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

Remove all ads!

BTA - If that had been the stated reason for the war, then fine. The debate could have been on the argument that you are suggesting. The problem is that the White House and the Pentagon did not really care about the suffering of the Iraqi people; they cared about the strategic situation of Iraq and American interests in the region.

Your argument is a much better one than the Bush people chose, and has a degree of truth to it. Too bad that Bush and his underlings didn't find it as advantageous and instead had to deceive Americans and our allies (those who bought it)to get their way.

 

BTA,
you're aware that everyopne in the security council except the US and UK wanted to lift the sanctions because of the hardship and death of the iraqi people?
The US and the UK were insisting on keeping up the sanctions. So, Iraq could do whatever he wanted, they had no chance on seeing the sanctions lifted. A good deal of lack of iraqi cooperation is thanks to the iraqi perception, that whatever they do the sanctions would keep in place.

When blaming Saddam for the suffering in Iraq the UK and the US are doing double-talk. It was them who prevented the humanitarian situation in Iraq to even become an issue in the security council. When now the US gvt discovers its soft side (just have a look at Krauthammer on how soft hearted the neocons are) and wants to help the iraqis after all this hardship that's just hypochritical.

There was an alternative to invading iraq: To give Saddam an option like coupling cooperation with reward - you give us WMDs and we give you something instead. That never happened. Iraq never really had an option that promised advantage. Their cooperation pretty much stopped when they recognised that even the oil for food program wouldn't improve their situation.
Why? The oil for food program excluded food and medical supplies. That looks swell - on paper. From the other stuff - the US and UK would veto about 90% for arbitrary reasons. The UN sanctions comitee on iraq, dealing with the vetos on oil for food goods, was US/ UK manned and beyond security council control even, guess where they asked for guidance.

What other stuff? Well, not exactly medical stuff and food, but dual-use products. Some examples: The US vetoed iraqi import of pencils because Iraq could use the graphite to build a reactor casing ... well, Saddam didn't even have reactor fuel, but aside from that analphabetisation rate rocketed as the pencils lacked in schools.
Chlorine was vetoed - chlorine was a chemical weapon in WW-I, remember? Well, laughable by today's standards as a normal gas mask would protect you but still - veto - and Iraq wasn't able to sterilise water, as a result of that some 500.000 children died. That was well known and Albright said that's a price the US are willing to pay.
Iraq was also forced to pay for all imports inadvance, hard considering their lack of cash, what left them in a helpless positions when they were betrayed and products were not delivered - or vetoed.
The US obstructed relief for the iraqis while at the same time blaming Saddam to be responsible for it. Hey, all Saddam's fault. There are records on this, just look here (yet it just scratches the surface), and here and here and here - somehow in contrast to the official US position in the link above. You might notice that oil for food was planned as a temporary measure. Well, it became near permanent because US and UK blocked dealing with this in the security council.
There were no checks on the effect of oil for food and when UN official in Iraq dared to make situations report the US and UK were outraged that, leading to the resignation of two UN representatives in protest.

The cynical part was that the US never made their blocking the issue, always claiming: We even gave Saddam the chance to buy food for oil and look - the situation doesn't improve! How evil must he be to make his people suffer! Again, cynical double talk - and that under Clinton's liberal presidency.

BTA, just a thought, what would you do when faced with a loose-loose situation. Coopperate?

Of course the US didn't do it for the pleasure of seeing iraq suffer; they have solid reasons to kill people in other countries and that didn't change with Bush Jr.
The US dilemma was that: They demonised Saddam so much that they would loose face when making a deal with him. So, they had to contain him, in the hope his regime was to collapse under the pressure sooner or later. But that wasn't quick enough for the hawks.
Ever wondered why the neocons so massively insisted on a regime change? Exactly for this reason. Iraq, with another leader, would again be house-clean, and that would allow iraqi oil to access to the market. And now that would be handy.

The pre-Gulf War II demands were designed not to be met, designed to have a reason for war. Where are your WMDs Saddam? Well, your fault if you have none to show up with because then you can't proove you've been a good boy so we assume you've been bad and we will attack you anyway* - and when you can we'll say you have violated the sanctions we'll attack you too ... the whole affair was just a cynical gambling at the expense of the iraqi people and US reputation.

At the price that US have lost very much credibility and face thanks to Bush Jr. & Goons Inc. heavy-handedness. Nice sideeffect is that they in future will have an even harder time to sell the next pre-emptive war, not that it could stop them.

