How come the US haven't found any nukes in Iraq? (some more scrutiny)

Chandos the Red · Jul 9, 2003

Remove all ads!
Absolutley, Ragusa. I wanted to add that long range policy, to which you are referring, is also an arm of so-called conservative think-tanks (CATO, Heritage Foundation, etc). These guys are connected with the lobbyists who run all over the halls of congress and the basement of the White House influencing policy.

CATO is especially connected with the long term plans of neocons to dismantle the New Deal policies of FDR. Most of the people there have made it their lifetime goal to turn back the clock in America to pre-FDR days. Good call, Ragusa.

[ July 10, 2003, 06:09: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

Iago · Jul 9, 2003

here

Strategic Importance
During World War Two, as now, the Middle East was regarded as being fundamentally unstable but was valued for its oil reserves, which were crucial to the Allied war effort. It was also an essential gateway between North Africa and the East. When Hitler launched Operation Barbarossa against Russia in June 1941, it became an important route for supplies to the Soviet Union.

Its rich oil resources has made the region balloon in importance as the world has become increasingly reliant on oil - but the Middle East remains an area of great conflict to this day.
Click to expand...

So, the oil-fields of Saudi-Arabia and Iraq are the most important sources of oil. Saudi-Arabia is producing, Iraq is since a few years nearly not producing. To get Iraq producing again, it seemingly needs 5-10 years. The question is not, where the Americans get their oil, the question is, where the Chinese, Indians, Europeans, Japanese and Russians get their oil, from Grosny.

Eurpean countries and oil

Oil still is the most important source of energy for the European economies. The dependency reached its peak in 1973, when oil accounted for 67% of energy consumption. By the end of the 1980s, the figure had levelled off to 45%. More than four-fifths of the oil consumed in the Union had to be imported from outside. This portion would rise in the near future when the oil reserves in the North Sea ran out. Roughly, two-thirds of the oil import came from the Oil Producing and Exporting Countries (OPEC). Import dependence for natural gas is over a third. Since the 1980s Russia has been the leading supplier. European coal cannot compete with cheap imported coal. EU imports some 90% of its natural uranium needs.
One of the priority objectives of the EU-energy policy is to "reduce the vulnerability" (dependency of oil states in the Gulf region) and develop alternative supply.
Click to expand...

Prozac · Jul 11, 2003

That is another point the US gvt is only giving lip service to the development of alternative sources, old oilers as they are. And that's the really sick part about it.
We need oil to assure our future independence and everyone who interferes has to face us enforcing our national interest. Fullstop. If you don't want to give us your oil we gonna make you give. Regime change.

The apologists who now, in the face of news, still try to justify the war against iraq go that way, and they go to great lengths:

Thomas Friedman at The New York Times is more moderate than Pipes, but no less adamant a defender of the Iraq War. He, too, argues that the "real reason" for the invasion was America's need to send a message to "the Arab-Muslim world."

"Smashing Saudi Arabia or Syria would have been fine," Friedman writes. "But we hit Saddam for one simple reason: because we could, and because he deserved it and because he was right at the heart of that world."

Of course, Friedman admits that this rationale contradicts the "stated reason" for the attack: "I argued before the war," he says, "that Saddam posed no [immediate] threat to America, and had no links with Al Qaeda, and that we couldn't take the nation to war 'on the wings of a lie.'"

Wings of a lie? With friends like that, who needs political enemies to call for a Congressional investigation?
Click to expand...

(From Tom Paine) Doh.

And even the rights among the rights start to ask who's war this was, people like Pat Buchanan, questionable themselves, are no longer considered fully in line for questioning PNAC:

I was hesitant at first about posting this article by Pat Buchanan, partially because he has been seen by many as an extremist on some issues (...) Furthermore, his article is quite extensive, he backs up his assertions with extensive quotes and references to other sources, and he provides a valuable in-depth, insider viewpoint on the growing rift in the conservative movement. It certainly provides essential background information in understanding the roots and branches of the PNAC.

It's also worth saying that the growing level of disgust among those "in the know" about the rise of the PNAC and neoconservativism in U.S. foreign policy is making it harder to find analyses and commentaries in which the disgust doesn't show through to at least some extent.
Click to expand...

The *rift* mentioned is a degree of dissent between christian right folks like Max Boot and the pro-israeli neocons, also nicked likudniks. Insofar it's perghaps the question about who rules the GOP. Insofar, Pat Buchanan's article is particulary interesting and I strongly recommend to read it, even more as he had one of his better days writing it.

And he asks some interesting questions about the WMDs here.

Ragusa · Jul 11, 2003

Pat Buchanan's article is too good to be left out here:

Iraq, in retrospect, was no threat whatsoever to the United States. We fought an unnecessary war, and now we must rebuild a nation at a rising cost in blood and treasure.

Before the war, many who opposed it argued that no matter the evil character of Saddam, Iraq had not attacked us, did not threaten us, did not want war with us, could not defeat us. Why then were we about to invade Iraq?

Came the administration answer: Saddam has ties to al-Qaeda. He has an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. He is a year or so away from being able to build a nuclear bomb, and he will use these weapons on us or our allies, or give them to terrorists who will use them in the United States. And these weapons will kill not just the 3,000 who perished on Sept. 11, but tens and even hundreds of thousands of innocent Americans. Do you want to risk that? Do you want to do nothing and risk a “mushroom cloud” in an American city? Or do you want to remove this mortal threat now? So went the clinching argument for war.

Opponents answered that the UN inspectors had found nothing, that Saddam had even invited in the CIA to have a look, that surely he could not launch a sneak attack on America or her allies with UN inspectors rummaging around his country. The War Party scoffed. Hans Blix, they said, was an incompetent and an appeaser who would deliberately not find weapons rather than be responsible for causing a war.
Click to expand...

Hard words indeed. In light of the developments after, this is even more an outrageous insult aimed on the personal integrity of this man who did a job well that was unwanted and consequently sabotaged by the US as it weakened their case for a war they wanted anyway.

So President Bush launched America’s first pre-emptive war, and it was a triumph of American arms. But nearly three months have now elapsed, and we have not yet found a single weapon of mass destruction, though we were told, again and again, that Saddam had “30,000 munitions.”

On June 1, the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank revisited the Bush administration’s categorical claims in the run-up to war:

On Aug. 26, 2002, Vice President Cheney told the VFW, “Stated simply, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us.”

On Dec. 2, Ari Fleischer told the White House press corps, “You’ve heard the president say repeatedly that he has chemical and biological weapons.” On Jan. 7, 2003, Fleischer added, “We know for a fact that there are weapons there.”

Also in January, Rumsfeld declared, “There’s no doubt in my mind that they currently have chemical and biological weapons.”

In his Feb. 8 radio address, Bush declared, “We have sources that tell us that Saddam recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons—the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.”

Cheney added in March, “We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.”

On March 17, on the eve of war, President Bush told the nation “Intelligence … leaves no doubt that the Iraqi regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” So persuaded, America united behind the president and went to war.

Something is terribly wrong here. It is impossible to believe the president would deliberately lie to the nation when he knew the full truth would be discovered at war’s end in a few weeks. Either he was misled, or he was deceived, and, so, too, was Secretary of State Colin Powell. Who did it? Who was responsible for the intelligence failure, or the dishonest use of selected intelligence, or the conscious and deliberate deceit of a president and secretary of state?

Where are the weapons? We have searched 300 sites and arms dumps and found not one shell. If Saddam had the weapons, why did he not use them? If he destroyed them before the war, as Rumsfeld now argues, he fulfilled the terms of Resolution 1441 and could have saved himself by showing UN inspectors where and how he did it.

Why would Saddam let himself, his family, and his regime perish protecting weapons he either no longer had or did not intend to use?

Is it possible Iraq never had that vast arsenal of anthrax, VX, sarin, and mustard gas we were led to believe? Did the intelligence agencies fail us, or did someone “cook the books” to meet the recipe for an imperial war? It is time Congress investigated the Office of Special Plans, set up in the Pentagon to sift and interpret all intelligence and placed under neoconservative super-hawk, Paul Wolfowitz.

June 30, 2003 issue
Copyright © 2003 The American Conservative
Click to expand...

After these bits, this war comes at a price to america, it is destabilising, undermining the US reputation and credibility.

Anyone remembers the case of france? France, as result of her dissent to things Bush can't even today proove to his own people, opposed the war. This let loose a campaign against france. Anyone remember freedom fries?
France flew some life-saving 20% of the close air support missions for US soldiers and special forces in the afganistan theatre. But according to geostrategy wizard Richard Perle France is no longer an ally.
Only because the french wanted a *reason* to kill iraqis and to topple the iraqi gvt?

The whole last months before the war on iraq were characterised by a media campaign and a public emotionalism against france.
And that's the part where I really started to feel uneasy. Especially as it displayed what the current gvt is willing to wreck to enforce their foreign policy. This is characterised by two phrases: "Pre-emptive use of force" and "Who's not with us is against us".

Put bluntly, "this war will produce a poison in the United States' closest alliances", the former director of the National Security Agency (NSA) and retired Army general William Odom told the Washington Post, "It comes close to risking exchanging Europe for Iraq."( from here )
Click to expand...

Or in Pat Buchanan's words:

"We charge that they have alienated friends and allies all over the Islamic and Western world through their arrogance, hubris, and bellicosity.

Not in our lifetimes has America been so isolated from old friends. Far worse, President Bush is being lured into a trap baited for him by these neocons that could cost him his office and cause America to forfeit years of peace won for us by the sacrifices of two generations in the Cold War"
Click to expand...

To see how isolated the US is as a result of the wrecker menthality in the neocon circles, just compare the coalition for the war in afganistan with the pathetic coalition of the willing (and those who caved in under US pressure to cut aid).

Yes, they still speak with each other but they always do so - Iraq also wasn't cast out of the UN after invading kuwait - because diplomats, like priests, do speak with every fallen sinner, iraq as well as with US.

[ July 11, 2003, 12:35: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Prozac · Jul 11, 2003

Oh yes, france. There is the legend that france helped Saddam to build nukes, one of the countless variations of that, let's say, stretch for the sake of peace.
After stating a "disturbing increase in criticism" of Bush's (or let's be honest, Wolfowitz/ Perle/ Rice's) fabulous strategy of regime change, he eventually and unavoidably pounces down on France:

But the Blame America critics are more than unfair. They have the wrong guy. I'll tell you who senselessly and irresponsibly promoted Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. It wasn't Ronald Reagan. It wasn't the Soviets. It wasn't even the C.I.A. It was France. (...)
President Jacques Chirac. While serving as Prime Minister during the mid−1970s, he negotiated a deal finalized in 1976 to give Iraq two nuclear plants and enough enriched uranium to make several atomic bombs. Now Chirac may be a lot of things, but he's not stupid*. Saddam Hussein paid lip service to the idea of peaceful nuclear energy, but he made his intentions obvious when he refused to accept a benign atomic fuel called "caramel," opting instead for weapons−grade uranium, and when he bought technology from Italy enabling him to separate plutonium from spent fuel rods — not to mention the uranium he was mysteriously purchasing from Portugal, Italy and Niger.
It didn't appear to bother the French government when Saddam explicitly stated that the nuclear reactor was being constructed to terrorize Israel.
Israel destroyed the Osirak reactor in 1981, but by then, the damage had largely been done. Chirac had arranged for the training of hundreds of Iraqi nuclear scientists (the same scientists that Iraq won't let U.N. arms inspectors interview), as well as an early experience with nuclear technology that gave Iraq's weapons program a running start. (...)
It shouldn't surprise anyone that Saddam's leading advocate turns out to be the biggest contributor to his nuclear ambitions. (...) Chirac is right to question Bush's policy towards Iraq but let's not lose sight of his dark role in today's crisis. (...)
Click to expand...

* And so let's just assume he knew what I KNOW, that Saddam is evil and therefor *had* to build nukes.

Errr ... must be a strong stuff this dude as been on writing this.

Well, as usual I'd like to introduce a dissenting view on the above polemic, just as polemic:

Perle masterminded Israel's bombing of the Iraq nuclear power plant in the early days of the Reagan administration. Perle was then inside the Pentagon, in daily contact with the Israeli government. He seems to have concluded, with his mentor, the late Albert Wohlstetter, that if the new French-built power plant were permitted to open, just outside Baghdad, that it could not be bombed, as radioactivity would be released and Israel would be condemned for the massive loss of life.

So the Israeli Air Force bombed it before the French delivered the fissile material. I was told Perle celebrated at the Pentagon with his staff. Of course, all of the above pressniks hailed the bombing at Osiraq. The excuse was that if Iraq were to open the plant, it would learn how to deal with nuclear stuff and might someday make a nuke, to match Israel's nuke. History reveals that Iraq at the time did not have a nuke weapons program and was (and is) a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, which is why the French were allowed to provide it with fissile material. But after the bombing, for which the Israelis offered "not a brass farthing" for compensation, Saddam embarked on his nuke program.

By the way, the press corps keeps writing that Saddam is still trying to make a nuke. The International Atomic Energy Agency, which regularly inspects Iraq, says he ain't.
Click to expand...

A threat everyone? Well, I fail to see the crucial help France gave to Iraq in building nukes, and other than that their contribution wasn't better or worse than the british, US, german, polish or anyone elses. But tell that a true believer.

The note about Perle's role is quite interesting, as Perle, also serving as a national security advisor to the israeli gvt has always stressed israels role in the region at the side of the US, and always stressed the necessity that they alone own nukes there. And suddenly things fit together again.

Ragusa · Jul 11, 2003

Apropos Perle, where is Richard Perle now?

In reference to this article and the mentioned paper by Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser: " A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Security the Realm" - where he concepted a security policy for ... israel.

As pointed out before the war on Iraq was indeed mainly a THINK-TANK-WAR.

I was bored this afternoon and so I surfed the neocon-bastion AEI, the American Enterprise Institute's web-archive for some older positions of these people on the iraq issue. To give you an overview on my results:
- Why the West Must Strike First against Saddam Hussein, by Richard Perle on Thursday, August 1, 2002
- The United States Must Strike at Saddam Hussein, by Richard Perle on Thursday, August 1, 2002 (Wee! Busy day!)
- The U.S. Must Strike at Saddam Hussein, by Richard Perle on Tuesday, January 1, 2002
- Iraq Needs a Revolution, by David Wurmser on Wednesday, November 12, 1997
-"... and Carthago has to be destroyed", by Cato in classic days

Writing this I just cannot leave out PNAC, the Project for a new american Century. Beeing THE neocon house we'll make rich harvest here on older essays on Iraq which might include ... notable statements.
- The open letter on Iraq to President Clinton from January 26, 1998 - just have a look at the signators.
- In Saddam's Future, A Harder U.S. Line, on June 3, 2000
- How to attack Iraq, from November 16, 1998
- Wolfowitz Statement on U.S. Policy Toward Iraq from September 17, 1998
Regime change, regime change and once again regime change. Quite a comfort to find constants in this ever-changing world.

Another interesting house is JINSA, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. Just hop through thescroll down menue bar and you'll see some interesting names: Like Richard Perle (oh surprise); Michael Ledeen or James Woolesy, ex-director CIA ...
-A hint on how influential these people actually are: They proudly boast their aiding hand with the US "Shock and Awe" strategy.
And of course, they have a longstanding postion on Iraq.
- To Overthrow Saddam from October 2, 1998
- Iraq: Here We Go Again, by Mark H. Kagan on March 6, 1998
- Iraq - Resolution of the Board of Directors of JINSA - Passed Unanimously 23 April 2001
- Iraq - Resolution of the Board of JINSA - March 22, 1998

Now let's continue on our potpourri at the CATO Institute. Disappointment here - they only have critical stuff to show on their Iraq page.

So let's hop over to the Heritage Foundation on our search for samples. Hmm. They don't have that much to offer about iraq, but two remarkable articles on afganistan, with a title pretty ironic for us today: Defusing Terrorism at Ground Zero: Why a New U.S. Policy is Needed for Afghanistan from July 12, 2000.

Neocons, that we can assume, only grow in a certain climate. And they seemingly have a chronical Saddam fixation.

All this is just a product of some two hour of searching. It is meant as a hint on how long these dudes think about this stuff ... at least since 1997 and probably even earlier days. They had war on their minds even before 9/11. And I am pretty convinced they took their chance, serving Bush, as Buchanan suggested, indeed a "pre-cooked" meal the days after 9/11.

Prozac · Jul 11, 2003

Well, the often quoted israel-US connection, especially the way Buchanan presents it, makes one assume that Israel might have captured US foreign policy.
I don't believe that. It's more vice versa. The people in the US gvt, mind the backbone of Bush crew is in service for approx 20 years now, have IMO more captured israeli policy, embracing the israeli extreme right, encouraging their hard path against the arabs.

When people think about israel and it's military successes they may feel tempted to think that Israel does that alone. That is a crucial error. Without US military aid israel would have long succumbed to arab attacks. I remember the pictures of the Lebanon war - the primary israeli vehicles were the M-113 APC, the M-60 tank and the M-109 howitzer. Not quite what I'd call domestic israeli products. The US were well informed and silently agreed on this attack, despite all public statements.
When israel in the past did something the US didn't like they drew the line and withheld spare parts, ammo and weapons. The US influence on them is profound.

So I disagree with Buchanans's statement. The pro-isaraeli americans have taken over politics in israel as well. It is too easy to push away responsibilities for things that went silly to a group of pro-israeli extremists. The rest of GOP did give them a helping hand as long as it paid off, and played with them.
Now that dissent is emotionally safe again they dare to speak out again. Three months ago they had been flamed as traitors on FOX. Ah well, that's politics - no friends and everything's allowed.

That's what expects the neocon crew when things get hot: First they'll try to sacrifice Tenent (yes, crappy intelligence ... ... but how about the pentagon cabal? ) to save their asses and then they rest will pounce upon the neocons until elections get important again and unity in GOP becomes imperative. And who survives stays in the game. Lovely.

Chandos the Red · Jul 12, 2003

It is starting to appear that the adiminstration goons will find a "fall guy" to try and neutralize the critics. Right now the candidate looks like George Tenet of the CIA.

Tenet probably won't be a big sacrifice because he was a holdover from the Clinton days anyway. But if it does not stop there, they could find one higher - maybe Rumsfeld if things get bad.

[ June 11, 2003, 17:33: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]
Click to expand...

http://www.msnbc.com/news/937524.asp?pne=11947&0ct=-300

And one month to the day....
I hate to quote myself, but: Gee, is anyone really suprised?

Ragusa · Jul 14, 2003

After all the US officials only delivering gibberish bull when asked by reporters

"As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know."
Rumsfeld in a press conference in New York February 12, 2002 when faced with pointed press questions about terrorism
Click to expand...

it's almost a joy to read neocons speaking out clear and straight. So does Charles Krauthammer in his article "Why the Left Likes Liberia" in the Washington Post (I found it in today's Wall Street Journal Europe) where he blames the liberals promoting humanitarian interventions, for having a claim on the US conscience:

"What then was the real difference between, say, Haiti and Gulf War I, and between Liberia and Gulf War II? The Persian Gulf has deep strategic significance for the United States; Haiti and Liberia do not. In both Gulf Wars, critical american national interests were beeing defended and advanced
Click to expand...

In Liberia, where only a humanitarian motivation can be a motive for war, he rules it out as not in US national interest ... whereas in Iraq where, as the title "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is meant to suggest ... humanitarian motives drove the US gvt ... ponder about that one
That is, free oil flow is a good reason to go to war, humanitarian motives aren't.
Nevertheless, Krauthammer continues, accusing the liberals of having a position, neglecting US interests, that is, in Krauthammer's opinion:

"a perversity born of moral vanity"
Click to expand...

As he clearly meant that to distance himself and his like from the liberals, that can be interpreted two ways, that the neocons are:</font>

either morally modest or

immorally vane

A pity that both interpretations suggest a low moral standard. Iraqi Freedom, driven by the desire to free the opressed iraqi people - sure.

The neocons, clear and rational - undistracted by emotionalist "humanitarian" bull, only go to war when there's a profit, and to help a country in ruins and suffering is simply not a national American interest, and therefor not worth to risk the lives of US soldiers ...

[ July 15, 2003, 09:58: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Iago · Jul 15, 2003

At Chandos

I have mixed feelings versus the cato-institute. One one hand, they have very good articles, present very good opinions and are quite on my line. On the other hand, nearly half of the articles are just hardcore communism. If they ever will be in charge, say good night market economy.

Llandon · Jul 16, 2003

The crisis du jour in Washington is a revelation that President George W. Bush quoted from a forged letter about Iraq trying to buy uranium from Niger in his State of the Union address. Congress, as usual, is missing the point. Weapons of mass destruction were not the primary reason Bush went to war in Iraq, but he certainly thought they were there. Everyone thought they were there. The really critical issue is where are Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons today? What the CIA did with the Niger letter is of no real importance. What the CIA knows and doesn't know about the current war in Iraq and whether guerrillas control chemical or biological weapons is the critical issue that everyone is avoiding.

Iago · Jul 16, 2003

Newest intilligence reports incicate that the WMDs in question are lying save on a Swiss bank account. Rumours say, the interest rates are quite good for WMDs nowadays.

The rather interesting point for me right now is when the US goverment is coming clean with the troops stationed in Iraq right now about how long they have to stay there, until new occupation-forces will be sent to take over from them. Seems they're getting homesick and can't wait for enforcements to replace them.

Sir Belisarius · Jul 16, 2003

I'm just amazed that we invaded Iraq based on sketchy WMD intelligence, and North Korea is TELLING us they have them, they're going to build more, AND they are goin export the technology!!!!

Yet we do nothing...

America has lost its way. Our goverment is run by special interest groups...Bush must go! I'm running in 2004!

Ragusa · Jul 16, 2003

Llandon,

What the CIA knows and doesn't know about the current war in Iraq and whether guerrillas control chemical or biological weapons is the critical issue that everyone is avoiding.
Click to expand...

Given guerrillas or terrorists (and I don't believe in that) do have bio- and chemical weapons from Saddam's stock - wouldn't iraq still be a safer place with Saddam still in poewer, fully controlling them? Dictators don't give away control for their silver bullets. Just a point.

As for

The really critical issue is where are Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons today?
Click to expand...

Well, when you cannot find something, then that can well be because is not there. Where is the nuke in your home, Llandon? When I don't find it searching your home that certainly means you must have hid it well The easy solution

Keeping in mind the *weak* evidence, the contrary reports by the weapons inspectors, reports of leading ex-weapons-inspectors later, there is the distinct possibility there haven't been any left in 2003. Or in Scott Ritter's words: 'Even if Iraq managed to hide these weapons, what they are now hiding is harmless goo'

That could be a very plausible explanation for why none have been found till now: Because they have been destroyed. And to accept that, just for the sake of argument, may allow you to question the official statements on iraq soberly.
Just scan this thread and you'll find links on that plentiful, and they are worth a read.
I mean, you can still try to hold up the illusion that in washington everything's in apple pie order, even when lie after lie is uncovered - all by evil people with no other interest but bashing poor Bush. Well, for apple pie order there are too many open questions and, unfortunately, no satisfying answers.

Chandos the Red · Jul 17, 2003

Yago -- That seems an odd take on CATO's position, because they are dedicated to what they believe is a free market agenda. Check this link:

http://www.cato.org/about/about.html

Most libertarians don't think of themselves as communists at all. Nor are they conservatives in the real sense of the word. I know enough about them to know that they are opposed to FDR's version of social security and what is termed "government entitlement programs."

Of course, this would include government supported healthcare as well. I favor not only fully-funding these programs, but expanding them as well. If we can spend 4 billion dollars a month in Iraq, I'm sure we can provide some health care for the elderly who are being ravished by the healthcare industry, including the big drug companies.

http://www.cato.org/healthcare/index.html

Prozac · Jul 17, 2003

Llandon,
it might be interesting to read this, obviously by renegade outcast ex-intelligence officers who are pissed about beeing out of the game

Actually I can only wonder about the apologists. First they state that the war was never about WMDs (sic!) - facing arguments that it also cannot have been about:</font>

WMDs haven't been a reason, only to sum it up, so we do not need to painstakingly talk about the "imminent threat" by iraq that forced the US to pre-emptively attack
And fortunately we do not need to speculate on wether Saddam had any left or not (good link on that above)

freeing the opressed iraqis - have a look at Krauthammer above, humanitarian motivations are alien to the neocons

al-quaida + terror - no one seriously believes in that and you even ruled that one out on page 1 of this threat yourself

defiance of the cease-fire after Gulf War I - that was between UN and Iraq. Though the US negotiated the cease-fire they just didn't had the legal competence to take things in their own hands. You cannot sue your neighbour when he doesn't pay his bill at K-Mart. And no, the UN did not legitimise the US attack before and after Bush landed on that carrier to end this war ... err ...

Regime Change - that's another goody. All countries are sovereign and legally equal; the US as well as Iraq. Yes, even as "rogue state" Iraq. That means the US have no right to exchange gvts they don't like. Even when they are led by little or big Saddams.
And that means that Saddam also has no right to exchange Bush for Gore, even if he maybe likes Gore more or thinks he may be the legitimate president. Legitimacy has nothing to do with if Saddam may have deserved to be toppled. It's about the US, or the Bush administration, having the right to do so - and they don't.

scaring the **** out of the arab in general by making an example by wiping out someone who didn't have anything to do with 9/11 is just insane.

And that some arbitrary other reason will sure have been good enough is no argument ...

So what's left? Are there any reason except neocon geostrategical hybris - free oilflow, strategic basing (despite the US troops being moved from Saudi-Arabia to Qatar, the additional troops relocated from germany result in more US troops permanently in the region than ever before) in the middle east, bullying syria and iran - left out?

Well, Wolfowitz said, when asked "Why iraq?" "Because it was doable." and he referred to his neocon gut-feeling. Well, if that isn't a splendid reason to go out, bomb a smaller country and to kill people (even relevant people: that's americans) ...

So if you have a good reason on why the US needed to attackl Iraq I'd be curious to see it, and perhaps to add a point g) to my little list.

[ July 17, 2003, 12:13: Message edited by: Prozac ]

Sojourner · Jul 17, 2003

Well, Bush has provided yet another reason for the war:

From Guardian Unlimited:

Pressed during an Oval Office press conference on the now infamous assertion that Iraq had sought to buy uranium ore in Africa, he said: "The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons programme? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in.

"And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region."

The comment, made on Monday, received little coverage in the US media. Although it did raise some eyebrows at the Washington Post, which, in understated style noted: "The president's assertion that the war began because Iraq did not admit inspectors appeared to contradict the events leading up to the war this spring."

Here's the relevent Washington Post Article:

President Defends Allegation On Iraq

Ragusa · Jul 17, 2003

That's the old "regime-change" because of "WMD-program" tune.

The funny thing is that Bush, when mentioning Saddam's WMDs, is always speaking in the past. Did Saddam have a weapons program? Sure he had! Before 1990, there is no doubt about that.
So to speak, when Bush sais Saddam had a weapon program that is certainly true - that was the case in Gulf War I when Saddam was deterred to use them. So, technically speaking, Bush isn't even telling a lie when saying so.

But these weapons were dismantled, the factories destroyed. Yes, he may have hidden some, and they are useless now. So what now?

In all his confuse babbling Bush never answers the really interesting question: *When* did Saddam have a weapons program? And the decisive time for the *when* is the time, let's say from the last 6 months until right before the US attacked.
Did Saddam have a weapon program on march 19, the day the war started? Was there an imminent threat to the US? Was he a danger to the region? Was there a point in pre-emptively attacking him?

Evidence and inspector reports hint on a clear "no longer". And the question about the *when* is the question Bush does not answer, not for the relevant timeframe.
And the 'darn good' evidence his crew brought up can't help improving his credibility in the only relevant point of the WMD discussion.

Prozac · Jul 17, 2003

Ah yes, I found another apologist excuse for why there is no need for finding WMDs, because ...

Saddam would have developed WMDs hadn't he been contained in Iraq, under the embargo. Well, that's probably correct, but the point is that he *was* contained and embargoed - and so he may be really evil, but he sure was no threat, much less considering the utter destruction the inspectors did to his program.

You don't start a war based on "IMO he deserved it, ass that he is!" And I'll add the next lame excuse as soon as I find it.

Blackthorne TA · Jul 18, 2003

Ah. So in your opinion it would have been better to continue sanctions on Iraq indefinitely. Twelve years of hardship and death for the regular Iraqi people due to the UN imposed sanctions wasn't enough? In my opinion it was enough; the only thing keeping those sanctions going was the refusal of Saddam and his regime from complying with UN demands.

Log in or Sign up

How come the US haven't found any nukes in Iraq? (some more scrutiny)

Chandos the Red This Wheel's on Fire

Iago Gems: 24/31
Latest gem: Water Opal

Prozac Gems: 4/31
Latest gem: Sunstone

Ragusa Eternal Halfling Paladin Veteran

Prozac Gems: 4/31
Latest gem: Sunstone

Ragusa Eternal Halfling Paladin Veteran

Prozac Gems: 4/31
Latest gem: Sunstone

Chandos the Red This Wheel's on Fire

Ragusa Eternal Halfling Paladin Veteran

Iago Gems: 24/31
Latest gem: Water Opal

Llandon Gems: 13/31
Latest gem: Ziose

Veteran

Iago Gems: 24/31
Latest gem: Water Opal

Sir Belisarius Viconia's Boy Toy Distinguished Member ★ SPS Account Holder

Ragusa Eternal Halfling Paladin Veteran

Chandos the Red This Wheel's on Fire

Prozac Gems: 4/31
Latest gem: Sunstone

Sojourner Gems: 8/31
Latest gem: Skydrop

Ragusa Eternal Halfling Paladin Veteran

Prozac Gems: 4/31
Latest gem: Sunstone

Log in or Sign up

How come the US haven't found any nukes in Iraq? (some more scrutiny)

Chandos the Red This Wheel's on Fire

Iago Gems: 24/31Latest gem: Water Opal

Prozac Gems: 4/31Latest gem: Sunstone

Ragusa Eternal Halfling Paladin Veteran

Prozac Gems: 4/31Latest gem: Sunstone

Ragusa Eternal Halfling Paladin Veteran

Prozac Gems: 4/31Latest gem: Sunstone

Chandos the Red This Wheel's on Fire

Ragusa Eternal Halfling Paladin Veteran

Iago Gems: 24/31Latest gem: Water Opal

Llandon Gems: 13/31Latest gem: Ziose Veteran

Iago Gems: 24/31Latest gem: Water Opal

Sir Belisarius Viconia's Boy Toy Distinguished Member ★ SPS Account Holder

Ragusa Eternal Halfling Paladin Veteran

Chandos the Red This Wheel's on Fire

Prozac Gems: 4/31Latest gem: Sunstone

Sojourner Gems: 8/31Latest gem: Skydrop

Ragusa Eternal Halfling Paladin Veteran

Prozac Gems: 4/31Latest gem: Sunstone

Iago Gems: 24/31
Latest gem: Water Opal

Prozac Gems: 4/31
Latest gem: Sunstone

Prozac Gems: 4/31
Latest gem: Sunstone

Prozac Gems: 4/31
Latest gem: Sunstone

Iago Gems: 24/31
Latest gem: Water Opal

Llandon Gems: 13/31
Latest gem: Ziose

Veteran

Iago Gems: 24/31
Latest gem: Water Opal

Prozac Gems: 4/31
Latest gem: Sunstone

Sojourner Gems: 8/31
Latest gem: Skydrop

Prozac Gems: 4/31
Latest gem: Sunstone