And Magiver, while you are googling, I’m still waiting on a cite (or a retraction).
SH already possessed and used WMD’s against his own people as well as Iranians. This is not in dispute. It is logical to assume that he would do the same if he possessed other WMD’s such as a nuclear weapon. He bought a nuclear power plant from the French for the purpose of obtaining weapons grade material. That implies he intended to build such a weapon. Weather he was a week away or 5 years away he represented a threat to the region. While all this is going on he invades Kuwait in a war that threatened the stability of a large portion of the worlds reserves. Saudi Arabia felt threatened and engaged the United States and other NATO countries to intervene.
To trust Sadam’s word that he destroyed all the WMD’s when there is no documentation that they were destroyed is the height of folly. All he had to do is show what he had, and where he disposed of it. The evidence would still be there and everybody would be happy.
Nothing Bush said [in your quotes] intimated anything different than: Saddam used WMD’s, still has them, and will build a nuke if we give him the chance. There was nothing stopping him from perfecting a nuke and handing it over to a 3rd party for another 9/11 style attack. The UN policy was to allow Saddam to play a never-ending shell game. We could look for the weapons but he never had to account for what we knew he had from earlier inspections. There was virtually no exit strategy.
And I’m well aware of energy supplies as they relate to the United States. We have been, and will continue to tap into sources other than the Mid East. You cannot equate an increase in foreign oil dependency with an increase in Mid-East oil dependency. They are not the same thing. The “new” Mid-East is now Africa and South America. And if the price ever rises above what people are willing to pay we will switch to something else.
I’ve been following engine developments for the last 10 years because it relates to a number of my hobbies. Hybrid technology is well established and it can be integrated into every new car if the market dictates it. That would more than halve the average fuel consumption in the US.
And you seem to transpose US foreign policy onto others as well. Blair supported Bush because of oil ? . . . nope, not even remotely close.
Luckily, it was mostly documented, including its destruction by UN inspectors. What remained was a relatively small percent of what was known (or thought) to exist. And the records were bad to begin with. And the question remains, where is it?
So, you are suggesting that Saddam could successfully build a nuclear weapon, while under active UN inspection?
Sounds like your are referencing UN Res 1441. Sponsored by the US, if I recall.
Wow. Perhaps you could share your data with Dick Cheney. He wrote the Nation’s Energy Policy, which reads:
I hope your hobbies incorporate vehicles powered with ethanol additives. It seems Archer Daniels Midland will do quite well over the recently passed energy legistlation. Amazing what only $2.4 M will buy.
“So, you are suggesting that Saddam could successfully build a nuclear weapon, while under active UN inspection?”
It’s important to remember that SH WASN’T under ANY inspections from 98-2002 or so.
It wasn’t UNTIL the US sent tens of thousands of US troops to the region that he suddenly decided to allow the inspectors back in. In order to try and outwait the US/UN. Even then, cooperation wasn’t anywhere near what it could/should have been.
Remember the scientists NOT being allowed to be interviewed without gov’t minders? Remember the inspectors NOT being allowed into various facilities?
The simple fact is that if the US hadn’t been acting as the stick for the UN, there wouldn’t even have been ANY inspections.
Regards,
-Bouncer-
That’s simply not true.
There was an inspection in May 1998. The inspection program was disrupted by the bombings in December 1998, and the 1999 inspection was skipped. The regular inspections resumed and took place in January of 2000, 2001 and 2002.
http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Programmes/ActionTeam/chronology.html#1998
Google found only one or two citations for “Chirak” that related to Iraq. So it seems that “the French” are calling Chirac this in much the same way that “Canada” is sitting in my apartment.
Didn’t the French also tell us that he had no WMD?
Eh, still don’t like 'em, but I’ll agree they were right about Iraq.
Well I’m a Frog and I’m not offended. Please feel free to use the term free of any feelings of guilt (as long as I can call citizens of the USA Septics).
Doubt it. AFAIK, the french government didn’t make any official statement about the presence (or lack thereof) of WMD in Irak
From what I read at the time, I gather that the french government believed there actually were WMDs (or more exactly forbidden weapons, like say, mustard gas, while for instance Irak being able to build nuclear weapon was deemed plain ludicrous in any foreseeable future), but in limited quantities and that most of them weren’t operable (in particular due to old age). French troops which would have been sent to Irak in case an agreement could have been reached with the USA (*) were to be equipped with NBC protection, if I remember correctly, though.
