|
|
Post by PTH on Jun 13, 2003 16:53:56 GMT -5
People tend not to realise how complicated the world can be. No one ever needed a master plan to pressure people into beleiving there were plenty of WMD in Iraq.... insist enough that they must be there, and you'll find something... " "It was a foregone conclusion that every photo of a trailer truck would be a `mobile bioweapons lab' and every tanker truck would be `filled with weaponized anthrax,' " a former military intelligence officer said. "None of the analysts in military uniform had the option to debate the vice president, secretary of defense and the secretary of state." I don't believe that the president deliberately lied to the public in an attempt to scare Americans into supporting his war. But it does look as if ideologues in the administration deceived themselves about Iraq's nuclear programs — and then deceived the American public as well. " www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/13/nyt.kristof/ |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jun 13, 2003 21:32:13 GMT -5
Just something of note on this subject:
Hans Blix has, IIRC, come out and said pretty much that he's not surprised that the US has not found WMD's yet and furthermore, that this neither confirms the 'conspiracy' theory nor matters a row of beans in the big scheme of things.
Consider, for a moment, a country that is pretty much desert and mountain (with a small fertile crescent between the Tigris and the Eurphrates). Consider how easy it would be to hide something in the miles of desert or mountain. It's very easy to get lost in (see the American Prisoners of War Saga) and would be inversely difficult to do an effective sweep of ('have we been here?' before type thing).
In short, don't be so hasty. After all, everyone was saying that the weapons inspectors needed more time after all the years they'd been in Iraq.
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jun 13, 2003 22:13:42 GMT -5
Still, how many weeks and how many hundreds of inspectors do you need ?
If the US really had clear proof about WMD, then by now they really should have been able to find some, IMO. The US used WMD as the key justification for invading a country, without any kind of international support, either moral or legal, so finding these things is critical.
Right now, the rogue state involved in all of this is the US.
Maybe now we know why the US didn't want the UN to get more than a few weeks.... maybe they knew that the longer the UN mission was in there, the clearer it would be that there weren't WMD.
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jun 13, 2003 22:42:58 GMT -5
The trouble with that argument New Guy, is that in order to move, hide, and continue to hide the huge amounts of WMD the US said Iraq had, you would need to involve literally hundreds of people, from soldiers, to civilians, generals to peasants. The US has arrested how many in their deck of cards now? 35? Surely, if as the US claims, Iraq has hidden literally hundreds of thousands of tonnes of chemicals, at least one of these guys would know where they are? Surely one of them would have talked? And if not them, then one of the soldiers guarding a facility? A scientist who packaged them up? A truck driver who moved them? A peasant wandering around?
If, as the US claims, the Iraqi people had such a hatred towards Saddam Hussein, wouldn't they gladly point out where all these weapons are, just to spite their hated despot?
The comparison to the prisoners of war is kind of weak. First of all, they were found pretty quickly. Second of all, an Iraqi pointed them out. Third of all, its a lot easier to hide people, than it is to hide thousands and thousands of barrells. We're talking warehouse size facilities that are needed, not little mountain caves. The "have we been here" question is even weaker - unlike, say Osama bin laden, the WMDs aren't moving; simply follow a grid map, and you can pretty much cover everything. Add in the fact that roads would have been needed to move the stuff in... well, shouldn't be too hard.
As we are now finding out, a lot of the so-called "evidence" the US used to justify their war is either unsubstantiated, or just outright lies and forgeries. As PTH said, if the US was so sure Iraq had them, then they had to have known where they were, right? And if they knew where they were, they know who worked with them. And if they know who worked with them, they can lean on them, to find out where they have been moved.
Heck, regular police detectives do pretty much the same thing every day.
WMD was always a weak argument to justify the war, as we are now seeing. We're still trying to answer that first, basic question; why here, why now?
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jun 13, 2003 22:49:47 GMT -5
As for Blix, I don't know if the pro-war side should be bringing his name up to strengthen their position.
From CNN, June 12th.
Blix takes Washington to task
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Satellite photographs on his office wall are the only way Hans Blix can see Iraq these days.
The chief U.N. weapons inspector and his international searchers are shut out of Iraq by the United States.
But in his final days on the job, Blix is speaking out more -- angry over how he feels he was treated by some in the U.S. government.
