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

Remove all ads!

Dam, I am slow. Terrorist Camps. Northern-Iraq. Öcalan ???? Haven't the turks invaded Norhtern-Iraq and crashed all terrorist camps, anyway ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2496747.stm

Of course did they find terrorist camps. Kurds.

Bomb the UK, homeland of terrorists.

HE, he -> If they are "terrorists" and they are on Kurdish "territority" and Kurds say, they are "terrorists, are they Arabs ? Hm, maybe.

[ May 08, 2003, 23:12: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

BTA -- No it resembles a faked landing on an aircraft carrier with a fighter jet that was only 30 miles out at sea, and that had been said to be several hundred miles away, so that the prez could not take a chopper. Talk about propaganda. This adminstration must have read Goebbels book on it. What's next for Shrub? The Olympics?

 

The problem that seemingly the US haven't made any serious attempts to convince their partners in NATO and the security council.
It's not the general doubt in everything the US tell that drives me. It's just about working out what they might be up to.

For that purpose it might be interesting to recap the US gvt's line of argument on Iraq:

• Phase A: First was the claim that Iraq violated the sanctions (what everyone knew) by hiding WMDs (that was new). You might think that the US would have then presented hard intel to proove Saddam was a threat. No, they presented a lukewarm power point presentation. And worse, their hints were consequently proven wrong by the inspectors in Iraq (a nuisance for the US anyway as they forced them to argument on iraq). The other members in the security council didn't buy these US *proofs*, even less as their own intelligence didn't confirm the US claims.
• Phase B: As it became clearer that these "not quite a smoking gun" show wasn't taken serious they stopped that route and switched over to an alternative approach: Al-Quaida and Iraq - fighting Saddam was now part of the global crusade against terror. The british were tasked to present an intelligence report. It turned out this report was simply copied together by using some student's scientific work and some Jane's publications; better, it even leaked out the the MI-6 itself didn't believe the Iraq-Al Quaida connection Blair claimed to see. And none of the proofs that followed was much better. Again the other nations intelligence didn't buy the allied "proofs".
• Then came Phase C: The US seemingly draw the consequences after the previous failures: **** the proof, **** the hassle - we don't need them as we just want a regime change. A regime change because Saddam is evil and hostile and mean to his people. The aim suddenly became to bring democracy over there. Yay! That not only met the US sense of mission, it embraced the mood of patriotism in the US.
  Most atractive is the aspect that there is no need to proove anything when you simply aim on a regime change Everyone knows that Saddam is a jerk - so that's much easier to promote at home. Who would deny the goodness of plan to bring the all-american values of democracy to remote regions of the world, ruled by dictators?
  And as no one in the US greatly cared about the violation of international law, namely the alien norm of the Art.2 Nr.4 UN-Charter, the approach for regime change was greeted warmly.

Why did they change arguments? Seemingly they weren't good enough. What you see in the changing arguments IMO is no learning process by the US gvt, but the attempt to sell a war that was planned without any justification but strategic goals.

The whole "proof-for-WMD-and-terror" campaign the US do is aimed on selling the war. No other gvt, except iraq perhaps, has been caught lying that often in the past year.
The finding of WMDs in iraq is very important because if there weren't any it would be a clear hint about the US just having followed geostrategic goals in iraq (and I don't mean oil with that).
With an eye on previous statements of the top decisionmakers in the national security council and the pentagon that seems very plausible. That's not a conspiracy theory. The neocons are dogmatists - they do what they promote. Perle formulated his vision of Israel as the primary US ally in the middle east and he did what he said. In case there never had been any WMDs in Iraq, that would force the US to re-explain their intentions in iraq.
These people have to be taken seriously. Giving them the benefit of doubt is IMO overly trustful.

[ May 12, 2003, 13:46: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

I would just like to add one thing that I find hilarious in the search for WMD's. Is that news agents and people in general seems to think that stockpiles with gasmasks and soldiers being trained in gas mask use and even protective clothing use to be indicative of chem and bio weapons in an arsenal. That is just so silly. *Every* soldier in every army in the world more or less has one issued gas mask and knows how and when to use it. Heck even I with my rather short and stunted military training got to train on the gas mask and had basic training in how to handle chemical and biological attacks. That assuming that an army has WMD's based on that they train in gas mask use and protective clothing use is just so far out.

