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

Remove all ads!

Yep, Laches, that's right. But I like to argue, that Realpolitik may include "internationalism". Anyway, Realpolitik is very well suited for Kissinger's sometimes questionable politics. He's for one German and he's obviously in the tradition of the old Bismarck Realpolitik, which actually endorsed "internationalism". Because one main goal of his politics after the unification of Germany was to have very good relations with the neighbouring countries, especially the UK and Russia. Having them not, would be, in his (and he was right) opinion very dangerous for Germany.

Bismarck wanted to have good relations with France too, but it was the first German emperor and other circumstances who made this not possible.

 

They didn't find any nukes, because Iraq never had those kind of weapons. That wasn't the issue here. It was about womd, like chemical and biological stuff, and they DID find those things.

Not that it was a big surprise though, ever since the war with Iran, the world knew he had those kind of weapons, AND was also willing to use them, as we all could see after the first gulfwar.

The biggest weapon of mass destruction, is Saddam himself however, and he has just been stripped from his powers. Now isn't that something worth fighting for ? The common Iraqi in the street sure feels that way.

But just wait until the smoke clears, i think we will see what "smelly" role some other countries played in all this. Like the two who most opposed to this war, France and Germany. Or our two timing friend in the Kremlin. I'm starting to understand why they were against the war.

 

Pac man,
I admid the title is misleading, but I had clarified that I actually meant WMDs in my introduction post.

 

Okay, my bad. But they did find several gasses, like mustard gas and Sarin. I wouldn't wanna call that nothing, or something not worth looking into. In the hands of a maniac like Saddam those materials are a threat, not only for Israel, but also for his own people. Ask the Kurds.

 

Whether Iraq has WMD or not is irrelevant, it is just a pretext.

Why not go after Israel, Iran, Pakistan, India or North Korea? Indeed why not go after all countries, including France, England, China and Russia, who has nuclear weapons so that the US alone has them? Quite possibly that is what current US policy regards as the perfect situation?

Btw, isn't Libya spending a bit "too much" on their missiles program? Put them on the list.

No, this is realpolitik, the US can take out Iraq, but taking out any of the other countries is either more dangerous (North Korea, Iran), impossible (India) or there is no political will to do it (Israel).

Arguably, having WMD, especially nuclear weapons is the best way for any country to maintain its sovereignty. The US attack on Iraq has made the case for getting nukes much stronger.

 

I think Earl Gray makes a good point.I know if I was the leader of a nation at this time it would seem the only way to maintain your independence,would be to get these weapons as fast as possible.

You dont see the US invading countries that already have these weapons.So I wonder if we have not just made thinks worse?

 

But these countries are not threatening to whipe Israel off the map, as Saddam once did. And N-Korea might have nukes, but if they keep this game they're playing up long enough, the US WILL take a bite out of them sooner or later.

Or do you think the US only dares to pick on helpless countries ? Better think again. With a militairy like that, EVERY possible enemy doesn't stand a single chance.

 

I don't think that Saddam ever threatened Israel in fact the only country that engaged in war with Israel (and lost big time) is Egypt in the war of six days (that long took the Israelies to win). Not to mention that the Israel is the only country that invades repeatedly Libanon and gets away with it.
And don't forget that no nation in the world want to attack the Israel due to their weapons superiority and their alliance with the USA.
But the Israels goverments always cry that they are being threatened because they are the only jewish nation among muslim nations.
The oxymore is that the only nation that really threatens the others is Israel not the other way around.
And so far the US has avoided direct confrontation with countries that support a rather good army (see Yugoslavia) so there goes N. Korea.

 

What are you saying ? The US didn't fight the Yugoslavian army in the Kosovo war ? I don't know where you find your information, but they drove them out of those lands and bombed strategic places in Serbia itself in the meantime.

And Saddam DID threaten to whipe Israel of the map. He said the last thing he would do before he died was destroy Israel. You say Israel only fought the Egyptians ? Wrong again, they also had war with Jordan and Syria, not to mention every single Islamic extremists organisation.

And about N-Korea, i've read an article on the net this morning that plans are developing as we speak for an attack on the nucleair facillity near Pyongyang, and on their positions along the South Korean border. Those troops are an immediate threat for Seoul and the US troops stationed in that area. They may have a huge army, but it's worth nothing if you don't control the skies. And that's exactly what the US militairy does.
Sure, N-Korea probably has an airforce with some Migs, but they won't even get off the ground.

 

As a matter of fact the US didn't fight the serb army in kosove. They didn't find it there. No joke. Serbia showed a great prowess in hiding their forces in the mountains and forrests of the area and decepting the allied forces by using decoys and such. They were also successful countering the drones the allieds used.

As the allieds preferred to fly at medium altitude to avoid losses to shoulder fired SAMs they effectively disabled themselves to fight tactical ground targets such as tanks.

The allieds eventually bombed serbias civil infrastructure to rubble and that forced the serb gvt to withdraw their undefeated, intact army from Kosovo. So it is unprecise to speak of fighting the serb army. The serbs who died to reach that goal were primarily civilians.

As for Saddam threatening Israel, that is correct. But it is notable that this happened under the special circumstances of the gulf war - Saddam speculated on an israeli response that might start an arab uprising against israel. He hoped that would aid his survival and help to fight the coalition.
These were special circumstances however. It is questionable to suggest, that Saddam, how evil he however was/ is, wanted to annihilate israel. That's a misperception.

 

Mithrandir wrote:

To set things right I have written this little summary:

1948
May 14:
Israel declared as a state.
May 15:
Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon attacks. Symbolic forces from Saudi-Arabia and Yemen also join the attack.
Final cease fire in 1949. Israel grew territorially by 40% over what the UN had allocated to the jewish state in 1947.