In an interview in London's Guardian newspaper, Blix said: "I have my detractors in Washington. There are bastards who spread things around, of course, who planted nasty things in the media, not that I cared very much."
Asked about his comments, Blix told CNN:
"Well, I think it vexes me if I have what I regard as totally unjustified accusations, but I don't lose sleep over it, and I pursued my job here. ..."
"You used a word beginning with 'b,'" CNN asked Blix.
"Ah yes, yes. I didn't think it would be printed in America," he said.
"Do you think they were (bastards)?" CNN asked.
"I certainly had a low opinion about these detractors, but it's not really worth much time," Blix said.
In print, Blix said some elements of the Pentagon were behind a smear campaign against him.
"Clearly when a former Swedish deputy prime minister writes in the Washington Times or Wall Street Journal and I haven't met the guy since the '70s and evidently some of the information must have come from private sources in the U.S., there is something wrong," Blix said.
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said there was "no smear campaign that I'm aware of."
"I have high regard for Dr. Blix. I worked very closely with Dr. Blix over the last eight or nine months.
"! know the president has confidence in him as well, and what we're doing now is looking forward, not looking backwards," Powell said.
Powell's briefing to the U.N. Security Council has yet to bear fruit on the ground.
Blix says he received little intelligence during his time in Iraq that his teams could ever confirm.
And the former Swedish foreign minister had this warning for the future:
"I think one has to be cautious in making use of the armed forces on flimsy or shaky grounds that it has justification," Blix said.
Blix may have even more to say. He is preparing a book.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan defends Blix and adds: "We haven't heard the last of him."
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jun 13, 2003 23:33:42 GMT -5
Still, how many weeks and how many hundreds of inspectors do you need ? If the US really had clear proof about WMD, then by now they really should have been able to find some, IMO. The US used WMD as the key justification for invading a country, without any kind of international support, either moral or legal, so finding these things is critical. Right now, the rogue state involved in all of this is the US. Maybe now we know why the US didn't want the UN to get more than a few weeks.... maybe they knew that the longer the UN mission was in there, the clearer it would be that there weren't WMD. You still can't answer the why to that question. You say oil. Fine. Why invade a country when you can buy the oil ultra-cheap a la France and Russia (both through the Oil for Food program and under the table)? Why invade and topple a government at an immense cost when you can prop up a failing (your assertion) regime with more oil next door at a fraction of the cost? You imply that they're intellegent enough to come up with this in-depth conspiracy - why aren't they intellegent enough to take the simpler, easier routes? |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jun 14, 2003 10:28:52 GMT -5
You still can't answer the why to that question. You say oil. Fine. Why invade a country when you can buy the oil ultra-cheap a la France and Russia (both through the Oil for Food program and under the table)? Why invade and topple a government at an immense cost when you can prop up a failing (your assertion) regime with more oil next door at a fraction of the cost? You imply that they're intellegent enough to come up with this in-depth conspiracy - why aren't they intellegent enough to take the simpler, easier routes? Good question. Sort of the same one I've been asking all along, isn't it? Why here, why now? |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jun 14, 2003 19:47:28 GMT -5
Good question. Sort of the same one I've been asking all along, isn't it? Why here, why now? -The threat of possible WMD's either being used in agressive warfare in Iraq or being provided to terrorists. -The threat to global security if North Korea and Iraq were to become agressive at the same time. -The threat Saddam Hussien and his heirs post to the people of Iraq. -The willfull and consistent flaunting of the UN's will. Those, to me anyways, are the main "why's" of the war. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jun 15, 2003 1:13:20 GMT -5
-The threat of possible WMD's either being used in agressive warfare in Iraq or being provided to terrorists. That's the supposed reason, and it's losing credibility, fast. Iraq's army fell apart fairly easily, they could have been contained just through air power and little ground troops if there were trouble. Oh please. The US put the guy in power. Do you mean by Iraq or by the US ? Both essentially don't give a damn about the UN. At least Iraq give the UN inspectors permission to enter Iraq - the US isn't even willing to give the same opportunity to the UN now. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jun 15, 2003 1:21:53 GMT -5
