If no WMD found; will Bush be made out to be a liar?

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap
Yes, there are towns, but mostly it is desert, and no, hitting a convoy in the middle of the desert, away from towns, would mean few civilian casualties.

Their policy (for better or worse) was to avoid civilian casualties. Maybe it was the wrong policy (though I'm sure had he started shooting at them, people would criticize him for that)

Bush said the point of this war (or the point he emphazised most before the war) was to protect Americans form Iraqi WMD's, specifically, from them getting into the hands of terrorist.

If the weapons are now in the hands of Syria, while I don't think we're worse off than before, you're right that it's a goal missed.

However, Syria already has some WMDs, and hasn't used them yet (to my knowledge), nor has it handed them to (the many) terrorist groups it supports, which is already a plus.

And no, I don't think it's a lie at all - missing a goal is hardly a lie. If I say I'm going to work hard and get a 90 on the test, and I study hard and end up getting an 85, was I lying?

[Dinner]

BBC reports coalition forces just captured the head of Iraq's NBC program and they have discovered a second suspected Iraqi mobile lab.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by GePap
Meaning (if this were true), Bush did not lie about WMD's, just the ability of this war to protect us from them.

as I asked before, is this somehow a better lie?

Well, yes, if you even consider it a lie. In one case, Bush makes up weapons that don't exist in order to trick the populace into allowing him to invade another country for different reasons. In another case, the weapons were there, and there was a chance that the war might be able to keep them in the country and destroy them, so Bush gambles. A gamble, not a lie. OF COURSE the latter case is preferable.

Originally posted by GePap

They could not check every nook or cranny..but getting hundreds of mustard gas shells, thousand of tons of chemcial agents, 10,000 liters of anthrax, 28,000 liters of boutlism (spll?), 2 dozen SCUD's would surely require much more space than just a few nooks and crannies, would they not? (the afore mentioned stuff is what we said they had before the war)

Well 'nooks and crannies' were just to create an image in your mind, of course that would take alterations far more extensive. But even so, something as simple as welded false walls could be enough to fool inspectors that have been doing the same boring job for years.

Btw, do you have a source of some kind on inspections of Iraqi vessels? I can't imagine they are that intensive, but I could be wrong.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Edan
However, Syria already has some WMDs, and hasn't used them yet (to my knowledge), nor has it handed them to (the many) terrorist groups it supports, which is already a plus.

And no, I don't think it's a lie at all - missing a goal is hardly a lie. If I say I'm going to work hard and get a 90 on the test, and I study hard and end up getting an 85, was I lying?

Iraq had never given WMD's to terrorist either, but I guess those arguments, made before the war, somehow didn;t apply then, but all of a sudden apply now?

And yes, it is a lie: If I say: I will protect you 100% form this threat by this action, take the action, but end up doing nothing to actually make the threat smaller, yes, your claim was a lie. Before the war, as Uh Cem pointed out, the CIA siad there was a possibility of WMD's getting away (Which is not to say I think the pre-war estimates were turthful at all) but the admin. said nonsense. So i would classify it as a lie to the American people, if any of this were true (I think the numebr #1 lie is more likely)

[GePap]

S/RES/665 (1990)
25 August 1990

RESOLUTION 665 (1990)

Adopted by the Security Council at its 2938th meeting on
25 August 1990

The Security Council,

Recalling its resolutions 660 (1990), 661 (1990), 662 (1990) and 664
(1990) and demanding their full and immediate implementation,

Having decided in resolution 661 (1990) to impose economic sanctions
under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

Determined to bring an end to the occupation of Kuwait by Iraq which
imperils the existence of a Member State and to restore the legitimate
authority, and the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of
Kuwait which requires the speedy implementation of the above resolutions,

Deploring the loss of innocent life stemming from the Iraqi invasion of
Kuwait and determined to prevent further such losses,

Gravely alarmed that Iraq continues to refuse to comply with resolutions
660 (1990), 661 (1990), 662 (1990) and 664 (1990) and in particular at the
conduct of the Government of Iraq in using Iraqi flag vessels to export oil,

1. Calls upon those Member States co-operating with the Government of
Kuwait which are deploying maritime forces to the area to use such measures
commensurate to the specific circumstances as may be necessary under the
authority of the Security Council to halt all inward and outward maritime
shipping in order to inspect and verify their cargoes and destinations and t
o
ensure strict implementation of the provisions related to such shipping laid
down in resolution 661 (1990);

2. Invites Member States accordingly to co-operate as may be necessary
to ensure compliance with the provisions of resolution 661 (1990) with maxim
um
use of political and diplomatic measures, in accordance with paragraph 1 abo
ve;

3. Requests all States to provide in accordance with the Charter such
assistance as may be required by the States referred to in paragraph 1 of th
is
resolution;

4. Further requests the States concerned to co-ordinate their actions
in pursuit of the above paragraphs of this resolution using as appropriate
mechanisms of the Military Staff Committee and after consultation with the
Secretary-General to submit reports to the Security Council and its Committe
e
established under resolution 661 (1990) to facilitate the monitoring of the
implementation of this resolution;

5. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Oerdin
BBC reports coalition forces just captured the head of Iraq's NBC program and they have discovered a second suspected Iraqi mobile lab.