1956 Suez
Israeli attacks on Jordan (Sep 25 and Oct 10) results in Jordan joining militarily with Egypt after Great Britain refused to honor the 1948 anglo-jordan treaty.
Oct 29:
Israel attacks Egypt after having been promised aerial and naval support by Great Britain and France. Egypt is given an practically impossible ultimatum by GB and France after which british-french airstrikes commence.

1967
A build-up to war had been going on on both sides since April. The conflict was mainly fueled by Syria-Israel. Egypt and Jordan sided with Syria. In June Iraq joined the Egypt-Jordan defense pact.
June 5:
Israel attacks Egyptian airfields.
Israel won the air war in a few hours by this surprise strike. In the evening Egypt had lost 300 aircraft, Syria 60, Jordan 29, Iraq 17, Lebanon 1.
The "six day war" ended with total Israeli air supremacy, Egyptian and Jordan ground forces practically crushed and Syrian ground forces broken. Israel occupied, compared to it's size, enormous landmasses.

1973
Oct 6:
Egypt and Syria attack Israel. The initial Syrian attack puts Israel in an extremely dangerous position. In Sinai huge tank battles rage between Israel and Egypt.
Oct 24:
Cease Fire. Israel is winning on both fronts. The Syrian capital Damascus is threatened and the egyptian army is in a very precarious situation.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

@Pac man

While your statement is wrong it's not completely wrong and it is likely a common attitude among americans. If an enemy doesn't stand a "single chance" isn't that the same as it being "helpless"? Do you see how silly your statement was?

And yes, I do believe that US, as you put it, only dares to pick on helpless countries.
If that was not the case then why didn't US attack Soviet Union or China? Again it's a matter of realpolitik, in this case you need support at home and the more difficult a war gets the greater the chance there is of losing the home opinion.

Any country with nuclear weapons can threaten to launch those. What would the US response be to that? I think having nuclear weapons qualify as having at least a "single chance". Also do not forget that popular support for a regime changes everything. The vietnam war was fought without having support from the population. The Iraqi war has been fought with support from the population. The syrian regime for example has much more support than the Iraqi had and that changes everything.

Ask Israel what they think about this statement!

[ April 22, 2003, 15:23: Message edited by: Earl Grey ]

 

One more actualisation on the still unfound Iraqi-WMDs:

(from: http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030504-iraq-wmd01.htm )

 

Not exactly, the Isrealian minister of defence later admitted they attacked first, and not the other around

 

That is too easy. They new if they used them in the defense of their country, they would be villified, but if they were to hand small amounts to terrorists, it would be almost impossible to trace it back.

In that case, Iraq wouldn't even have to risk getting caught with stockpiles of the stuff, or spend the money to develop it in quantitiy. A mobile lab capable of making a few ounces to a few pounds a day could keep terrorists well armed.

Simple!

 

The problem is that you argument with the unknown - a mere possibility. The great thing about possibilities is that you can't proove them. It would be most ironic had the iraqis destroyed their weapons left to deny the US the final proof - that would actually been exactly what the UN demanded from them - and as they probably did it in secrecy the US will hardly ever proove it - eventually denial of proof and knowledge to others is the essence of secrecy.

Indeed you're right, not-using and hiding them - or destroying them even - would almost be as villainous as using them - and more cunning too! In his evil cunning Saddam cunningly denied the proof of his evil (which should be prooven beyond any proof anyway) to the forces of goodness! The proof in that there is no proof prooves better than any proof *how* cunning the iraqis managed to hide their evil to the distrustful eyes of the world ...

And we'll perhaps never know if evil terrorists got WMDs from evil Saddam this rises another question: As Al Quaida had no links to Saddam there might be a terrible threat - which was the unknown terrorist group Saddam supportet in secrecy? One more thing to fear - hypothetical WMDs in the hands of hypothetical evildoers I will stop sleeping peaceful from today on ...

Massacring an technically totally inferior iraqi army without WMDs is just not a victory as glorious as massacring an technically totally inferior iraqi army with WMDs.
Quite likely a lot of people in the US will prefer to *believe* in the hidden WMDs like in Jesus, as the alternative considerations just wouldn't be glorious enough.

[ May 08, 2003, 20:47: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

That Iraq has supported terrorists in the 70s and early 80s is no secret - they were palestinians mainly, about every arab country did so - in the so-perceived common fight against israel. However, there still is no solid proof for recent cooperation with terrorists anyone outside the US seriously believes in.

Sadly, all the tales about Al-Qaida & Saddam Global Terror Inc. eventually have turned out to be highly questionable to say the least. The US policymakers recently adopted a habit to transform mere stories into rumours and then into facts and hard evidence. Magic!

Of course, less romantic people would call them liars ...

 

WMA's don't matter. Minds are already made. The war had ended anyway. And I think what everyone thinks is pretty clear. The intersting part is, Ragusa, will you're country do what the Polish proposed ? Will you're country join them ? And who's going to pay the polish ?

 

Well, this iraqi terrorist group was really special. IIRC they are not known to have committed any acts of terror ouside the borders of iraq. They are so dangerous no one ever heared of them before the US started to target iraq. One might maliciously think they were just a group opposing the group of kurdish mercenaries the US hired

I prefer to be sceptic about kurdish and iraqi reports about Saddam and Al-Quaida and terrorists. The Kurds have an interest in denouncing Saddam. They can only profit from that: They could get US support, food and financial aid for the people - and for the less idealistic: US citizenship, money, weapons, positions of power in a future iraq - all these things might be worth a lie or rumour or two.

Khidir Hamza is also known for his lack of credibility. Just a thought.