(*)adding by the way that the french president warned at least twice in broadcasted public speeches that the country should be prepare itself for a possible military involvment in Irak, and that plans were drafted for said military participation before the total failure of the negociations at the UN, since I guess that more than one poster is unaware of it.
By the way, though it’s only an opinion, I don’t perceive much similarities between the Algeria war and the conflict/occupation in Irak. Assuming that France had some kind of better insight of the situation, it’s probably, stilll in my opinion, due to closer diplomatic ties and a better (and more widespread amongst high-ranking officials) knowledge of the middle-east and arabic world. The american admnistration lacking arabic speakers was rather baffling, to give an example.
No, they they said he did. They just claimed he wouldn’t use them.
You all are overlooking one very serious fact.
Saddam had plans drawn up to have Bush’s father assassinated while he was in office. Oil? Irrelevant. We’ve got Alaska and Texas… we’ve got enough Oil to last us well long enough to develop hydrogen feul cells and seriously cut down the need for it. This was a good old fashioned vendetta. Carefully orchestrated and brilliantly executed. No matter anyone’s opinion, nothing could dissuade me from one solid truth. If it were my father, and I had the power… I would -definitely- do the same!
Bouncer, what is your point? My posts have simply refuted the statement that, “Bush specifically said Saddam was NOT an imminent threat”, a statement with no support in this thread. I fully agree with your last sentence, but again, so what?
No, at least not in 2003. I remember scientists not agreeing to be interviewed without government minders. I remember UN inspectors having free and unfettered access to the whole of Iraq, without the need for advance notice of inspections. I also remember that the US has been (mostly) in control of Iraq for over six months, including the ability to offer huge sums of money to Iraqi scientists to fess up. All we have learned is that Iraq was NOT an imminent threat to the US. But it is simply revisionist to suggest that the administration has been telling us this all along.
I remember that the US has threatened to prosecute Iraqi scientists that were involved with banned Iraqi weapons programs. And now I have learned that the top Iraqi scientist on long range missile technology has slipped out of Iraq and into Iran (Cite).
And Julien, I must wonder at what price you feel Dubya should settle a personal score, disposing of thousands of human lives in such an unsuccessful attempt (to date). Perhaps it makes you a proud American - me, it brings a tear to my eye. But you better test your facts, some of which have already been refuted in this thread. It seems your one very serious fact - the one solid truth - has been seriously in doubt, since, well, since 1993.
And since I have not yet addressed the OP, let me take this opportunity. The French position leading up to the war has been entirely vindicated. I can’t fully ascribe this to the reasons laid out in the OP, but in the end, who cares why they were right?
Desmostylus…
You just made my case for me. The “regular inspections” you reference were NOT compliance of the UN security resolutions. Your claim is a dodge. A bit like comparing an automobile inspection with a warrant search.
Here’s a sample from 2001 from the IAEA report to the UN:
"Letter dated 6 April 2001 from the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency to the President of the Security Council
"In paragraph 16 of Security Council resolution 1051 (1996), the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is requested to submit consolidated progress reports every six months to the Security Council, commencing 11 April 1996,1 on the Agency verification activities in Iraq pursuant to paragraphs 12 and 13 of resolution 687 (1991) and other related resolutions.
As has been previously reported, the Agency has not been in a position, since 16 December 1998, to implement its mandate in Iraq under the relevant Security Council resolutions."
…
"as long as such verification activities are not reinstated, the Agency will remain unable to provide any measure of assurance with regard to Iraq’s compliance with its obligations under those resolutions.
I should be grateful if you would arrange for this letter to be distributed as a document of the Security Council."
(Signed) Mohamed ElBaradei
http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Programmes/ActionTeam/reports/s_2001_337.pdf
Here’s another from the Iraqis wherin THEY are stating they are going to let inspectors back in (which begs the question why that would be necessary at all if they’d been granted full access).
"Letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister of Foreign
Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary-General
I am pleased to inform you of the decision of the Government of the Republic of Iraq to allow the return of the United Nations weapons inspectors to Iraq without conditions."
(Signed) Dr. Naji Sabri
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Republic of Iraq
http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Programmes/ActionTeam/reports/s_2002_1034.pdf
Regards,
-Bouncer-
Thanks for the googling. I didn’t dare do it myself, for fear of shattering my belief that “Chiraq” was as american as apple pie or freedom toast. 
That’s the second time today you’ve repeated this myth, Julien. It’s already been shown in The New Yorker that there was no such assassination attempt by Saddam – the US was set up by the Kuwaitis to keep sanctions against Iraq.
Don’t tell Dick Cheney, then, since the White House’s own energy projections (aka “The Cheney Report”) predicts that the US will need to import two-thirds of its oil by 2020. Securing a friendly source of foreign oil has been the plans of the neoconservatives since the mid-1990s; Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld even urged Clinton to invade Iraq back in 1997 for this reason.
And yes, we could develop alternate energy sources now, but the petroleum companies don’t want to. Why switch now when oil’s still available? It’s more profitable to keep doing business as usual until the oil’s almost gone, and then push the research efforts…
Then let’s all thank heaven that you’re not the President of the United States. :rolleyes:
Julien’s point about vengeance cannot be understated. I never believed there was any connection between oil and George W. Bush’s unalterable determination to destroy Saddam.
To me, one of the tragedies of this whole debacle is the woeful performance of those opposed to the war. I herd endless refrains of “NO BLOOD FOR OIL!” in the time leading up to the war, but little else. I work at a major University that was host to numerous peace rallies. No one made a point of the fact that there was no link between Saddam and September 11. No one argued that we could be creating new recruits for Al Qadea. There was little mention of the horrible precedence an unprovoked invasion would bring, the fact that Saddam and Bin Laden are not friends and do not appear to cooperate, that a war in Iraq would divert resources away from the fight with Al Qadea, that we may wind up in a quagmire, that Saddam could use his WMDs (had they existed) in a last desperate act to take vengeance on anyone around him, etc…
The point that was made over and over and over again was NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!
Now just suppose that Bush truly was not interested in Iraq’s oil. What reason then did he have to pay attention to the protesters? He knows Saddam tried to kill his father. He knows the protesters are misguided in their belief that he wants to steal Iraq’s oil. I’ll bet he had no qualms about this at all.
If those of us opposed to the war had made a better case than the oil thing we may still have ended up in war. I mean, Saddam DID try to kill Bush’s daddy and I have no doubt that greatly shaded his perception of this situation. But maybe the number of people against the war would have risen. Maybe congress wouldn’t have been willing to issue Bush a blank check on the war. Maybe Bush would have been forced to present better evidence that Iraq posed a clear and present danger (which, of course, he wouldn’t have found). Maybe Bush would have been forced to build a genuine international consensus before invading.
Maybe we could have avoided this whole foolish gambit.
When it comes to oil, you’re all completely missing the point. Yes, the United States as a country probably doesn’t need Iraq as a provider for oil - incidentally, the number one importer of crude the US is Canada. But who say Iraqi oil has to be sold in the US for American companies to make a profit?
On February 12, 1998, John Maresca, then VP of UNOCAL testified in front of a House Committee on International Relations that
“In stark contrast to the other three markets, the Asia/Pacific region has a rapidly increasing demand for oil and an expected significant increase in population. Prior to the recent turbulence in the various Asian/Pacific economies, we anticipated that this region’s demand for oil would almost double by 2010. Although the short-term increase in demand will probably not meet these expectations, Unocal stands behind its long-term estimates.”
In order to develop this market, Maresca called for the building of a pipeline through Afghanistan, starting from the town of Chardzou, and ending at an export terminal on the Pakistani coast. On building this pipeline, Maresca said:
"The only other possible route option is across Afghanistan, which has its own unique challenges.
The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades. The territory across which the pipeline would extend is controlled by the Taliban, an Islamic movement that is not recognized as a government by most other nations. From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of our proposed pipeline cannot begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders and our company. "
Today, 2003, this pipeline is a reality, much as Maresca called for, 5 years ago.
This leaves the problem of where to get the oil from, since the other Middle Eastern countries are under OPEC control. The awnser to that is simple: Iraq, the second largest oil reserve in the world.
Make no mistake: even IF Iraqi oil reserves remain under Iraqi control, US companies are going to have an immense head start on their competitors in terms of developing this huge, largely untapped wellspring. The very involvement of US companies like Haliburton in “helping the Iraqi’s benefit from their natural resources” guarantees lucrative US contracts for years to come. The various US oil concortiums are going to be making enormous profits from the resulting control of oilflow to Asia-Pac, even if not a drop of Iraqi oil ever goes to the US.
I don’t disagree with your observations about strong arm tactics and cultural insensitivity’s. I would point out that US troops are in areas where Saddam loyalists/mercenaries are more prevalent and would be shot at regardless of tactics used.
Cultural insensitivity’s are a hot topic and the learning curve was slower than they could have been. The military was asked to do 2 jobs, that of soldier and that of law officer. It is obvious which job they were trained for. I would also add that there is very little media attention given to the success of the latter in establishing proper interaction with Iraqi citizens.