Attack on Iraq

Presto Mendoza

Originally posted by Meh
If he has nothing to hide, surely he would be more than happy to let them search whatever they want.

If you were walking down the street and somebody tries to
search you do you let them? Do you have anything to hide
or do you just want to be left alone.

Lets say Bertie Ahern strolled up to Bush and said I don't think
you are a stable leader, I think you might blow up Navan, I want to disarm your nukes.
Would Bush allow it?
If he refuses does it mean he wats to blow up Navan?

The US has done enough damage to the middle east with out
killing more people.

Here is a very brief and incomplete history of US intervention in the middle east:

1953: Iran; CIA overthrows legitamately elected Mossadeq installing the Shah (Pahlevi) in his place.

1963: US supports coup by the Ba'ath party of which Saddam Hussein became the leader.

1979: Iranians(mostly students) hold demonstrations opposing the Shah. The US says it still supports him.

check out:
Brzezinski, Power and Principle
for more info on this, its boring as hell but some good info.

1980: Iraq invades Iran and guess who opposes the Security Council's condemnation of the invasion? Yup the USA.

That is enough dates for now.
Also around this time they were selling weapons to Israel
while they were moving into the Lebanon and at the same time vetoed Security Council resolutions condemning the Israeli invasion.
The list goes on and on, the USA has caused havok in the Middle East and shows no sign of stopping any time soon.

Saddam may have "weapons of mass destruction" (although I seriously doubt it), he may be a dangerous leader, but there are more serious threats to the world out there.

Presto Mendoza

How's that for an opinion Gandalf.Hope it meets your approval.

Meh

Originally posted by Presto Mendoza
If you were walking down the street and somebody tries to search you do you let them? Do you have anything to hide
or do you just want to be left alone.

False analogy. A better analogy would be if I was convicted of beating up my neighbour (invading Kuwait) and as part of my probation (ceasefire agreement) I agreed to being searched on the street by the police (United Nations). There's no way you can paint Saddam as an innocent victim in this.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Meh
If Saddam has no WMDs, why would he kick out the UN inspectors?

Read up on the history of the weapons inspectors. Near the end before they were kicked out the weapons inspection teams where infiltrated with US and UK spies who were not doing the job of weapons inspecting but instead spotting bombing targets for the US.

At one point the spies even went as far as to screw up an operation being done by UNSCOM.

Operation Teacup was set up by UNSCOM to intercept banned material coming from Romania to Iraq. They asked the US for help and were turned down. They had to go get help from Israel instead (due to how it was being moved). But the operation was screwed up because the US spies in UNSCOM had already forwarded the operations details to the CIA who then intercepted the transport before the UNSCOM operation could be completed. Then the US takes the credit for doing the work when in fact they weren't playing ball.

None of this information above is new btw, this has been known for years.

You want a reason why he wouldn't allow them in. Prehaps that's another reason.

Presto Mendoza

Meh, I'm not trying to make Saddam look like an innocent victim.
Yes he ignored UN resolutions,yes he invaded Kuwait,but does not allowing inspectors back in mean that he has these weapons as you said in your previous post? I don't think so.

Look at the quotes I posted earlier from Ritter(Weapons Inspector) and the UN humanitarian coordinator, these are the people who know, who have been there and say that Iraq is currently incapable of producing these weapons. Despite this you think that because Hussein won't allow the inspectors back in, he must be building weapons. Hussein is dangerous but he is not Superman, his country's infrastructure is pretty much crippled, his every move is being watched, care to explain how he might have gotten enough equipment to produce these weapons and keep them secret ?

It seems to me that you are jumping to conclusions even in the face of the evidence presented to you, not only by myself but the Bush administration who have yet to produce any concrete evidence of Iraq's supposed amassing of weapons.

Meh

Straight from the horse's mouth

1 Jul 1995 As a result of UNSCOM's investigations and in the light of irrefutable evidence, Iraq admits for the first time the existence of an offensive biological weapons programme but denies weaponization.

Sep 1997 Iraq provides fifth Full, Final and Complete Disclosure for its prohibited biological weapons programme. An international panel of experts is convened in New York to discuss Iraq’s declaration. The panel unanimously finds Iraq’s declaration to be incomplete, inadequate and technically flawed.

17 Sep 1997 While seeking access to a site for inspection declared by Iraq to be "sensitive", UNSCOM inspectors witness and videotape the movement of files, the burning of documents and dumping of ash-filled waste cans into a nearby river.

8 Apr 1998 The report of the biological weapons TEM is transmitted to the Council (S/1998/308). As with the other TEMs, the experts unanimously conclude that Iraq’s declaration on its biological weapons programme is incomplete and inadequate.

14 Jul 1998 As a consequence of the high-level talks between the Deputy Prime Minister and the Executive Chairman in June 1998, a team of UNSCOM international biological experts is assembled in Baghdad to review, for the third time, Iraq’s declaration on its biological weapons programme. The experts conclude that the declaration is not verifiable.

31 Oct 1998 Iraq announces that it will cease all forms of interaction with UNSCOM and its Chairman and to halt all UNSCOM’s activities inside Iraq, including monitoring. The Security Council, in a statement to the press, unanimously condemn Iraq’s decision to cease all cooperation with UNSCOM.

In the light of this report, I don't see how Mr. Ritter or Herr von Sponeck can make the assertion that Iraq has no WMD program.

Presto Mendoza

Meh posted:
In the light of this report, I don't see how Mr. Ritter or Herr von Sponeck can make the assertion that Iraq has no WMD program.

As Hobbes poted below:

Hobbes posted:
Read up on the history of the weapons inspectors. Near the end before they were kicked out the weapons inspection teams where infiltrated with US and UK spies who were not doing the job of weapons inspecting but instead spotting bombing targets for the US.

This is also comfirmed by Mr. Ritter who dares to suggest Iraq has ...

"Now that Bush has specifically authorized American covert-operations forces to remove Hussein, however, the Iraqis will never trust an inspection regime that has already shown itself susceptible to infiltration and manipulation by intelligence services hostile to Iraq, regardless of any assurances the U.N. secretary-general might give."
(Los Angeles Times, 19 June, 2002)

This could be the other reason Hobbes suggests.
I think it sounds perfectly reasonable, more so than
'He must have weapons if he won't let the inspectors in'.

Meh

"Now that Bush has specifically authorized American covert-operations forces to remove Hussein, however, the Iraqis will never trust an inspection regime that has already shown itself susceptible to infiltration and manipulation by intelligence services hostile to Iraq, regardless of any assurances the U.N. secretary-general might give."
(Los Angeles Times, 19 June, 2002)

But Bush didn't authorize any covert assassination of Saddam until more than three years after Saddam kicked out the inspectors. So the Iraqis may be able to use that as an excuse for their reluctance to allow the inspectors back in, but they can't use it as an excuse for expelling them in the first place.

Mr. Ritter has also damaged his credibility with those dodgy assertions about Iraq not having any WMD program -- see the UN's evidence above.

Presto Mendoza

You seem to be missing the point. Not Bush authorizing action but
the topic we were arguing, ie:

"the Iraqis will never trust an inspection regime that has already shown itself susceptible to infiltration and manipulation by intelligence services hostile to Iraq"

That was known long before now (well before the inspectors were kicked out).

Meh

Originally posted by Presto Mendoza
You seem to be missing the point. Not Bush authorizing action but
the topic we were arguing, ie:

"the Iraqis will never trust an inspection regime that has already shown itself susceptible to infiltration and manipulation by intelligence services hostile to Iraq"

That was known long before now (well before the inspectors were kicked out).

So how would you verify that Iraq isn't developing WMDs? Realistically, a team of international experts with UN backing is the only option. The Iraqis have no choice but to accept this. The UNSCOM has been disbanded and replaced by UNMOVIC, to address the Iraqi complaints of spying.

If you're going to argue that Iraq is not developing WMDs, please include a rebuttal of the UNSCOM report linked to above in your reply.

Bateman

The US has made it clear that it favours regime change, and it has also made it clear that Iraqi regime change is an actual policy of the current US regime.

A couple of years back, plan was readied by the CIA (using good old fashioned spying, lacking today) to overthrow Saddam. Many of his guards were involved in this plan, and without wanting to degenerate into whatiffery, it is generally accpeted that this plan could and would have been succesful, had Clinton had the bollocks to sanction it. No formal sanction was issued, and the plans dragged out and was eventually snuffed by Saddam.

The point is, is destroying Saddam using conventional warfare going to stir his people to rally behind him in the common interest of defending the country? Is the US even serving its own avowed policy by "invading" Iraq. Does the US (admittedly a matter of speculation, if they did, we wouldn't know.) have any kind of endgame for the event of Saddam's death, and the collapse of his regime. There is a shortage of fundamental Middle Eastern political knowledge in the US, most apparent in the Bush administration. What happens if Saddam flips the lid atogether and hands over his armies to the Palestinians? Not as unlikely as many people might think. What happens if Iran takes advantage of a political system of 200 groups opposed to each other in the one country, and siezes the opportunity to invade North Iraq? Again, not as unlikely as people may think.

Aside from idle speculation (fun), there is going to be a serious situation if the Americans kill Saddam, and if they succeed, they are quite likely (more under Bush than ever before) to just leg it, and batton down the hatches if it happens.

Zanza

Most of the American people now look at muslim people in hatred now after September 11th..they think that IF muslim people done it, now they think that we [muslim] all hate the USA..

To tell you the truth, few days ago, actually on September 11th, when they showed what really happned in the same day last year, I couldn't take it!! I like American people..most of them are nice. Specailly the people whom died 1 year ago..it was not their fault..why should they die??!

Are you getting what I say??

Yoda

A rather interesting rhetorical article, "We need a war with Iraq", can be found at http://www.contextbooks.com/waroniraq/weneedawar.html

Loomer

How anyone can buy into this nonsense is beyond me. Former UN Inspectors, amongst them Scott Ritter, have said Iraq has no long-range waepons capability and is NOT a threat. There previous inspection mission was scuppered by the american government who were annoyed that there findings failed to give them the ammunition they needed. It amazes me how some sections of the media dance around this very fact. Bush and his "well-oiled" cabinet have ulterior motives with Iraq just like his daddy. There are numerous double standards being overlooked in this whole affair. America is the largest producer of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Bush talks about Saddam going back on his word yet he chooses to trample on a variety of International treaties: environmental, weapons, international war crimes, et al. I am very fearful of another outrageous invasion of a country on thinly veiled evidence so soon after Afghanistan.

Typedef

Actually Loomer you make a very vaild point which I have to say I am enclined to agree with.

What gets my goat about Saddam is that he has used chemical weapons against the Kurds in Norther Iraq and for that I think the guy should be 'dealth with' as people so colourfully put it.

Of course the USA has absolutely no right to appoint itself the vehicle of global justice that is more then hypocritical, it's just in the instance of Saddam Hussein, I don't really care that the US is being cynically persuing it's oil interests, really I realise that it is.

The sanctions against Iraq have to be lifted, the consequences for ordinary people in Iraq are so awful right now that it just has to happen, if US spies posing as weapons inspectors are the price of that capitulation and the averting of war and yet more innocent civilian suffering then so be it.

JustHalf

How are US oil interests served here?

The country will be in so much internal turmoil after Saddam is removed that there will getting oil from it will be extremely difficult (at the moment, it's quite easy for the US).

Shazbat

The US had iraq's card marked after sep 11th last year. It was about a week before Bush started to make noises about blowing up Iraq.

It seems that the decision to attack Iraq was made back then and since then himself and the other chimp Tony Blair have been racking their brains to come up with "valid" reasons to bomb the bejeezus out of Iraq.

The US and UK demanded that UN inspectors be allowed back in to Iraq to avoid war, Iraq says 'Well OK then' and then after being given what they asked for the US/UK turn around and say 'Well actually, we still want to bomb you anyway'

Monkey-man Bush made a big deal about all the UN resolutions Iraq had contravened. Yet he consistently ignores the UN resolutions that Isreal has flouted. Sharon is a pretty big threat to middle eastern stability yet he is given a free hand to do as he pleases.

If the joint US/UK are going to police the world they had better show a bit of consistency or else they will not have a shred of credibility.

Loomer

Amen to that. I'm sick and tired of reading in various editorials, bulletin boards etc. cries of anti-americanism towards European politicians, and anyone who takes issue with American foriegn policy. Duh the reason this people have these "Anti-American Foreign Policy" issues is because Sharon is crushing the Palestinian people, breaching numerous International laws and UN mandates while the US stands idly by for fear of its precious Jewish lobby.

Corko

The sanctions against Iraq have to be lifted, the consequences for ordinary people in Iraq are so awful right now that it just has to happen, if US spies posing as weapons inspectors are the price of that capitulation and the averting of war and yet more innocent civilian suffering then so be it.

He can sell as much oil as he wants for food for his people.

The sanctions against Iraq have to be lifted

Why?

We need "Access All Areas" inspectors to make sure that Saddam is not making chemical or nuclear weapons.

To date - Iraq is not allowing this.

Saddam kicked out the inspectors - He is no angel folks! He cannot be trusted.

bonkey

Originally posted by JustHalf
How are US oil interests served here?

The country will be in so much internal turmoil after Saddam is removed that there will getting oil from it will be extremely difficult (at the moment, it's quite easy for the US).

Not to mention that its almost a given that Saddam will at least attempt to torch his own oilfields rather than let them into US hands.

Oil interests will be served in the mid- to long-term, though, by having a more pro-American government there. Unfortunately, if the US ever allow Iraq something as dangerous as democracy, they may find themselves out in the cold again. Saddam isnt the only reason that the US arent flavour of the month over there.

jc

JustHalf

I certainly wouldn't say medium term. The amount of inter-group strife in Iraq is amazing, making it a formidable challenge to set up any sort of unified country within Iraqs borders.

You'll have to excuse the poor point-making, I'm tired

Oh, but where to begin?
1...Saddam has biological & chemical weapons
Yes he does...why?...because the US gave them to him..
2...He actually used them in the war with Iran
The UN came up with a resolution condemming this BUT both the US & the UK refused to condemn it
3...He has been looking for nuclear weapons
a)...why wouldn't he,many other nations around the world have them...up to now these have acted as deterrants...now more than ever he is under threat from obviously bloodthirsty foes
4)...He has constantly ignored UN resolutions
Isreal have been defying UN resolutions since the 1960s...They have nuclear weapons (& recently have said that if Iraq attacks, in retalliation to the US invasion, they reserve the right to use them) & kill palestinian children on an almost weekly basis
5)...The trade embargos inflicted on Iraq have killed half a million children
What can you really say to that

What we've got here, is a (lets face it) stupid man, ie. George Bush, looking to continue his War...
It began as a war on terror, in response to 9/11...that was justified...fair enough..however, its over now & the economy is still in a bit of a state & we all know that war does great things for an economy...add to that the small matter of 11% of the worlds oil & there's a great reason for a pop
America could not find a link between Iraq & Al Queda
The question must be raised..what comes after iraq?..
The Saudi's must be a bit worried, considering how many of the 9/11 terrorists came from there & the fact that they have more oil than iraq...

THIS IS NO LONGER ABOUT THE WEAPONS INSPECTORS...THE US ACTUALLY MENTIONED BLOCKING THEM GOING IN

Then there's Blair...i suppose George Micheal portrayed it best in that new video....good puppy
He released this dossier, which is basically propaganda..just looking for a reason for a fight...there are UK military bases within range of Iraqi missiles?...shocking...until you consider that they've been within range for the last 11 years & nothing has happened..

As the Arab coalition put it a couple of weeks ago..
An attack on Iraq would open the gates of hell...you'd think that would put the US off...but no, George Dubya is just gonna go right ahead & tear the lid off pandoras box...

9/11 was a terrible tragedy...but will it be remembered for that?, or will it be remembered for unleashing Bush on the world..

bonkey

Originally posted by CQD
5)...The trade embargos inflicted on Iraq have killed half a million children
What can you really say to that

You can say that Saddam has the means to feed those people at his disposal, and opts not to use it in protest against the embargos.

In other words, you can claim the embargo is the reason that the people are dying, or you can say that Saddam's reaction to the embargo is to starve his own people in protest.

It cuts either way. If the UN are right to not cave into pressure, and therefore accept the loss of life as a consequence, then one can equally argue that Saddam is simply taking the same stance - refusing to cave in to pressure, and accepting the loss of life as a result.

Its great fun - you can take either side in an argument and use the exact same logic

What we've got here, is a (lets face it) stupid man, ie. George Bush, looking to continue his War...

This is one of the most perpetuated pieces of fiction I have seen in this discussion.

Dubya cannot go to war without backing from the House of Representatives. He also relies heavily on the rather competent people he placed around himself.

If its nothing but stupid people looking to continue a war, then stop singling out a single individual from the plethora of responsiobles.

If its something else, then stop offering such a simple and obviously incorrect view of the situation.

Alternately, if you believe it really is just one stupid man controlling all of this, or doing his daddy's bidding, then at least try and show how he is controlling all the other factors necessary to impose his will.....and do so without ceding him the intelligence to be able to do this in the first place.

Honestly. I'm as critical of US foreign policy as the next guy, but these anti-Bushisms do nothing to strengthen the case.

jc