Good question. Sort of the same one I've been asking all along, isn't it? Why here, why now? -to control the flow of oil. Controlling the flow of oil worldwide gives the US the power that they didn't like seeing in Saddam's hands. Far more power than you can have by simply buying the oil as it comes out of the tap. -it puts the US smack in the middle of the middle East and allows them to lean on Syria and Iran. -allows the US to pull out of Saoudi Arabia, with the bases in the smaller Gulf countries and in Iraq they'll have enough. -Distracts US public opinion from economic problems at home -ensures oil will not be traded in Euros, but always in US dollars. Plenty more. I have no idea which one is the true one, but I'd guess it's a combination of them all and more, and that Dub himself never had a clear, simple (and real) reason for invading. I think Paul Wolfowitz said it best.... WMD were a useful pretext since everyone could agree on that one. Invading Iraq has long been a neo-conservative objective, and it had passed the stage of being a goal in itself, and had become part of their basic agenda. The decision was taken in Florida when the elections were being recounted over and over, and things went Dub's way. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jun 15, 2003 11:27:20 GMT -5
That's the supposed reason, and it's losing credibility, fast. Why? Because you refuse to give the US inspectors more time? Iraq's army fell apart fairly easily, they could have been contained just through air power and little ground troops if there were trouble. Iraq's armed forces fell apart under direct and overwhelming pressure from the US and the UK (and the Aussies and Poles too I believe). However, since midway through the first term of the Clinton administration, the former policy of being able to fight a two-theatre has been forgotten. A war against NK would probably consume a large quantity of American an allied resources, particularily given that Kim Jong Il is not a potential nuclear threat, but a real one.[/quote] Oh please. The US put the guy in power. And your point is? Do you mean by Iraq or by the US ? Both essentially don't give a drats about the UN. At least Iraq give the UN inspectors permission to enter Iraq - the US isn't even willing to give the same opportunity to the UN now. Iraq has consistantly disobeyed direct UN resolutions calling for the PUBLIC dismantling of it's army. Key word being public and not simply Iraq saying "we've disarmed". Want to tell me the UN resolution that has ordered the US out of Iraq? |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jun 15, 2003 11:39:38 GMT -5
-to control the flow of oil. Controlling the flow of oil worldwide gives the US the power that they didn't like seeing in Saddam's hands. Far more power than you can have by simply buying the oil as it comes out of the tap. There were easier ways. Such a plan doesn't stand up in the face of common sense. -it puts the US smack in the middle of the middle East and allows them to lean on Syria and Iran. You mean Israel and Saudi Arabia are not enough? -allows the US to pull out of Saoudi Arabia, with the bases in the smaller Gulf countries and in Iraq they'll have enough. Why would they (again - it's easier to prop up a country than to conquer them) -Distracts US public opinion from economic problems at home Possibly, but doubtful. Because CNN still hits on the economic woes daily. -ensures oil will not be traded in Euros, but always in US dollars. Again. Common sense. Plenty more. I have no idea which one is the true one, but I'd guess it's a combination of them all and more, and that Dub himself never had a clear, simple (and real) reason for invading. I think Paul Wolfowitz said it best.... WMD were a useful pretext since everyone could agree on that one. He also went on to say that there were numerous other reasons for the invasion - the Ba'ath party connection to terrorism and that the human rights violations. You might have missed and/or forgotten about that part though. The Guardian certainly did. Invading Iraq has long been a neo-conservative objective, and it had passed the stage of being a goal in itself, and had become part of their basic agenda. The decision was taken in Florida when the elections were being recounted over and over, and things went Dub's way. Of course it is. Care to tell me why though? |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Jun 15, 2003 12:17:02 GMT -5
Saddam had to go , there is absolutely no question about that. But whenever I think about this war I wonder about the timing. Why didn't this happen years ago when there were better reasons - when there would not be the scrutiny there is now.
After the chemical weapons attack on the Kurds in 1987, The US Senate passed a bill in record time ( the Anti Genocide act written by Peter Galbraith). This would have enacted strict economic sanctions and cut off oil sales between the two countries. What better time to galvanize public opinion against Saddam?
The bill died because Reagan let it be know that he would use his veto to defeat it. Economics triumphed over human rights.
After the invasion of Kuwait and Desert Storm Bush senior encouraged Iraqis to revolt and overthrow Saddam. People listened and did revolt. However the expected support from the US never came. Iraq was allowed to use Republican Guard forces to crush the rebellion because the US was more concerned about an Iraq without Saddam.
I am angry about the timing. I am angry about the reasons given to the public for this war. I just wish Bush junior would say, just once, that he was doing this to right the wrongs of the last 15 years ( the wrongs of the U.S. AND Iraq).
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jun 15, 2003 12:55:21 GMT -5
Why? Because you refuse to give the US inspectors more time? Well, I'm not launching an invasion over this one, so it's a childish comparison. If the US had enough evidence to invade Iraq claiming they had WMD, over several weeks they should have been able to find something. And keep in mind, even if they find a few barrels of mustard gas, I'll still be against the whole idea of a forced regime change with zero international support. Given how the US has been rattling sabres about Iraq since before the new problems in NK, I'm thinking they either aren't related, or the NK problems have been helped along by a Bush administration looking for a useful distraction. Keep in mind this all started when a US official let it slip that NK probably had nuclear weapons. That Saddam backed a lot of US goals - namely a secular regime that wasn't going to go the fundamentalist way. The US was never authorized to do anything in Iraq. Those no-fly zones they've been enforcing for years were never authorized by the UN either. As to the dismantling of his WMD, Saddam might not have done it publicly, but it sure looks like it got done now, doesn't it ? Maybe no one stopped to think that a regime that simply gives in passively is essentially doomed. There were easier ways. Such a plan doesn't stand up in the face of common sense. I disagree. The value of oil goes far, far beyond the dollar value, being able to control the daily flow of oil, and ensuring that it is kept stable, has enormous value. Israel is a touchy call in the area, and the Saoudis have wanted to get the US out for a while now. For once, the US is being smart and pulling out, since their presence was going to be a catalyst for major problems. I'm speculating as to the economic problems. Just throwing around ideas that I've heard that have some minimum amount of sense. Again, letting the US dollar lose its primary position in world markets isn't just something that can be counted out easily; if the US dollar weren't the key international currency anymore, the US would lose a lot of economic clout. And Iraq wanted to sell oil in Euros. The link to terrorism is weak at best, and the human rights violations are going on the world over, yet it's the country full of oil that gets invaded. That's what I'm trying to figure out myself. Since everything in that area has to do with oil, I'm not going out on a limb saying it's oil-related, but the exact US goal isn't clear. IMO it's a combination of all of the suggested explanations and more. The idea got floated in neo-conservative circles years ago, and it was something everyone could rally around; it might not even have one main reason. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jun 15, 2003 16:05:35 GMT -5
Well, I'm not launching an invasion over this one, so it's a childish comparison. If the US had enough evidence to invade Iraq claiming they had WMD, over several weeks they should have been able to find something. And keep in mind, even if they find a few barrels of mustard gas, I'll still be against the whole idea of a forced regime change with zero international support. Then why has Hans Blix said (quote from Dar Al Hayat: english.daralhayat.com/Spec/14-06-2003/Article-20030613-c2530096-c0a8-01fc-0036-a6d6026ecb69/story.html): "Well, we still do not know, I do not exclude that there could be [weapons of mass destruction in Iraq]. We still have the questions marks from the past that are still unaccounted for. Items, that are still unaccounted for, but as I warned many times, unaccounted for, is not the same thing as saying they are there. I've seen newspapers; someone said that Blix's organization said that unaccounted for, so they are ones who have led to this conclusion. But, I explicitly warned against saying, that it is the same thing as existence." Given how the US has been rattling sabres about Iraq since before the new problems in NK, I'm thinking they either aren't related, or the NK problems have been helped along by a Bush administration looking for a useful distraction. Keep in mind this all started when a US official let it slip that NK probably had nuclear weapons. The US has been rattling sabres with Iraq since the first Gulf War. That hardly means diddly squat. But hey - let's look at some facts. North Korea began it's urainium enrichment program sometime before October (they annouced the existance of said program in October, we assume it existed before then). UN Resolution 1441 was passed in November. That Saddam backed a lot of US goals - namely a secular regime that wasn't going to go the fundamentalist way. Again - your point is? The US was never authorized to do anything in Iraq. Those no-fly zones they've been enforcing for years were never authorized by the UN either. The US wasn't otherized to go into Yugoslavia, but no one bothers mentioning that. The US was not authorized to go into Somalia, but no one mentions that. As to the dismantling of his WMD, Saddam might not have done it publicly, but it sure looks like it got done now, doesn't it ? Maybe no one stopped to think that a regime that simply gives in passively is essentially doomed. UN Resolution 687, adopted by the Security Council on April 3rd 1991 states quite clearly that Iraq must "unconditionally accept the destruction, removal or rendering harmless, under INTERNATIONAL SUPERVISION" of all weapons of mass destruction. Lets assume for a moment that he has destroyed all his WMD's. He's still in direct violation of this resolution. Now note that the subject in question has a history of violence and dishonesty, and tell me why we should believe him. I disagree. The value of oil goes far, far beyond the dollar value, being able to control the daily flow of oil, and ensuring that it is kept stable, has enormous value. Tell me - which is more cost effective? Moving massive amounts of arms and soliders into a theatre, waging a protracted war and then rebuilding the country with the worlds 2nd largest reserves of oil or proping up a pro US government in a country with the worlds largest reserve of oil? As I send. It doesn't stand up to logic. There is a simpler, more cost effective method. Israel is a touchy call in the area, and the Saoudis have wanted to get the US out for a while now. I will give you that Israel is tricky. But they're staunch US allies (because without US suport it is quite likely that their neighbours would eat them alive. The Saudis may want the US out, but again - it is easier to prop up a pro-US government than it is to wage a war and rebuild a country. For once, the US is being smart and pulling out, since their presence was going to be a catalyst for major problems. I tend to agree. But do you believe for a minute that their problems in the region have not increased because of Iraq more than they'll decrease by pulling out of Saudi Arabia? I sure as hell don't. Again - propping up a pro-US government in Saudi Arabia is such a smarter choice. Again, letting the US dollar lose its primary position in world markets isn't just something that can be counted out easily; if the US dollar weren't the key international currency anymore, the US would lose a lot of economic clout. And Iraq wanted to sell oil in Euros. But the UN was not ready to repeal the Food for Oil program - not to mention that again, we're talking cost effective measures and again, Saudi Arabia is the choice to the economist. Easier, cheaper, less public outcry, more oil. That's what I'm trying to figure out myself. Since everything in that area has to do with oil, I'm not going out on a limb saying it's oil-related, but the exact US goal isn't clear. IMO it's a combination of all of the suggested explanations and more. The idea got floated in neo-conservative circles years ago, and it was something everyone could rally around; it might not even have one main reason. And there's the rub. You can't throw out a why behind your conspiracy. It's certainly well developed, and looks even stronger now that the US is having problems finding WMD's (according to the media). But I can't justify it with common sense - which to me would be to take the safer, easier route in Saudi Arabia then fight a war. The best "conspiracy" theory I can find is the one that says the US went to war not because of oil, or human rights violations, or because of WMD's, or because of terrorism, but because it could. Why is that the best one? Because it make sense. Iraq has been beligerent to the US and the UN for the past 15 or so years. It has a history of agression. It's leadership are internationally despised. And yet the continue in power. The US is, in this theory, that setting yourself opposite to the will of the UN in general and the US in particular is a bad idea (note: before you mention it, the US has not move in opposition to the UN as - and I've said this several times - there have been no anti-US resolutions passed by the UN) Anyways... that's just my two cents. I like my conspiracy theories to make sense and the blood for oil one just doesn't as far as I'm concerned. If you're looking for a reason to hate the US, you don't need to look nearly so deep or down such convoluted paths. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jun 16, 2003 9:48:31 GMT -5
Then why has Hans Blix said (quote from Dar Al Hayat: english.daralhayat.com/Spec/14-06-2003/Article-20030613-c2530096-c0a8-01fc-0036-a6d6026ecb69/story.html):
"Well, we still do not know, I do not exclude that there could be [weapons of mass destruction in Iraq]. We still have the questions marks from the past that are still unaccounted for. Items, that are still unaccounted for, but as I warned many times, unaccounted for, is not the same thing as saying they are there. I've seen newspapers; someone said that Blix's organization said that unaccounted for, so they are ones who have led to this conclusion. But, I explicitly warned against saying, that it is the same thing as existence."Not sure why you would include this quote from Blix, as it would seem to undermine your position. He seems to be saying that just because they are unaccounted for doesn’t mean they exist, which you seem to be claiming. The US wasn't otherized to go into Yugoslavia, but no one bothers mentioning that. The US was not authorized to go into Somalia, but no one mentions that.They were. The UN was begging the US to commit ground troops to Yugoslavia for years, and Somalia was a UN mission, with blue berets and everything. Days before the “Black Hawk Down” massacre in Mogadishu a couple dozen Pakistani peacekeepers were massacred in more or less the same area. Its why, in the movie, the Pakistani commanders are reluctant to commit themselves back into the area. UN Resolution 687, adopted by the Security Council on April 3rd 1991 states quite clearly that Iraq must "unconditionally accept the destruction, removal or rendering harmless, under INTERNATIONAL SUPERVISION" of all weapons of mass destruction. Lets assume for a moment that he has destroyed all his WMD's. He's still in direct violation of this resolution.
