Iraq is a political subject.
Weapons of Mass Destruction and Iraq
-
@Deviant:Scripter:
In my opinion, you guys are simply setting up your excuses for disregarding any finding that Bush makes, whether you see it as legitimate or not.
And the opposite is true - i.e. the Bush admin has been setting up excuses for disregarding international law to invade a sovereign nation in light of not finding WMD.
My proplem is that although i used to think of and trust the US as an ally of countries that seek to do right in the world, it is increasingly more difficult to see the US in this way but rather as a bully who will push around who it might for lunch money while terrorizing others into being its friends (terrorizing might be an inappropriate word, however it fits - those who do not cow-tow get nailed with crippling trade penalties, do not get visits from the president, etc.). -
Let me quote UN Rresolution 1441…
"U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441…
Para. 5…Recognizing the threat Iraq’s noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
Para. 9…Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material…"
The UN majority said Iraq had WMDs…
The UN would not act(recall Chirac’s promise of a “veto to any resolution.” -
what happened to all that documentation that the US confiscated anyway?
-
I think that documentation was proved irrelevant from the beginning, as the Iraq government never even mentioned the biggest concerns we were worried about.
-
@El:
"U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441…
Para. 5…Recognizing the threat Iraq’s noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
…The UN majority said Iraq had WMDs…
Actually, they do not say so. It appears that they do, but they don’t. Let me re-state the first, to make it clearer:
“Recognizing that as well Iraq’s noncompliance as any proliferation of WMDs pose threats”
So, they talk of 2 dangerous things … never expect that diplomats say something that could be used against them ;) -
@Deviant:Scripter:
I think that documentation was proved irrelevant from the beginning, as the Iraq government never even mentioned the biggest concerns we were worried about.
curiously - did anyone other than the US get a chance to see the un-edited version of these documents?
-
Yes, the weapons inspectors, for about 24 hours or so…. AFAIR
-
and other countries too. I don’t recall at this time which ones (i’ll look it up as soon as possible), but the original document was sent to multiple countries, not just the US.
-
Okay CC, I’ve found it.
Here’s direct quotes from a CNN article ( http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/12/07/sproject.irq.inspections/ )
the U.N. Security Council decided Friday to delay distributing the Iraqi documents to its member states until U.N. arms inspectors could review them
From Baghdad, U.N. officials were to bring copies to U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission chief Hans Blix in Cyprus; International Atomic Energy Agency Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei in Vienna; and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan in New York.
-
@F_alk:
@El:
"U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441…
Para. 5…Recognizing the threat Iraq’s noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
…The UN majority said Iraq had WMDs…
Actually, they do not say so. It appears that they do, but they don’t. Let me re-state the first, to make it clearer:
“Recognizing that as well Iraq’s noncompliance as any proliferation of WMDs pose threats”
So, they talk of 2 dangerous things … never expect that diplomats say something that could be used against them ;)F_alk,
Are you saying that because it doesn’t say…
"Para. 5…Recognizing the threat Iraq’s noncompliance with Council resolutions and
IRAQ’S proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
…
They are talking about two different things?Another side of that argument could be that because there is no qualifier in front of “proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles,” then Iraq is still the POSSESSOR here.
…and they are talking about one topic.
-
of course it has still yet to be proven that Iraq IS the possessor of these weapons.
Regardless of whether they are found at this point or not, it would not demonstrate that this was an appropriate invasion and occupation. It would just demonstrate that the US guessed correctly. -
@cystic:
of course it has still yet to be proven that Iraq IS the possessor of these weapons.
Regardless of whether they are found at this point or not, it would not demonstrate that this was an appropriate invasion and occupation. It would just demonstrate that the US guessed correctly.Huh?
Guessed correctly? It’s a little more serious than just throwing darts and hoping you score with one of them. The US doesn’t simply “hope it’s right” while at the same time sending 500,000 troops into war.
What it does is validate our case for war. The UN resolution 1441 authorized us to use whatever means neccessary to ensure that Iraq does not obtain or develop WMD’s. Finding those WMD’s will make the war legitimate in most people’s eyes. The other people who still don’t find it legitimate will never agree that the war was just (regardless of ANY facts that prove to be correct), becuase they either:
A) don’t want to see the US be correct
or
B) have a politically slanted viewpoint that makes any reasonable assessment of the situation out of the question.
CC, what WOULD demonstrate that this was an appropriate war against Saddam?
-
@Deviant:Scripter:
@cystic:
of course it has still yet to be proven that Iraq IS the possessor of these weapons.
Regardless of whether they are found at this point or not, it would not demonstrate that this was an appropriate invasion and occupation. It would just demonstrate that the US guessed correctly.Huh?
Guessed correctly? It’s a little more serious than just throwing darts and hoping you score with one of them. The US doesn’t simply “hope it’s right” while at the same time sending 500,000 troops into war.
Well no. This is assuming that the actual reason that the US went to war was because of violation of res 1441. The fact is, after the US invasion, they did everything they could to divert attention away from the appearance of using 1441. They used the tragic occurrances of 9/11 as an excuse to go to war. They used the removal of an evil tyrant as an excuse. Once the invasion began, res 1441 slid into the background. For me the whole idea is a joke. The US used 1441 as a way to justify to people like you (and the rest of the world) furthering their agenda in the middle east.
What it does is validate our case for war.
no it doesn’t. And now it never will.
The UN resolution 1441 authorized us to use whatever means neccessary to ensure that Iraq does not obtain or develop WMD’s. Finding those WMD’s will make the war legitimate in most people’s eyes. The other people who still don’t find it legitimate will never agree that the war was just (regardless of ANY facts that prove to be correct), becuase they either:
A) don’t want to see the US be correct
or
B) have a politically slanted viewpoint that makes any reasonable assessment of the situation out of the question.
how can you invade someone legitimately in retrospect? A paranoid US could ultimately see French and Canadian opposition to the invasion as anti-Americanism. If they invaded and found documents that suggested that we were going to cut them off from the oil and water we supply to them, then they could turn around and justify their invasion.
I don’t care if the US is correct or not. It makes no difference to me in my little life (and i’m certain that the opposite is true as well - the US cares not if i’m correct). The fact is Cuba is not Castro, but they live with his propaganda. The US is not Bush but they live with his propaganda (i.e. right-wing news organizations). I have few feelings on my desires for the US to be correct or not - aside from the desire to see that they are correct before they invade someone. As for a politically slanted viewpoint making my ability to reason out this situation you need to ask yourself if i’m a reasonable person in general. I think that at one point everyone on this board might have agreed that i wasn’t because of my varying posts/replies. The fact is, i have yet to firmly establish a political view. I never vote the same way in federal politics, i typically do vote Liberal in t provincial politics (pretty much close to the Conservative party in Manitoba, just fewer ties to business, but less wacko then the NDP). But this all has next to nothing to do with my views on Iraq.CC, what WOULD demonstrate that this was an appropriate war against Saddam?
at this point there is nothing. The fact is that the US invaded without enough information, against the will of much of the international community (which, believe it or not, is not just France and Germany).
I suppose that if the CIA was able to demonstrate that they had information a year ago which was unequivocal in its proof that Saddam was going to invade them (or an ally) first, but was slow to release it for some excellent reason then i’d say well, if it was known that they were going to attack first then ok.
Right now there has been no solid evidence of this, and they have not even had a shred of evidence that Saddam possessed any WMD - never mind that they were about to use them. -
So, it sounds like you’re taking the position that it’s alright to allow rogue countries to possess any weapon they choose, as long as they’re not firing them at us, even given the fact that they’ve used them in the past?? :o
-
@Deviant:Scripter:
So, it sounds like you’re taking the position that it’s alright to allow rogue countries to possess any weapon they choose, as long as they’re not firing them at us, even given the fact that they’ve used them in the past?? :o
I do not think you are looking at this problem the right way. the US has possesses WMD Yet it has no legitimate or logically reason to possess and use them (oh yeah you nuked us so therefore I’m going to take this nuclear warhead and blow all your women and children and you to smithereens…). We have no (or I have not heard of any) DIRECT(notice how I worded that) threat from Mr. Hussien that he was going to use them (WMD) on us… Al-queida might have said they were going to use them but not Mr. Hussien himself… as far as you mentioning Rougue states yeah rougue states are not necessarily the ones you would want to have and use WMD but thay use other forms of terror each day that you do not hear about that they use. But even worse do you know that the USG (Goverment) supports them and Quote “normal” Goverments every day… there is a document (I cannot tell the exact place it is at, but I know it is on the state department website buried…) that was released stating the horrible stuff goverments, like the ones in Central America and Mid. east do to there citizens that was terrible but you never hear about those do you. And the Goverment supports it. just something to think about…
-
@Deviant:Scripter:
So, it sounds like you’re taking the position that it’s alright to allow rogue countries to possess any weapon they choose, as long as they’re not firing them at us, even given the fact that they’ve used them in the past?? :o
i didn’t say this at all.
And i have a problem with the US autonomously saying that they “allow” or “disallow” other countries privileges that the US takes for granted.
Also the US evidently does not allow certain “rogue countries” (whatever that means anymore - see Al Queda during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan) these WMD even if they do not have them anymore which Iraq insisted, and the UN had yet to determine. -
@cystic:
@Deviant:Scripter:
So, it sounds like you’re taking the position that it’s alright to allow rogue countries to possess any weapon they choose, as long as they’re not firing them at us, even given the fact that they’ve used them in the past?? :o
i didn’t say this at all.
And i have a problem with the US autonomously saying that they “allow” or “disallow” other countries privileges that the US takes for granted.
Also the US evidently does not allow certain “rogue countries” (whatever that means anymore - see Al Queda during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan) these WMD even if they do not have them anymore which Iraq insisted, and the UN had yet to determine.Sure, you’re absolutely right. They are privelages. Privelages need to be earned. Countries like Iraq and North Korea have already had their opportunity to possess WMD’s legitimately. It didn’t work, therefore they’re going to get them taken away, whether they like it or not. The problem is, you’re still putting your trust more in Saddam Hussein then you are on us and our allies (see your last sentence).
As for you guest, please log-in and I might consider dignifying your answer with a reply.
-
Deviant, where are the checks and balances? You believe in the American Government system, as I do, but possibly the most important part you insist on excluding on the international stage.
Simply enough, we’re going to get into a lot of long term trouble if we go around and “disarm” half the world. Weapons of Mass Destruction are not illegal, although in Iraq they were.
The right to develope weapons is not a privelage, its a right. Its called being a sovereign nation. Just because we have more guns doesn’t mean we should be going around denying countries their rights.
-
Deviant, let me add something,
Right now, Terrorism is not a big deal. Cigarettes, Beer and Drugs each kill many times more people per year than terrorism has killed in modern history. If we continue going around the world creating more terrorism, we might become Israel.
Best thing we can do? Tell Israel “You have one month to stop inciting violence and ignore Hamas, or no more 4 billion dollars in weapons per year”
-
Ugh.
I tried so hard to stay out of this debate, but I have to strenuously object (A Few Good Men Reference) to those comments Yanny.
There’s a difference between choosing to drink, smoke, or do drugs and getting blown up by some nut while you’re sitting at a club, cafe or bus station.
And Israel can’t ignore Hamas etc, because they will stop at only one thing…the destruction of Israel!
And if the fair minded Palestinians aren’t going to do anything about Israel has every right to defend themselves.
Israel or the US DON’T incite or cause more terrorism by their actions. That is a false argument. I think the majority of Palestinians and people from other Middle Eastern countries are fair and good people and would be happy with a 2 state solution, Israel and Palestine, and would like a good relationship with the West.
The problem is the fanatics don’t want that and incite terrorism to deflect the blame. It is much easier to blame the US or Israel then to blame your own country and leaders. We (the US) could do everything they ask for and we would still be a target, and Isreal has gone out of its way to try and do something about it, both in the Clinton years and recently and what do they get for it…more bombs!
The reason they are stepping up the bombing and trying to derail peace talks is because they (Hamas etc.) know that their days are numbered.
There is a good reason why many Palestinians want to go to Israel to work, because they just want to earn a good living for their family and it is clear, in Israel, that they can get along and their is no reason a Palestinian state could be like that but they have to be willing and put the effort into getting rid of the terrorist who only want to destroy Israel.Sorry if I took us off topic (did I???), but it is late and I’m tired.
Oh, I’ll end on this quote I heard, I forget who said it but I like it.
“We haven’t found Saddam yet, does that mean he didn’t exist?”
Suggested Topics