 

In reference to Prozac's post here I'd like to recommend this article, originally posted in the Ney Yorker: http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Iraq/050603_selective_intelligence.htm

Late satisfaction for me

 

Maybe the crucial problem with Straussian thinking is the incompatibility of his thinking with intelligence analysis.
It has been mocked that Perle, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld all have been consequently wrong in their analysis of soviet strength, believing the russians to be much more dangerous than they actually were. The reports Soviet Military Power (where they all worked on) give a glimpse on that.

Searching for hidden messages is a nice thing, and might be helpful even - providing deeper insight but can be problematic when things are clear and evident - then it's showing paranoid traits.

When the CIA, the DIA and state department as well as the remaining intelligence services of the western world do not agree on what Rumsfeld's private pentagon analyst cell claims to see that's for a reason and not because they all lack the deeper insight, wits and information the pentagon analysts have.
The US may be the foremost superpower but there are others that also have keen eyes and ears as well as keen brains and sober minds.

After all that's means throwing up the question of how dangerous tendencial analysis is - till now it has cost the US the european support they enjoyed while fighting in afganistan.
The other problem is that when a "tendentious" analysis rules the scene that determines what the president gets to hear, even more if the advisors themselves actually firmly believe in what they see. That's a possibility and quite a disturbing one.

 

The prolem is that - if you go to work with the premise "Saddam has WMDs, I only need to find the proof" and you find an empty depot - that must be hard to swallow. Because if the depot is empty - where are the WMDs? Well, be creative: They could have been brought to syria or iran ... they may have been dug in deeply ... they may have been passed over to terrorists already ...

There may be no place for the alternative interpretation that the depot might be empty because the WMDs have never been there or have long been destroyed, maybe in expectation of a UN inspection, to deny them proof that Iraq actually had violated the sanctions.
Such a voice might be deemed defaitist and result in the voice offering that unwanted result beeing overheared for the future. That's what IMO happened in washington.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/content/?030512on_onlineonly01

[ May 13, 2003, 15:21: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

The worst is, after the chaos after the fall of the regime, there has been a lot of (conventional) weapon-proliferation through looting. Probably one of the worst "military" sideeffects.

Handgrenades, machine-guns and explosives for free.

But the as long their is no problem, there are no question asked. But I think, that if severe problems arise in Irak, suddenly, people will start to ask question and people who were actually send to Irak to find WMA's will have a story to tell, which does not base on "trust".

As it is now. Saddam is gone, good. Military or economical casualties ? None worth to speak of. Nothing to worry about. If the American troops are replaced by Danish-Polish--Canadian-German-British-Italian-Spanish-Australian-Pakistani troops, there will never be real need to ask questions.

[ May 13, 2003, 12:13: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

To be honest and I am telling the truth there is a nuclear bomb off of the Florida coast
HAY! Don’t{laugh} its true. An American plane caring one crashed off the coast in the 1960’s and the government felt it was safer to leave it than try to recover it.

What does this have to do with Iraq…… Well lets be honest Iraq did not have a lot nukes, how do I know? Well for one thing it took Russia 40 years to build all their thousands of bombs and it bankrupted them and caused the collapse of the Soviet Union While Iraq had only 5 to 10 years to do so, before the sanction took effect.

And as far biological well its sad to say someday a school girl will be digging in her school yard and fins metal canister and God only knows that poor people in these war torn country’s take scrap metal and melt it or sell it.

Lets not for get that a large coca cola bottle is the same size as one of these canisters and Iraq is as big as Texas……..So good luck finding a dozen of these hidden in that State let alone a country that’s been ransacked

 

Do WMDs still matter to the American public?

While Blair is still convinced WMDs will be found in Iraq, Rumsfeld now begins to consider they might not be there after all. In the same time Wolfowitz says the emphasis on WMDs was for bureaucratic reasons.

Now that focus is shifting to Iran, that the only WMDs found are in Maryland, will the main reason for the war just fade away?

 

It doesn't really come as a surprise for me that now the US are searching the presentable reason why they actually went to war. Kinda amusing that the pentagon today announced to deploy a special Task Force for the hunt on WMDs .... and to uncover iraqi crimes against humanity! Workshare of the approx (iirc) 1200 head strong force will reportedly be 300 for WMDs - and the rest for crimes. Honi sont qui mal y pense ...

