Wasn’t intended to be loaded, nor was I making a judgement on what the US military may, or may not, have done.
Fact is, no one will go to the International Court of Justice at The Hague (to face charges) without US approval, and the US refusues to recognise the International Criminal Court – those are the two international legal options.
Thus, the US operates with international impunity, keeps any ‘problems’ in-house and operates a veto on whom may, or may not, be sent to The Hague.
This is an absolutely baloney excuse. The United States can’t have its cake and eat it too; on one hand we’re told UN resolutions are part of the cause for war, but on the other we were told the UN was irrelevant in terms of deciding to go to war. If the UN’s irrelevant, why does violating a UNSC resolution act as a trigger for war? Or if a UNSC resolution is that important, doesn’t that mean the UN DOES matter, and its processes should be respected?
And in any case, you surely cannot expect me to believe that violating a UNSC resolution automatically requires the United States invade. They’ve passed dozens of resolutions that have been or are being violated by dozen of countries. It doesn’t obligate anyone to start shooting. The stated reason was that Iraq had WMDs that presented a danger to the United States. Now where the hell are they?
First of all, there aren’t any nukes. If Iraq had nuclear weapons and Saddam Hussein didn’t use them while being friggin’ invaded, I’m a monkey’s uncle. You do know the Nigeria Uranium report has been proven to be a lie, right?
Secondly, well, call me Mr. Skeptic, but I have pretty high standards of evidence if you’re going to convince me that it’s necessary to start a war and kill thousands of people. I would think that if a state plans to start a war, it’s their moral and legal duty to provide real, solid, tangible evidence why the war must be stopped. The USA has not provided such evidence - what they have provided has been shown to be unsettlingly based on known lies and “secret evidence” they now won’t reveal. Magical Disappearing Weapons don’t impress me. At what point are you going to start to question the U.S. government on this, or are you just going to accept on faith that the weapons exist as the Bush administration describes them flitting from place to place, never quite tangible or within reach, based on “Secret evidence”?
One would then have to question the U.N. as well. Do you believe that Blix et al were part of the Bush plot in reporting that a great deal of forbidden weaponry was unaccounted for by the Iraqis?
If nothing convincing turns up over the next few months, a) I’ll be surprised, and b) a major rationale for a war that shouldn’t have been fought will dissolve.
It’s odd though that the same sort of people who were fervently saying about the U.N. inspections, “Give it time to work!” are demanding that the U.S. provide proof of WMDs yesterday.
Invade Alabama!!
Sua
Hardly, since, unlike Bush, they stressed that was no indication that they existed. Unlike Bush, they took great effort to point out that there was no proof for either existence or non-existence and pointed out that the Iraqis claimed they destroyed them. To this date, there is no evidence to the contrary. Rather, in the last days before the war, when most war advocates weren’t paying attention anymore, the inspectors reported having been provided with new documents by the Iraqis and with new findings by the Iraqis that they had been notified of. (cf. the UNMOVIC and IAEA websites for the reports by the inspectors)
Hardly odd. Merely the difference between a handful of people dependend on third hand information taking longer than several thousand people who do not have to respect Iraqi sovereignty and who are not inundated with trash intelligence to undermine their effectivity.
Few people who are constantly led on wild goose chases take longer than a lot of people who can go where they please.
The US claimed to know where the weapons are. It shouldn’t take that long. Of course, given that all verifications of such claims by UN inspectors turned out empty, one has to wonder how much the US government actually knew and how much it simply assumed to be the case without having any solid evidence for it.
Oliver, in another thread on this subject you mentioned evidence that the pictures of the trucks etc were taken at different times and intervals than reported. Could you provide me wioth a cite for that. I’d dearly love to have it.
thanX
Can’t. Missed the window of weather opportunity (too hot and sticky).
It was Blix who mentioned that they had, in fact, been taken weeks apart and were likely showing routine transports between ammunition storage sites. Powell had presented two satellite pictures of a bunker complex, one with numerous trucks parked outside, another one without the trucks but several small vehicles approaching. Powell presented the sequences as the complex being hastily sanitized before the inspectors, represented by the small vehicles, arrive.
I think it is telling that Blix himself who -as his ‘appreciation for the briefing’ shows- is pretty diplomatic even in disagreement, sees himself forced to personally counter the alleged evidence for the inefficiency of his department.
thanX
Y’know, as much as I enjoy coming here to debate, things like this just make me shake my head in utter wonderment. The REAL truth is, that there is so very much that we do not know about WMD’s and Saddam Hussein, that even the debate about the US need for war is lighter for it. I wasn’t sure we should have invaded, and I support the President., though I am FAR from republican. Now, however, on liberal and conservative media outlets alike, Iraqi people being interviewed are glad Saddam is gone. So, we haven’t yet found the WMD’s, so what? I believe we will, this kind of thing takes time, real time, not the time it took to fight the war, but real brick by brick, leave no stone unturned kind of time.
I’ll liken it to my current profession as a fire investigator. My department roars to your burning house at 3 in the morning, they save your family and extinguish your house, the whole of that scenario takes maybe 3 hours start to finish, then I go to work. My part of the job takes days, sometimes weeks, and still, I may end up with an uncertain finding. My motives were honest, and I did my very best, but there was just nothing I could do. Same deal, I believe. While I may be sure, and have some street intel from my beat cops, that a certain person burned your house down, I just can’t come up with proof that will satisfy the law, in order to arrest and convict the offender. Again, for now, same deal.
