to fight for democracy.
I would concede that we didn't go into Iraq only to correct human rights abuses. So what?
The US Civil War wasn't only about freeing the slaves, but that was the result and I think that's a good thing and enough justification if you're looking for it.
Of course we didn't go into Kuwait to establish Democracy. We went in to evict the Iraqis. But, now we see Democratic reforms in Kuwait making it one of the most Democratic countries in the region. A good thing I think and only made possible by our continued insistence.
How do I know we didn't do this for humanitarian reasons? Because we're not in Ugunda or Sudan.
We can't be everywhere and we don't have other powerful motivations like keeping WMD out of the hands of Islamic Terrorists in these cases. The fact that we aren't in Uganda or the Sudan proves nothing.
But this is just a red herring. You don't want us to occupy Africa and most of the Middle East. You just want the fact that we don't eradicated all Human Rights abuses as an argument against our eradicating Saddam Hussein's abuses first. The fact that we don't run around fixing the whole world first is just an argumentive point to you. I doubt you care at all about the people of Uganda or Sudan, either.
Should we now let the Bathists take back rule in Iraq, extracting brutal revenge over the Iraqi collaborators because we didn't do things in the "right order" (first Uganda, then...). No, we take the good with the good. When we can fix things, we do.
Because we walked out of Somalia after getting a bloody nose.
Huh? If we didn't care about the misery of the Somali people, why were we there in the first place? I readily agree that we should have had reasonable rules of engagement to effectively carry out our mission and that we should have stuck to it, but clearly our motivation was noble. George HW Bush got us in there for good reasons, but Clinton lacked the stomach to finish the job.
- Because we do nothing about East Timor or Tibet.
We support the UN actions in East Timor. Aren't there SOME places in the world that are best handled by regional interests? Must we be responsible for every abuse?
In the case of Iraq, I couldn't see regional interests as capable of addressing this, so we went in. Note that Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE and Oman were all supportive of our Iraqi action.
What should we do, specifically, about Tibet? Go to war with China over this? Our economic engagement in China seems to be bringing about Democratic reforms. Should we instead attempt to isolate China? Another red herring. You don't really have a plan to address Tibet, you just use it as an argument that the US Government doesn't care about Human Rights.
Because the US contributes only 2% of the UN peacekeeping force.
Please source this. Does this include our 70,000+ troops that support the Korean Armistice? Korea was a UN action, you know.
Does this include the many troops we have in the Balkans, some of which are under NATO, not UN authority?
Oh, Kosovo is another fine example of our noble motives and the ineffectiveness of the UN. Why did the US go into Kosovo if it wasn't to save the Islamic Kosovars from slaughter? The UN was worthless here because Russia kept balking and threatening Veto to any UN Resolution against the Serbian genocide.
I wonder if this 2% includes the fact that the bulk of the Air Power ever brought to bear in UN actions is US.
Because we actively undermine the International Criminal Court.
We don't give up our Sovereignty to a Court that, from the example of the Belgian Courts, would be used for political purposes.
Because there's millions of people around the world that need help that we ignore because they don't happen to be sitting on a big chunk of the world's oil supply.
The answer is, of course, oil.
This is absurd on it's face. If we wanted cheap oil, we'd just have lifted the sanctions on Iraq and let Saddam flood the market with all the oil we could use.
Of course, the problem is that any reasonable person could see that Saddam would have used the money to threaten his regional neighbors.
Look, I agree that the fact that Iraq has lots of oil has a lot to do with the dynamic there. The fact is that we can't let a mad and brutal dictator, evidenced by how he treats his own people, to have control over that wealth. So, oil is part of the equation. We want that wealth to be put to good use, like freeing and rebuilding Iraq. I'll be willing to bet that the average Iraqi will benefit a great deal from the Oil money that will start flowing soon, much more so than under Saddam.
- We invaded Iraq alone to carve it up for ourselves and we don't even have to share any of it with the UN.
Oh yes, we should share it with the UN, just like they carved up the lucrative Oil For Food program for to the benefit of their bureacratic cronies and Saddam.
- If you feel we should go to war for such trivial reasons, then you do not truly understand what war is.
I understand that war is a 'Serious Consequence'. What, exactly, was the UN going to do? What the US did was actually save the world from the UN's lack of resolve. Saddam knew that he could buy off the Security Council and make a mockery of 'Serious Consequences' if he only had to fear UN action. This lesson wouldn't have been lost on Kim Jong-il and others.
Re:We destroyed our logic before invading
pudge on 2003-06-02T02:16:52
You put forth Iraq playing games with UN inspectors as an admission of guilt.
I don't. I think it is very fishy, but not necessarily a sign of guilt.
Consider the hypothectical situation of UN weapon inspectors in the US. You know the US would scream bloody murder if they came into our country, regardless of the reason.
So? Then we would be wrong too. Look, Iraq was stated as guilty by the UN Security Council, and that guilty verdict was reaffirmed more than a dozen times in a dozen years; Iraq itself agreed to destroy its weapons and submit to inspections; Iraq itself agreed to allow the UN to take further steps if inspections did not accomplish the task of disarmament and verification. If the US had been found so guilty, and had agreed to what Iraq agreed to, and still blocked it, well... tough for the US!
The answer is, of course, oil. We invaded Iraq alone to carve it up for ourselves and we don't even have to share any of it with the UN.
That's as much nonsense as someone saying it was about liberating Iraqis. Yes, oil has a bit part to do with it, but to take that and leap to "we want to take Iraq's oil" is baseless.
It was about oil, but not for the sake of taking oil, but for the sake of removing a man who was a serious risk to the stability of the flow of oil from the region. If we just wanted oil, we could have fought for the lifting of the sanctions in exchange for cheap oil. That would have given us as much oil as we wanted for far less money than the war and rebuilding is costing.
It was about liberation, but not because we love Iraqis, but because a free Iraqi people will lead to a more stable region, which is what the UN said in Resolution 687 when it wrote about the importance of peace and security in the Middle East.
Re:We destroyed our logic before invading
pudge on 2003-06-02T12:19:07
You put forth Iraq playing games with UN inspectors as an admission of guilt.
I don't. I think it is very fishy, but not necessarily a sign of guilt.
To clarify... yes, it IS absolute guilt under Resolution 1441, Resolution 687, etc. Iraq was guilty, without any doubt, of breaching those resolutions, which Resolution 1441 said would result in serious consequences, and Resolution 687 said would require the UN Security Council to take further steps (which it refused to do).
Iraq was absolutely guilty of breaching those resolutions in severe ways, and action by the UN in response to it was not merely warranted, but obligated.
But, I took it to mean you mean "guilt" in regard to currently possessing weapons. And again, yes, their playing games, while a serious breach of UN resolutions obligating a response, did not necessarily mean they actually possessed weapons, it only meant that the responsible and logical thing to do is to assume that they have the weapons, for practical purposes, in the absence of the required cooperation.
Re:We destroyed our logic before invading
pudge on 2003-06-02T12:38:42
See, here's the problem with that: That Armistice was signed with the UN, not the US and Britian. We can't charge in under the pretext of enforcing an argreement signed with a different political body.
That is an eminently fair point to make, but it misses something, IMO. Resolution 687 was not merely a warning to Iraq to comply or else; it was a promise to the United States that the UN Security Concil would handle the situation. It was a cease-fire between Iraq, Kuwait, and the other nations involved.
There are several ways war can end. In this case, the goal of the war, on the UN's part, must be fulfilled for the war to end. That goal was elimination of the Iraqi threat. The two obvious ways to achieve that is by force or voluntarily. Res. 687 was an attempt to do it voluntarily. That attempt was given 12 years, and it failed. Once it fails, the UN has a built-in obligation -- the very last clause of 687 -- to take "further steps." It refused to do so.
So where does that leave the US? It agreed to a cease-fire, that it would not advance on Baghdad and take out Hussein, on the basis that the UN would eliminate the threat. The UN did not. It broke its promise in 687. So the cease-fire becomes, legally, null and void. And the US goes back to what its plan was initially: to eliminate the threat by force.
Ideally, yes, the UN Security Council would live up to its obligations to take care of the problem. But that the Security Council took on the problem does not mean that the memeber nations cannot act on their own, should the Security Council not fulfill its obligations.
Now, there is the part of the UN Charter that says all member nations must resolve disputes not by force on their own, but through the UN. But that part of the Charter has no legal force, as it has been rendered obsolete by precedent. It has never been enforced. And even if it were to be asserted by the UN -- note that Kofi Annan dared not quote that part of the charter in his criticisms of the US -- then the US could simply say, "we are still at war with Iraq, at the approval of the UN Security Council, because war does not end until the terms of the cease-fire are completed, which by everyone's admission they never were," and be entirely legally justified.
The only question at that point would be if the Security Council were given ample opportunity to live up to their end of the bargain of Res. 687, and it would be hard to argue that they were not.
All this just to say that while it is important to talk about whose role it is to use military force, the answer is not as clear-cut as you make it, and I think the reason why Annan never said that the U.S. actions are illegal is because he knows full well than the U.N. breached its own resolutions by not enforcing them.
Re:We destroyed our logic before invading
pudge on 2003-06-02T02:05:19
Does it really matter how they destroyed them as long as they got destroyed?
Yes, it does. There is a reason that Resolution 687 says that the destruction of biological and chemical weapons must be conducted under UN supervision: verification. We cannot trust their word.
Same result either way, weapons destroyed.
Assuming they actually are destroyed... something we logically cannot do, without verification.
Hans Blix was clear on the point that it is, absolutely, Iraq's obligation to account for all their weapons, destroyed or not, and that they had failed in this regard. And really, whatever else Iraq did do right in the inspections, the two most important things mentioned in Resolution 1441 -- providing evidence of existing weapons, or evidence of destroyed weapons, and providing interviews with scientists under the terms prescribed by the UN inspectors -- were complete failures by Iraq.Re:We destroyed our logic before invading
pudge on 2003-06-02T02:16:48
Colin Powell cites plagiarized intelligence reports (which Britain later admitted) and forged documents (that no one claims to know the origin of) and yet no seems to care.
First, there is no evidence whatsoever that suggests that Powell or the Bush cabinet had any knowledge that these were forged. Second, I'd wager more people know that they were forged than knew that they ever existed in the first place... it's not exactly important in the grand scheme of things, as they were never a major component to the argument against Iraq.
So we're going after Saddam for the weapons but we couldn't find them.
While the Bush administration did say that Iraq had weapons, two things are clear: first, that less than half of the suspected weapons sites have been inspected, and second, that the administration talked more about the lack of cooperation than the existence of weapons.
Resolution 1441 talks about quite a few things that would constitute a breach. Not one of those things is "possession of prohibited weapons." It is the lack of cooperation that is the real crime. And logically, if Iraq does not cooperate, the rest of the world must assume that the weapons exist.
When a cop approaches a wanted man with his hands in his coat pockets, and the man refuses to pull his hands out and place them on his head when ordered, the cop will not wait for too long before pulling the trigger. This is common sense.
And don't dare to say I am looking for new justifications. Lack of cooperation with inspections has been my sole justification since Day One, and I've never wavered from it.:-) I even tried to warn people, months ago, that the point should be inspections, that there is the possibility weapons will never be found. No one listened to poor little pudge. ;-)
«Of course, there’ll be no answers. True Believers will make do with those fuzzy TV reports about the discovery of a few barrels of banned chemicals in an old shed. There seems to be no consensus yet about whether they are really chemicals, whether they are actually banned, and whether the vessels they’re contained in can technically be called barrels. (There were unconfirmed rumours that a teaspoonful of potassium permanganate and an old harmonica were found there too.)»