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/7943

The US gvt just admitted to have lied to the world, and their people. And the US public doesn't care. The Bush administration didn't care about the WMDs - neither did they care for Saddam's crimes, if they did they wouldn't need a special task force to find out why they needed to go to war in iraq. So now they now want something really gruesome to present to the US public. To confirm the US public in their feeling of moral superiority. Or ignorance. Seemingly the questionability of attacking another country for <INSERT ARBITRARY REASON> isn't as evident for them as for others outside the US.

And frankly, no one in the US, much less in the rest of the world, would have agreed to a war if Rummy and Wolfie had openly stated that they needed to conquer iraq as a back-up base in case the saudis collapse and to put pressure on syria to aid israel while gaining access ot the iraqi oil as a side-effect. So the comedy goes on and the pentagon hawks laugh at the world by presenting them another lie, something that sounds better and more noble than the previous lies.
And now as they find themselves in a country where they are unwanted, resistance forms - expressed by acts of underground war. And so the circle closes, it's the eternal war against terror

Besides: What happened to the highly dangerous Iraq-Al Quaida connection ... ?

In the meanwhile, in godforsaken south-Zaire massacres start and war crosses borders - and the evil, egoistic french deploy troops, putting them at risk for the peace of some primitive savages and stability in the region. The last time the US did something like that was in Somalia.

[ May 31, 2003, 17:05: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Allow me to just sum up the previous and future posts for the sake of brevity:

BUSH IS TEH SUCK!

US IS TEH SUCK!

 

You don't have any rational critic, don't you? I can understand you don't like my post. The recent US foreign policy hasn't been anything the US can be proud of. Not my fault even if I point it out.

 

Oh relax, I was just poking fun. Pretty much everything you write on the Alley is critical of the US and I'm just ribbing you and the others a bit.

That said, do I have any rational critic? Let me check, nope, don't see any rational critic laying around, most of them are paid off by the movie companies

 

The Bush administration has criminally, cynically and systhematically lied to the world and their own people. IMO it needs an amazing amount of trust or indifference to still defend their policy.

"They certainly know what they've been doing!" and "I don't care - Saddam was an evil dictator and by bringing him down alone we did good" are samples of either trust or ... yes ... sense of mission. The simple fact that by the recent comedy Bush ruined the US's political credinility doesn't seem to have yet found it's way there. And if it did, the people don't seem to care.

I mean, after having beeing played for a sucker for more than a year they continue to cheer to the grifter who fooled them. And no evidence can change that. Amazing.

 

Well, Bush & Goons Inc. is about the only thing that's pissing me off actually, that might be the explanation for me focussing my wrath on the poor old US.
And it's hot and humid here ... that makes me earnest sometimes. I guess I'll get myself a cool bottle of Coca Cola* from the fridge and hang out in the garden ...

* No boycott here btw ...

 

All you Bush 43 haters,

The best part about this whole thing is...

Unless something drastic happens, you all are going to get another 4 years to piss and moan about him after he wins re-election!

Considering his approval rating, the Dems complete lack of a platform, and the fact that the Clintons keep making fools of themselves almost daily (they are now identified as the Democratic party for many Americans ), Bush would have to light off a nuke in LA to lose!

 

I hope you won't complain ... better get used to the sacrifice of US boys in iraq and elsewhere. With Bush you get the perpetual war for perpetual peace, and the costs of that policy.
Usually every people gets the gvt it deserves, but there are exceptions.

 

Oh yes Ragusa, all those transport planes that came back filled with the bodies of young Americans, it was almost like Vietnam all over again...NOT.

No disrespect to the servicemen and women who gave their lives, but there were barely more casualties over that time period than there are in regular training exercises for the same period.

The fact is you cannot negotiate with terrorists, because they are the same thing as extortionists. There may not have been any WMD, but Saddam was a destabilizing force in the Middle East, and since he got his ass kicked, suddenly the surrounding nations are trying to be a lot more reasonable. Even N. Korea brought it down a notch when they knew we were pretty much done with Iraq. I don't give a rat’s ass if the rest of the world agrees with what we did or not. They can't do anything about it. We can't be friends with every nation, and if they choose to be our enemy, then I say it is better to be feared than respected.