* Just look at the US resistance against Blix and his inspectors - they attacked him massively and personal because his unwanted not-finding of WMDs undermined their case for war.

[ July 18, 2003, 09:02: Message edited by: Prozac ]

 

Well, not much left to say. Yes, your approach is pretty straight BTA, but ignores the bitter reality of the US stance towards iraq.

The US obstructed aid for iraq, while cynically blaming Saddam for the misery the sanctions brought ovber iraq. The US didn't give Saddam a real choice, they only held up and increased the pressure.

And UN imposed is not quite right. Nominally yes. Practically no. The US and UK have in this case indeed instrumentalised the UN, what Priozac sais about the UK/ US commision on the sanction in iraq is true: Once the sanctions were in place the UN didn't have any more influence in lifting them actually due to US and UK veto rights.

 

The US and UK policy were both caught in a stalemate. First they wanted the free oilflow from Iraq, btu they couldn't allow that because they have told everyone how evil Saddam was. Beeing weak on Saddam, considering how evil he was, was out of question - and that was the reason why they didn't lift the sanctions. So Iraq had to be contained until someone had a better idea.
But attacking them was the wrong one, bringing Bush and Saddam on the same legal level - that of military agressors. That much for moral superiority.

I may have not made that explicitly clear: An alternative policy with Iraq would have been to offer them real advantages for real cooperation. This would neccessarily have included inspectors in iraq and then, later demands for democratisation and pressure again, coupled with a reward. The democratisation part has worked in east europe splendidly.

It should be remembered that the US bombed Saddam from one of the industrially most developed country in the region back to the state of Palestine. Saddam's factories, powerplants and infrastructure are not rubble because he destroyed them, wink, wink ... It might have taken longer but it might have cost much less lives, and less money considering the need for reconstruction.

But like Carrie Fisher said: "Instant gratification would be great, except it takes too long" - and slow, peaceful solutions are a thing neocons consider to take too long. And so the choice is war.

 

And because the neocons are impatient, willing to take advantage of post-9/11 climate in the US to start a war in iraq, they started their PR caampaign at, least sexing up or cherry-picking evidence and the like.

I find it embarassing for the US administration that they made Tenet their fallguy - the people responsible still sit in the whitehouse, NSC and the pentagon.
The Bush crew blew so much fog on the motives for war in iraq, offering something for everyone. Wolfowitz said: "... we settled on the one issue (WMD) that everyone could agree on ..." (to be a threat) - and so they adequately exaggerated that point to fuel the pro-war mood.

The reasons came and went away: WMD -> Al Quaida -> Nukes "mushroom cloud" -> finally: regime change (Fu*ck you! Who's not with us is against us!) .... and great, they offer for any apologist a satisfying reason to pick - why worry about the WMDs when we have some 5 more arbitrary reasons? ... something for everyone Freedom of choice is one of the belssings of an open society ... Well, whatever you may like as a reason, we better stay with the reasons Bush and his crew give.

So how to start a war in consent? First, pick your target, let's say Iran. Then you make a poll on what people find most menacing about Iran and what they despise most. Then you look at all old intelligence you have in the light of the stuff you need for public support. Then get yourself some obedient defectors telling you what you want to hear. Bypass any critical voiced in the intelligence community as they only obstruct your case with their narrow-minded objections. Get yourself some unbiased amateurs instead. Then you build a PR campaign around it and everyone is happy when the bombs fall

Well, it could be that Bush doesn't have any reasons except perhaps "Saddam is an evil man", and is only telling the stuff he is adviced to say. Remember? "No questions please." And no ugly surprises in case Bush is asked something isn't prepared to reply to.
But that doesn't make him a less bad president, no matter how charming or how adept at kissing babies he is.

[ July 18, 2003, 12:53: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

And coming back to Bush's claimed treat originating from iraq - the WMD program: The US claimed the inspectors failed, the inspectors claimed to have no evidence, the rabid warmongering right claimed it's time to send in the real inspectors. Well, now they are there and it becomes clearer than ever, that the WMD-claims the cabal made were just garbage. Now, with tens of thousands of US troops there the US haven't made any progress finding any. So how did the inspectors, with significantly more experience, fail compared to the US?

But who cares, as the WMD won't show up and therefor they are no conveniently longer important for the apologists.
To the contrary, they're more important than ever because they are the point the honesty of the Bush crew will be measured on. It is about if Bush's crew misled the US into an unneccessary war, scaring people in their cause with a phantom "mushroom cloud".