Um, she wasn't anywhere near 'head of Iraq's NBC program', she was only involved in biological weapons. Furthermore IIRC she wasn't in charge of bio weapons production, but only the creation of their anthrax stocks.

[Darius871]

So what in the resolution is supposed to give me an impression of how scrutinizing the inpections were? For all we know it could have been Mr. Magoo walking around in there for fifteen minutes, or it could have been 200 experts scouring all the decks for a whole day with state of the art equipment before allowing it to depart. A resolution instituting inspections doesn't say jack about the nature of the inpsections.

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap


Iraq had never given WMD's to terrorist either

But it has used them. Quite a lot. Against civilians. You know, the way terrorists would.

And yes, it is a lie: If I say: I will protect you 100% form this threat by this action,

When did Bush say this?

[GePap]

1. Calls upon those Member States co-operating with the Government of
Kuwait which are deploying maritime forces to the area to use such measures
commensurate to the specific circumstances as may be necessary under the
authority of the Security Council to halt all inward and outward maritime
shipping in order to inspect and verify their cargoes and destinations and to ensure strict implementation of the provisions related to such shipping laid
down in resolution 661 (1990);

In essence, is is saying that the navies that patrolled the Gulf had the ability to do whatever they wanted to a ship to insure that no contraband( as defined earlier) got through. NOw, the US, UK and others were the main players in the blockade. Do you think the US would be lax in searching Iraqi shipping for contraband when they had the legal authorization to stop and search whenever, whatever they wanted?

[Darius871]

Ditto Edan, unless I was mistaken he said that the threat was unacceptable and that we had to stop it, not that it would be stopped no matter what.

Originally posted by GePap
Do you think the US would be lax in searching Iraqi shipping for contraband when they had the legal authorization to stop and search whenever, whatever they wanted?

Yes. They're human beings and would almost certainly get lazy with the searches after doing them time and time again for over a decade to no avail, not to mention they had finite financial resources and probably would have seen excessive inspections as wasteful.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Edan


But it has used them. Quite a lot. Against civilians. You know, the way terrorists would.

A terrorist would not use them againt an enmy army (Iran) or against civilaisn in open revolt (the Kurds), and they would hardly be able to delier them with artillery and aircraft.

Come on, this is subpar.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap

No, the honest answer is that the Iraqi military fully expected to use chemical weapons at some point and they expected retaliation in kind.

And how the hell would we retaliate in kind? chemicals wepaons are banned! The US should have no chem weapons, unless you believe otherwise.. (

GePap, you make a very good point here. If we have never used chemical weapons and if we do not have them because we are abiding by our treaty obligations, then this adds and does not subtracted from the hypothesis that the Iraqi soldiers had the chemical weapons gear because of the potential use of chemical weapons, not by the Americans, but by their own régime.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
If Iraq is in violation of an agreement with the U.N., does that give the U.S. or ANY member state the right(casus belli) to LIBERATE Iraq from it's established government.

This is a very good question and goes to the heart of the matter. Clearly for 1441 stated that Iraq was material violation of its obligations under UN resolutions. The question therefore was what was the appropriate remedy. The UN Security Council divided on that issue. No remedy was available through the UN Security Council. Does this mean that Iraq is free to continue to violate international law? If the question to answer this question is no, then how does one enforce international law when the UN itself is incapable of doing so?

The United States and Britain have adopted the position, first in Kosovo and now with Iraq, that a coalition of nations can legally enforce international law when the UN has been given an opportunity to do so and does not or cannot act.

The French, German's and Russians clearly strongly disagree with this position, particularly because it strips France and Russia of their veto.

No doubt, we haven't heard the end of this debate. However, Kosovo seems to have been a success. Iraq also seems to be a success in progress. But whether this provides a legal basis for the future is questionable for the very reason that France, Germany, Russia and many other countries do not agree with the action of the coalition.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Ned


GePap, you make a very good point here. If we have never used chemical weapons and if we do not have them because we are abiding by our treaty obligations, then this adds and does not subtracted from the hypothesis that the Iraqi soldiers had the chemical weapons gear because of the potential use of chemical weapons, not by the Americans, but by their own régime.

However, as was already mentioned, Americans weren't the ONLY potential enemy Iraq was planning on. Iran and Syria have chemical weapons, and Iraq was probably just being prepared for any contingency when keeping its chem suits.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap

Let me understand you GePap. Is it your position that we should have left Saddam alone to develop weapons of mass destruction, including chemical, biological and nuclear?

One of my points is that we could have left him there and he would not have been a threat to us in the way the admin stated he was.

GePap, I know we've been through this before, but your position seems to reduce the following:

The United States should not be concerned about other nations developing of weapons of mass destruction except to the extent that a particular country involved directly threatens the United States in some fashion. I assume, for example, that you would be in favor of doing something about Fidel Castro basing nuclear weapons in Cuba. But beyond this, you would not support United States action, either alone or in cooperation with others, to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction.