6 months and NO Weapons of Mass Destruction

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Isn't everybody expecting that?

I must admit I did expect the WMD to be showed right after the US took over. I was surprised the evil wommdies weren't displayed during the triumph.
However, it allowed the Bushies to have more than a year to discover said wommdies. The only critical timing to speak about these discoveries is next year's election, so they'd sure better wait for it. Besides, it leaves them enough time to polish their spin.

I still believe the Bushies will show the remaining traces of Saddam's WMD program, and that they'll spin their way to make them look like a HORRIBLEHORRIBLEOMGOMG menace for the US and the whole world. Thank you Bush for saving the world once again

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I must admit I did expect the WMD to be showed right after the US took over. I was surprised the evil wommdies weren't displayed during the triumph.

That was my first thought. "I told you so" kind of thing.

After a few months, though, one would start to think that either there really isn't any BCN weapons in Iraq, or the Bushies are saving whatever they could find for the greatest impact.

[GePap]

The fact is that if weapons were "found" close to election time, the cynicism would be such that it would not6 be a boon to Bush but probably lead to some scandal or another.

As for the justification for the war: I keep hearing from some , even Plato, that fine, the justification given oin public was incomplete or phoney, depending of their backing of Bush, but the war was still right. What I think this missesw is that the same mindset in this admin. that made people think they needed a phon4ey excuse to go into war ASAP has lead to the questionable followthrought. The sins at the birth of this operation have and will have consequences thorught the whole aftermath: that Bush faked the rationale is not just past history: it affects things daily: if someone in the mid-east, not some sympathetic US adinece looks and asks : "The US said it was about WMD's, but none was found..so why?", do you guys think they will come up with an answer favorable to the invasion?
My ENTIRE anti-war arguement months ago was based on this very notion: a war beguin on a lie, even if well intentioned, will NOT go particualrly smoothly afterwards: we are payting for the admins reluctance on truthtelling.

As for the UN, Sandman is correct, there is nothing Iraq could have done, short of allowing an inspector into every inch of Iraq, maybe even Saddams rectum itself, that would have satisfied US demands against HIM. Remember folks that in 1998, the US made it its policy to dethrone Saddam.

[PLATO]

Certainly this has caused problems. It will almost assuredly effect the way the US is perceived in the region. It has strained relations with long term allies. The real question is...why?? I would wager that as bellicose as Saddam was that we could eventually have had unity on an invasion. Why, if there was no imminent threat, did we have to go right then? I can't help but imagine that there was some type of compelling reason. It may be for history to show us, or it may simply be a gross miscalculation by the administration. Eithier way, damage has been done to some long term important relationships and have left us holding the bill in Iraq.

Fortunately, if we are ultimately sucessful in changing the face of the ME, the world will look more kindly on the rush to war. There can be no doubt, after seeing the atrocities and corruption, that a regime change was needed. Saddam was brutal, corrupt, and criminal...he had no business at the helm of a country.

Finally, 1441 did call for serious consequences. It is historically left up to the members to interpret the final meaning of this in lieu of a more definitive resolution. The invasion was legal. Additionally, the UN had endorsed the terms of the 1991 cease fire. Saddam was clearly in violation of the cease fire as well. Under international law a resumption of hostilities was justified.

This thread was not created by me to call into question the legitimacy of the invasion. It was created to say that the justification of an iminent threat of WMD from Iraq was bull$hit...and it was.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Then what is the reason according to you?

Well Plato covered it pretty good. Remember, these are Neo-conservatives. The oil doesn't mean much to them. They are much more interested in the influence a democratic Iraq can wield on Mid-East politics. It's basically a long term goal to attempt to make the Mid-East a bit more friendly (even though in the short term the ME would be less friendly).

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by PLATO
Why, if there was no imminent threat, did we have to go right then? I can't help but imagine that there was some type of compelling reason.

That bizarre faith into a hopelessly corrupt and incompetent government is simply stunning.

They wanted that war, they had everything in place for that war, and their contempt for everyone and everything else meant "us? wait? no way!", and there we go.

As for the invasion being legal - no, no, and another no. No matter how people twist 1441 or the rest of international law, no. I'm getting seriously tired of this.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Then what is the reason according to you?

Well Plato covered it pretty good. Remember, these are Neo-conservatives. The oil doesn't mean much to them. They are much more interested in the influence a democratic Iraq can wield on Mid-East politics. It's basically a long term goal to attempt to make the Mid-East a bit more friendly (even though in the short term the ME would be less friendly).

Well it's a mix of motives. Iraq's oil plays a minor role; that Iraq is right in the middle of 2/3 of the world's oil supplies plays a much bigger role. For those who find the goal of a "democratic Iraq" puzzling and implausible, don't forget that the neocons live in their own world where democracy means kleptocracy and a "democratic" Iraq will kiss the Likud's ass, invite the US to have bases, sell out everything on the cheap to US corporations and be a nice poodle just like Blair.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Iraq's oil plays a minor role; that Iraq is right in the middle of 2/3 of the world's oil supplies plays a much bigger role.

Well, true. If the ME did not have an oil, no one would really be giving any damn about the region, so oil always has a minor role to play in anything dealing with the region.

[HershOstropoler]

I wouldn't call that a minor role. There's the oilman approach (we want a puppet regime in the middle of all that oil), and the necocon approach (we want a puppet re ... I mean, a friendly democracy, in the middle of all that terrorism swamp). Both converged on invading Iraq, but are totally clueless on the next stage.

Before the war I said that the strategy for post-war Iraq is "we'll hold hands with jubilating Iraqis and pump happily ever after" - that was a joke, I thought we'll see a quick track puppet regime. Now it turns out that was a perfect description...

[PLATO]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
That bizarre faith into a hopelessly corrupt and incompetent government is simply stunning.

Perhaps you should read the rest of the sentence before being so stunned. Selective quotation is a bad bad thing.

As for the invasion being legal - no, no, and another no. No matter how people twist 1441 or the rest of international law, no. I'm getting seriously tired of this.

No nation has even stated this. Several have said that we did the wrong thing, but no one has challenged the legality of it. The attack fits every legal test it is put up against. Violation of cease fire...enforcement of 1441...Iraqi attacks against UN forces patrolling no-fly zone...etc... Really, the statement that it was illegal is extremely boring

To debate if the justification was correct is one thing...to debate legality is just blowing hot air.

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I must admit I did expect the WMD to be showed right after the US took over. I was surprised the evil wommdies weren't displayed during the triumph.

Me too, but looking back at it Bush Sr was riding high after the Persian Gulf war and everyone approved of him pretty much only to see that bonus evaporate by the election so if you had a way to "bank" the bonus until the election so it wouldn't evaporate as quickly it sort of makes sense.

In an exclusively American political way.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Well, we had strong evidence showing Saddam was trying to acquire WMDs.

I have problem with the word strong. The Administration lied to you, and everyone else. Any intelligence, no matter how specious, was vetted to the White House if it indicated that Iraq might be up to something, on Admiistration orders. Never mind the reports the CIA was producing saying that there is no credible evidence either way.





Ahem, memememmememe.

I TOLD YOU SO!!!!!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MrFun
Didn't Saddam Insane use chemical weapons on the Kurds in the early 1990s??

No.

Hadn't we stopped supporting him by that time??

Yes.

You call yourself a history major and can't even remember what did or didn't happen in your own lifetime. Iraq stopped using chem weapons in 1989, when the 1st Gulf War (Iran-Iraq) ended. Iraq did not use them in the 2nd Gulf War (UN - Iraq) or at any point since then.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by PLATO

No nation has even stated this. Several have said that we did the wrong thing, but no one has challenged the legality of it.

Malaysia, Syria, several other arab countries. Europe has been more diplomatic; Villepin has said that in the process, France has defended the principles of international law. Discount diplo-speak, you can add: against the US.

I could go searching for more explicit comdemnations, but I can't be arsed. Nor can I be arsed to explain the relevance of various state positions in international law. The rest of your point is crap. But as i said, I'm tired of arguing of this issue with people who do not have the slightest idea of law, not to mention international law.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler


Malaysia, Syria, several other arab countries. Europe has been more diplomatic; Villepin has said that in the process, France has defended the principles of international law. Discount diplo-speak, you can add: against the US.

Oh I see...You are talking about political speak. Now I understand your confusion. No nation has filed any formal grievence of any kind. Bellicose speech making simply doesn't count. As far as international law is concerned, it is actually pretty clear. If you have the knowledge of it that you claim then I am stunned that you have a question about legality.