What’s more, I don’t think we can flip this card over too much, in six-eight months, Iraq will be a democracy in infancy, and people there will know freedom as they have never before known it, they will no longer be oppressed, and they will be on their way to a more prosperous future, thanks, in part to the US and her allies.
-What Would Scooby Doo?
France and Russia disagree with you, Rickjay; they are refusing to let the Iraqi sanctions be lifted until it is certified that Iraq has no WMD.
If that did not believe that Iraq had WMD, their position would be nonsensical.
Sua
Sua, I don’t give much of a hoot what France or Russia uses as their justification for not lifting sanctions. What I would like to see is actual evidence of the WMD threat that was claimed to exist and was used as justification for starting a war.
RickJay:
What you say is a truely reasonable amount of time that we should give the US to find the WMDs? Homestly, at what point do we say: OK, you’ve looked enough, we have to assume that they’re not there.
And I don’t know where the “thousands” of US personel come from. Most of the soldiers are NOT looking for the WMDs. The number’s I’ve heard are 500 now, with something like 1500 to join shortly. If someone has a cite that gives the real number, it would add some grounding to this discussion.
Sua, that position makes perfect sense if its real purpose is to force some candor out of Bush.
buttonjockey, while your suggestion that the results, if not the ends, justify the means is sound, it is very far from a solid bet that Iraq will be anything approaching a free, stable, prosperous democracy in the foreseeable future. There have been a number of excellent threads here about that. Of the many arguments against the war, the ones focusing on what would happen afterward seemed to me to have the most resonance.
[nonsequitor]
A bunch of morons accuse buttonjockey308 of starting fires, he’s been at so many after all. He loses his job, and is imprisoned as a result. The populace is grateful that this menace to society has been eliminated. -So is buttonjockey308.
[/nonsequitor]
OliverH is being rather selective in his quoting of Hans Blix.
From the very same speech to the U.N., 2/14/03:
" Another matter and one of great significance is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. To take an example, a document, which Iraq provided, suggested to us that some 1,000 tons of chemical agent were “unaccounted for.” One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist. However, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented…If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament under resolution 687 (1991) could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided. Today, three months after the adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short, if and I quote “immediate, active and unconditional cooperation” with UNMOVIC and the IAEA were to be forthcoming. (bolding added)
So the top U.N. inspector was not merely saying “gee, there could be weapons and could be none, who’s to say?”.
Iraq was under obligation to show what had happened to its banned stocks. It missed its last opportunity to do so, consistent with its history of obfuscation and brinksmanship.
You mean the ends justifies the means? Would the US be justified in violently overthrowing every non-democratic government on the planet?
Hope that you don’t mind if I take a run at this. Basically, because I was told that there was secret evidence as to the existence of WMD, I would say that the appropriate time for them to be found would be today. Right now. I mean really, we should be able to walk right up to where they are stored.
With each day that passes and they are not found, I feel that the administrations credibility is eroded. It stinks to high heaven that nothing has been found and that none of these alleged weapons were used in the conflict.
Conversely, let us suppose that I believe whole cloth what I am being told by the Bush apologists. There are WMD, but they are well hidden and Iraq is a large country. We then need to ask why the majority of the military personnel out there are not looking for them.
After all, assuming that I believe that they do exist, one can only assume that not one person has claimed the reward for helping to locate them because there is a higher bidder, right?
Look, I have mad no secret of the fact that I hold our current administration in contempt. However, I am willing to have an open mind here. Can anyone come up with some plausible scenario that shows that this whole situation is not being grossly mishandled?
Maybe I’m just a cynic, but I have to keep going back to what the Bush Administration swore up and down just six weeks ago:
Iraq had SUBSTANTIAL numbers of weapons of mass destruction - not just the capability of making up, but literally tons and tons of chemical weapons, and substantial biological weapons materials.
They had secret evidence of where the WMDs were.
The war was being fought because these WMDs were either a direct threat (Iraq could use them on the US and its allies) or an indirect threat (Iraq might sell them to terrorists.)
If (1) and (2) are true, you can’t really explain why these things have not already been found. If they were deployed in such a manner as to be used, how were they hidden so quickly? The Iraqi armed forces and civilian control structure was severely damaged within the war’s first few days and within a week or two was basically in a state of utter chaos; how amazing that they did such a good job of hiding the WMDs. Bush cited numbers of thousands and thousands of pounds of sarin gas, VX, anthrax, etc. etc. If these weapons were deployed for war, you don’t think they might have captured ONE gun crew with some gas-loaded shells?
But assuming that they were hidden or spirited away, and that (3) is true, why the hell is the entire U.S. Army not looking for them? If these things represent such a threat to be used by terrorists, shouldn’t they be combing the country with all the manpower they can spare? Heck, they can give me a contract; I could use a few months away from this lousy office. But if they’re not doing that, doesn’t that tell you something about the real level of danger the administration feels exists?
Blowero said…
You mean the ends justifies the means? Would the US be justified in violently overthrowing every non-democratic government on the planet?
Nope, just the ones that murder their own citizens for exercising free dissent, kill olympic athletes for poor performance, imprison innocent people for being illiterate, and hoarde billions of american dollars while the common people starve, and openly harbor terrorists who are a threat to freedom world wide.
Squink, you can’t be seriously arguing FOR Saddam Hussein, can you?
I’ll grant you, there is a world of difference between an arsonist and Saddam Hussein, but I don’t think my example was THAT far off.
-What Would Scooby Doo