Now note that the subject in question has a history of violence and dishonesty, and tell me why we should believe him.One could argue the same thing about George Bush. All “evidence” of Hussein’s WMD has been not only discredited, but we now know it had been discredited long before Bush and company used it as proof. The “yellowcake” nuclear weapons purchase, for example, which was known by everyone in the intelligence community to be not only a forgery, but a rather crude one at that. A significant number of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden conspired to commit acts of terrorism together against the US, a myth that is continuously perpetuated by the US. There is no evidence whatsoever to support this claim. PTH is right. If Hussein publicly caved into the UN, he would be signing his own death warrant. But that doesn’t mean he didn’t get rid of them. If they aren’t there, Blix can’t find them, Hussein says he never had them, therefore never has to bow down to the UN, Blix says they are no longer there, everybody wins. Iraq has no WMD, Blix completes his mandate and validates the UN, Saddam looks like he stood up to the world and gets to keep on living. But the US didn’t want Hussein to keep on living (which isn’t a bad idea), and couldn’t live with such a compromise. As we are hearing now, from Wolfowitz and others, the WMD were never an issue, but just something they could rally the public around. Fool them, as it were. “The American public will never go for the idea that we want to execute a regime change (as we campaigned against such policies) so we have to give them a good reason. We’ll say Iraq poses a threat to the world, and more importantly, US national security. That will drum up support.” The US knew all along that WMD was a flimsy excuse, yet they continued to pimp it. Isn’t that dishonest? Tell me - which is more cost effective? Moving massive amounts of arms and soliders into a theatre, waging a protracted war and then rebuilding the country with the worlds 2nd largest reserves of oil or proping up a pro US government in a country with the worlds largest reserve of oil?
As I send. It doesn't stand up to logic. There is a simpler, more cost effective method.So why does the Wolfowitz doctrine call for an increased military presence in Iraq, a presence which “transcends the Hussein regime?” I will give you that Israel is tricky. But they're staunch US allies (because without US suport it is quite likely that their neighbours would eat them alive.
The Saudis may want the US out, but again - it is easier to prop up a pro-US government than it is to wage a war and rebuild a country.Propping up Saudi Arabia was the stated reason for the 9/11 attacks. Given that bin Laden and Saddam Hussein do not get along all that well (despite all these so-called links) occupying Iraq is less likely to lead to further terrorist attacks than the “occupation” (as bin Laden refers to it) of Saudi Arabia. I tend to agree. But do you believe for a minute that their problems in the region have not increased because of Iraq more than they'll decrease by pulling out of Saudi Arabia? I sure as hell don't.That’s sort of what we have been saying all along. It’s the US government that doesn’t seem to believe it. Again - propping up a pro-US government in Saudi Arabia is such a smarter choice.It may be smarter, but it doesn’t mean it will be bloodless. And you are assuming that governments, more specifically, the US government, never makes mistakes. Is it not conceivable they have made an error in judgment? A calculated gamble that occupying Iraq is less of risk than occupying Saudi Arabia? This is, after all, what the Wolfowitz doctrine says. But the UN was not ready to repeal the Food for Oil program - not to mention that again, we're talking cost effective measures and again, Saudi Arabia is the choice to the economist. Easier, cheaper, less public outcry, more oil.Well, no. Again, 9/11 occurred because bin Laden wanted the US out of Saudi Arabia. Close to 3000 Americans died in 9/11, and it cost hundreds of millions of dollars to clean up, and it dealt a severe blow to the economy, perhaps a fatal blow to the airline industry. Less than 200 Americans have died in Iraq, and while the war has cost hundreds of millions in military armaments, that money was already spent before the war. They may indeed have made a cost-effective analysis, and concluded that it was cheaper to occupy Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia. Again, its all outlined in the Wolfowitz doctrine. And there's the rub. You can't throw out a why behind your conspiracy. It's certainly well developed, and looks even stronger now that the US is having problems finding WMD's (according to the media). But I can't justify it with common sense - which to me would be to take the safer, easier route in Saudi Arabia then fight a war. According to the media?? According to reality. And as I said above, its entirely possible the US concluded that it was NOT safer and easier to stay in Saudi Arabia, than to fight a war. Everybody knew that Iraq posed no threat to the region, that they were militarily a bunch of patsies. No air force, no navy, no control over one-third of the country, a conscripted peasant army half the size of the army that got pasted in Gulf War I. Fighting the war was never going to be difficult (see Robin Cooke’s statements), nobody has ever said otherwise. That “cost” was always considered negligible. Fighting the peace is where they may have erred in judgment, and its where we always said they were miscalculating badly. The best "conspiracy" theory I can find is the one that says the US went to war not because of oil, or human rights violations, or because of WMD's, or because of terrorism, but because it could. Why is that the best one? Because it make sense. Iraq has been beligerent to the US and the UN for the past 15 or so years. It has a history of agression. It's leadership are internationally despised. And yet the continue in power. The US is, in this theory, that setting yourself opposite to the will of the UN in general and the US in particular is a bad idea (note: before you mention it, the US has not move in opposition to the UN as - and I've said this several times - there have been no anti-US resolutions passed by the UN)I sincerely hope you don’t believe that theory. And the UN was quite clear in its anti-war stance. Three permanent members of the UN security counsel said they would veto any pro-war resolution, and if there has been no anti-US resolution, its only because the US could veto it. Anyways... that's just my two cents. I like my conspiracy theories to make sense and the blood for oil one just doesn't as far as I'm concerned. If you're looking for a reason to hate the US, you don't need to look nearly so deep or down such convoluted paths.I see we are back to the melodrama. Poor, little US, so picked upon, so hated. Nobody hates the US. Nobody has ever said that, even though you guys insist on pushing it. We never say “big bad US” or “war mongers” or “imperialistic, capitalist pig dogs.” I have friends in the US. My girlfriend is from Texas. I travel extensively throughout the country. I like Americans, and everything they stand up for, and believe in. Heck, if they had of said, right from the beginning, that they were invading Iraq to free the Iraqi people, and said right up front, that they were going to pump $50 billion into the country, and commit a security force that would stay for 30 years, then I would have supported it. But they haven’t. Instead, George Bush and his cohorts (who do NOT represent what America stands for) have lied, mislead, and waffled on every issue. We hear all kinds of reasons for the war, and now we are hearing from Wolfowitz that there was no one reason for the war, and that WMD was just convenient, even if they knew it to be false. They have not given one credible reason for the war, and for that they can’t be trusted. Why here, why now?
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jun 16, 2003 17:03:01 GMT -5
An added tidbit to it all.... Ithink this article represents how the "conspiracy" happened..... it's not cloack and dagger, most large decisions like this don't have one conspirational mind behind it all.... www.abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/World/ntl_wmd_bury_030616.html-------------- Anyone else here ever read the book on Dieppe which essentially explains how the different actors interacting led to a disastrous raid taking place ? No one wanted things to happen the way they did, but once the project was fully underway it was politically impossible not to go ahead with it, even when circumstances weren't in favour of the decided course of action. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 17, 2003 8:03:42 GMT -5
What the hell! Are you guys still having "fun" here? Ever since I got that "Medal from America" that George Bush Jr. pinned on me, I no longer feel the need to tangle with you mutts......  |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jun 17, 2003 13:47:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jun 17, 2003 15:34:16 GMT -5
What the hell! Are you guys still having "fun" here? Ever since I got that "Medal from America" that George Bush Jr. pinned on me, I no longer feel the need to tangle with you mutts...... Better keep that medal somewhere the termites can't get at. |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Jun 17, 2003 17:26:31 GMT -5
Thanks for these links. I found the alertnet.org link the most interesting. He fires back at his critics without mentioning WMD. He talks about threats in 1991( when his father did not not support the rebellion) and 1998 ( I am at a loss on this one). Odd that he did not mention 1987 when the world knew Hussien had chemical weapons and did use them. The Reagan government felt economic issues were more important at the time. I will reiterate what I said in my other post in this thread. Why now when there have been much more justifiable reasons during the last 15 years? |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jun 17, 2003 18:23:26 GMT -5
He fires back at his critics without mentioning WMD. What's to mention? |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jun 19, 2003 21:58:43 GMT -5
For anyone who reads French.... www.lemonde.fr/article/0,5987,3230--324483-,00.html VEry interesting article on commerce with Saddam. It can be interpreted in many ways of course - were Iraq's partners later on protecting Iraq because they had trade relations, or were the US and UK after Iraq because they weren't part of those deals ? Or perhaps these deals weren't a key issue either way... |
|
|
|
Post by brocks on Jul 14, 2003 13:33:48 GMT -5
Did anyone notice how the justification for war changed often? First the reason was because Saddam had ties to Al-Qaeda (false). Next, it was that Iraw had WMD (we are seeing now that this is also false). The last reason was to "free" the Iraqi people from a malicious dictator.
There is NO way that the US would go into another country to liberate its people, unless they have interests in it (OIL!). Also take note that the US military ran to the oil fields and secured them first, while allowing the museums to be looted.
Now that the WMD claim is being proven false, Bush and Co. will have to answer some pretty hard questions about the necessity for war. "Bring on" the interrogation...I can't wait for this government to be exposed as the liars they are to their country and the world community.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 14, 2003 21:18:35 GMT -5
Well, brocks, I supported the war, however, I 've often said I hated the way it came about.
I offered the very argument you're citing now. I just found it convenient that the focus for starting the war seemed to change priorities from time to time.
Like many, I thought this war would was to be fought on the WMD premise. Once the Iraqis conformed to the US demand, another stipulation was added. Once they complied with that, yet another stipulation was added. When they complied with that ... This is the only thing I found wrong with the war.
The platform was always, "disarm, disarm, disarm ..." Well, whether they did or not, the coalition has yet to find any WMD.
Do you remember the footage of coalition troops testing barrels for what they suspected to be a chemical weapons cache? Well, if you watch the footage, you'll notice that these soldiers had on gas masks and chemical agent detectors (CAMS we called them). However, you may have also noticed that they wore little else other than their uniforms. The fact that they weren't dressed in their complete NBC ensamble told me right then and there that this was a farce!
Let me qualify that opinion; prior to my retirement from the Canadian Forces, I was a Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Defence (NBCD) instructor for approximately the last fourteen years of my service. This was a secondary duty that followed me from unit to unit. There's no way in hades me or any of my team would perform a task such as that dressed the way they were. It was all hype.
Anyway, brocks, coming full circle on you, I did support the war if only because the UN had failed miserably in the fourteen or so, resolutions it served Iraq since '91. Add to the fact that one of their security council members, France, had an oil-for-food program conflict of interest with Iraq and you can see where the UN is compromised.
As a personal opinion, I don't think the UN has long to live. There's just too many areas for it to clean up. It won't matter who is Secratary General. He or she will be hand-picked so as not to rock the boat. A puppet by any other name.
That's really more than I wanted to get into, but heck .... Oh, and welcome to the board ol' boy!
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Montrealer on Jul 15, 2003 21:59:37 GMT -5
My first opinion on this war on this board -
1) I think it's a very good thing Saddam is gone.
2) I think the United States is going to end up with roughly three airbases, a naval base, and probably an army post or two reserved for their use. It's too critical a location in their thinking, and they will sugarcoat it with assurances that the bases are Iraqi, and they are not infringing on anyone's soverignty, yadda yadda yadda, but the end result is a perfect location to keep an eye on Iran, Syria, the Kurdish situation, the Gulf States (to keep them in line, essentially), and the Transcaucasus (which is a first for the Americans, traditionally a Russian-British sphere that passed into the Russian sphere exclusively for seventy-odd years).
3) The cost is enormous, but for the current American administration the benefits were just as enormous:
-The heavy projection of power as an example for other "rogue" states to look to
-The establishment of a friendly government with basing rights in the middle of the Middle East
-The suppression of Islamic-fundamentalist-terrorism by enlarging their presence where it begins
-To exert more influence on the Islamic world than was previously possible
-To eventually bring stability and democracy to the Middle East
Now, whether any or all of those goals is realistic is the question. I doubt the last three are going to be effectively gained, but the Administration will be happy with the first two benefits.
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Aug 2, 2003 13:44:36 GMT -5
|
|