 

And indeed, the WMD are becoming less and less important, the less likely it becomes to find any

Well yes, the dog ate my WMD. And history usually doesn't forgive. Especially not fools who fail to assess a threat correctly, go to war and then end up having no real plan what to do with the incooperative country just conquered, that is so much less enthusiastic than anticipated.

And if history will, hopefully not the electorate and the opposition.

 

If you mean with "remain in power" that Iraq in the second gulf war wasn't invaded and occupied was because of some agreements with the UN. I think you are mistaken. If I remember correctly summaries of the second gulf war, then the whole war-goal was getting Iraq out of Kuweit and secure Saudi-Arabia. Goal was reached, war was over.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq was never the intention of the forces there and particularly not intendend or wished for by the goverment of Bush the elder. If I am not mistaken, Bush the elder even opposed the recent invasion and occupation.

 

I just get this picture of BTA somewhere throwing chum into the water.

 

BTA, did it ever occur to you that changing the embargos goal from letting the population suffer to obstructing Saddams actions would have been a good idea?
UK and USA did not let critical medical supplies through, but let Saddam sell his oil. Is that not a little bit strange?
Saddam did make millions and millions of dollars in the last ten years because of this and let the people suffer.

Why that?

 

I find it most surprising that the US public seems to see Saddam as a threat. He was none. So why the need for action? This US actionism is quite alienating, and indeed, it has alienated about everyone except britain, australia, two or three minors and the bullied colaition of the willing.

The phantom menace of course were the only-unfound WMD (and as Blair carefully hinted on, they are unlikely to be ever found). So, considering the evidence it can be reliably concluded that this bit was hyped and exaggerated, to avoid saying lies. The avoidance of the intelligence apparatus by installing a devout idelogical cheerleeder club named OSP beyong congressional control - and accountability is seemingly something that doesn't bother the pro-war fraction. I mean, persuading public and congress into agreeing on a war against Iraq in face of fake accusations is really nothing to worry about. That's just imperial presiddency.

So what next: Saddam and terrorists? Saddam, secular dictator he is, despised religious fanatics. Him giving away WMD to them is about as unlikely as Bush speaking unprepared, open to the press, answering surprising questions freely.
So Saddam, without Al-Qaida connection, with a crippled army, without air defence and bare of WMD was no threat and ... couldn't really preemprtively, much less preventively, attacked.
And let me again stress that, just for the record, Saddam didn't have anything to do with 9/11. So, how can his fall contribute to the war on terror?

No problem for the apologists, they don't need WMD - not even for an Al-Quaida connection. Because Saddam was a cruel dictaitor. Fair enough.
But the people saying this sleep well, ignoring the atrocities in Egypt, Saudi-Arabia, Israel, Colombia, Turkey and other repressive US sponsored regimes. They also have no problem with the selfmade trouble in countries where ethnic groups work on wiping each other out - africa for example. They have no problem with africas Saddams. So why Saddam? Why just him? Why not the rest too? Well, there was a reason to pick just him. Well, whatever stuff you'll bring up, just read Krauthammer's statement on what the neocons think about humanitarian motivations. As a cover for US interest - everytime, alone - never.
So while you may see a comfort in this illegal war helping the iraqis, the responsible US decisionmakers certainly don't share your sense of mission. So wake up, people dreaming of going to war against Saddam because of geostrategy, suddenly adopting humaitarian motives as a group (helping the people) probably are dishonest. And you are a fool glueing yourself to the illusion it wasn't so.

Now for the more whacky arguments - deterrence: Attacking Iraq was a good sign to scare off the arabs not to be funny. Well, some also suggested (a) chrisianising the arabs and taking over their countries, (b) nuking Mekka while (c) more moderates suggest only to nuking smaller arab cities - like Baghdad, Gaza, Damascus etc ... Any questions?

It may have been a good alternative to stay with the UN, inspections as well as sanctions - and taking them out of the hands of UK and the US to ease the suffering for the iraqis. Contrary to whatever the State Department sais, the US and the UK are primarily responsible, and oil for food didn't work - and not because of Saddam.
So why not leave Saddam where he is? Oh yes, the public was brainwashed into believing that he is a madman and evil. Well, evil he is, but not mad. Give a chance to survive in power, he'd choose it. But that's pointless now anyway, only of academic interest. The US have made facts.

But I remember the call that the US doen't need the UN, and that they do their job better. Sure, look at the quest for WMD Ever asked why the US are considered by some to be the worst peacekeepers ever? Because they can't stay neutral. They just don't get what peacekeeping is about. That's in first place what made them terror targets in lebanon in the 1980s and again in Somalia - they chose a side.
So why the US don't need the UN? Because they are strong. Noam Chmosky said it that way: Your local Don also doesn't go to court to get a warrant to get your money, he just takes it - because if he needed to he wouldn't really be strong. That's called establishing credibility. And that's what the US foreign policy does atm. They establish credibility, violating international law.

The hypochrisy and cynicism of the US violating law at will while demanding Saddam stays to his legal obligation didn't get lost on the arabs. Neither the very different treatment of another international law violator, israel. Arabs, even pro western ones, despise the US demanding human rights while supporting human rights violators in Egypt and Saudi-Arabia.
Considering their stand to international law, the US are a rogue nation as well (and that's from the Washingtom Post).

That fuels the rage of radicals like Bin Laden's goons, and it gives them support - the supporters may not share their ideology but they sure have something against the US way to handle things, namely in the middle east. That makes the US a target. And the occuption of iraq doesn't change anything - it doesn't contribute to the war on terrorism.

And then: Saddam might have WMD, he might have Al-Qaida contacts - but in the end it's just about american might.
And you're a fool conforting yourself over that with illusions about humanitarian motives and the greater good for the arabs. They will not thank you, they never wanted it your way.

 

Saddam was no threat ? Have you been away for like the last 30 years or something ?

Tell that to the Israeli's, the Saudi's, the Kuweiti's, the Iranians, and last but not least, his own people. I can hear them laughing already.

 

Saddam was a threat for his neighboring countries in the decade of 1980 but then he was an ally of the west, and therefore he was a good guy and it wasn't necessery to remove him from power. After the first gulf war and the sanctions, which followed, Sadam had not the power to be a threat for any other of the gulf countries or Israel and of course he wasn't a threat for the security of U.S.A..

@BTA

Why do you believe that the sanctions were a failure? The purpose of the sanctions was to prevent Iraq from making a new powerful and modern army and that's exactly what they did.

 

OK, Saddam cheated with the inspections but in the end the inspectors were very successful. How successful? Well, look at how many WMD from Saddam's arsenal are left and found by the US. BOC is quite right, Saddam wasn't much of a threat in 2003, the wasn't much left from his formidable army of Gulf War I.

As for punishing a country because the ruler is evil - and because it had done evil (12 years ago) - where's the point?
To grant Saddam would not be a menace for the future re-installation of Inspectors would have been a good thing. They had the experience and expertise to take care of that.
And Saddam was unlikely to invade another country again - he learned his lesson. Just tell him: "Ever do it again and you're finished!" would do the job. Saddam hasn't forgotten what the US did to him in Gulf War I. And he knew they could repeat it again. So why invasion and not deterrence after ensuring that the disarmament was dealt with?

I don't believe in something like "eternal guilt" that allows invasion of iraq country by the US 12 years later ... to avenge the invasion of kuwait. Actually "Finishing the job", as you might call it, is no legitimate reason for a war (I do not think that drove Bush, so never mind). And the US do not owe the iraqis the "liberation" of their country - something I also heared; and seemingly the iraqis also don't see it this way - so don't worry, the US aren't in debth.

And as said above, the US are selective in their priorities when dealing with dictators. *Their* dictators in Cairo, Riad and elsewhere are good enough for dinner parties - so what's so special about Saddam?

The key misunderstanding you make BTA, is that the US didn't want the sanctions to be lifted under Saddam. They demonised him so much he had to go because they would loose face making a deal with him. Therefor the regime change. It had to do with Saddam in person. To get Iraq back in the oil business they had to get rid of Saddam first - they were victims of the success of their own PR campaign agaist him.
And that also is not a legitimate reason for a war.

It is foolish to lure oneself in the belief that the Bush had motives other than geostrategical ones.

As the damage is done already, the US gvt should take care it doesn't get worse: They better hurry to find out what to do with their new province, the iraqis get impatient with their new-won ... freedom ...

[ July 19, 2003, 23:02: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

@BTA

As Ragusa wrote, since WMD cannot be found it seems that Saddam complied with UN resolutions.

So, Iraq had to be invaded because it had invaded its neighbours in the past. The funny thing is that Saddam asked for permission (guess by whom ) before he invades Iran and Kuweit. For his invasion to Iran permission was given by president Carter.

As far as Kuweit is concerned, he asked the U.S. ambassador April Glaspie which would be the american reaction to a conflict between Iraq and Kuweit and she gave the following answer: