Disturbing Evidence From Baghdad Regarding Russia

Great Debates
1

Back when we were debating the war, I predicted that when the U.S. took control of Iraq they would uncover damning evidence regarding Russia and France. I based this supposition on the belief that pure economic interests or desires for ‘world peace’ did not fully explain the extreme opposition Britain and the U.S. were taking from Russia and France.

Well, this article from The Telegraph would back that up, in spades. I hope it’s wrong, because this is worse than anything I had imagined:

This is incredible stuff. If verified, it’s going to have a huge impact on relations between Russia and the west.

It also means that Russia’s stated reasons for opposing the war were complete BS. They claimed that there was no hard evidence of Iraqi WMD, while these documents would indicate that Russia was well aware of an advanced nuclear program in Iraq.

This is just the first of many revelations that will come out of this war.

So, does this information, if corroborated, change any minds?

2

Sam:

The anti-war folks are anti-war, for the most part, regardless of the evidence. They would need a direct Iraq attack against the US to give up on the UN and inspections.

It will be interesting to see how this story, and others, pan out as we get more info out of Iraq.

3

About what? That Russia bites it?

At any rate, “corrorate” is the key word here. There are any number of people who would dearly love to see a bit of friction between Russia and the West blossom to a more vigorous flame.

4

No, in the face of a direct Iraq attack on the US, the anti-war folks would merely wring their hands and blame the US for inciting the attack, just as they did after 9/11.

5

Darn! They’re on to us! Curses! Foiled again!

Fellow Minions of the Fifth Trotskist International: Our plan to subvert and corrupt America by way of infiltrating the SDMB has been defeated, due to the sharp and stalwart vigilance of Sam Stone, John Mace, and gobear. Initiate slinking away.

6

Tsk, gobear, that’s unworthy of you.

Were you not mildly anti-war yourself at one point?

  • Tamerlane
7

Wanna know what I find so frustrating about this sort of news release?

In this day and age, with instantaneous communications around the world, we are still going to spend the next several months piecing together bits and pieces of news from Iraq about the documents and discoveries there. A coherent picture won’t be clear until at least that time.

As for Russia, hmm. I wasn’t surprised that their diplomats hung on tight in Baghdad until midway through the second week of fighting. I already figured they were up to something pretty desparate to be hanging around Target Central.

As for the anti-war hooha’s: no war is ever justified, it seems. Reading Gallup polls conducted in the three years leading up to our involvement in WWII, a large majority, something like 70%, continued to oppose our involvement in the war, despite the atrocities and attacks against our friends and allies. Pretty disheartening, one has to conclude.

8

Elucidator:

I’m sure that a great many anti-war folks are genuine in the belief that “war is not the answer”. I’m not questioning their integrity. But from what I’ve read here, most seem to think that, even if there are WMDs, that there was a better solution than going to war. In fact, I think you have voiced that opinion. My input to Sam was that I don’t see any news story persuading the anti-war folks that this war was justified. You can choose to mock that if you wish, or you can add some serious discussion to this thread.

9

gobear: By the way, before you correct me - I realize you almost certainly weren’t aiming that comment against everybody who had reservations about this conflict and rather were commenting on the attitudes of what you perceive as knee-jerk peaceniks.

But I suppose I am just a little just tired of this endless sniping by both sides and for once my exasperration overcame my reticence to inject myself in these arguments. Have to work on that ;).

  • Tamerlane

p.s. - Disturbing report if true, though not enormously surprising - the Russians enagage in nasty realpolitik just like everyone else ( and frankly in the chaotic state of current Russian government affairs, I also wouldn’t rule out independant actions by sub-factions rather than the central government, though either is possible ). Though I will wait for confirmation, before completely buying it.

It doesn’t really affect MY particular reservations about the war, which were largely based on my own cold version of realpolitik, involving speculations on negative fallout in the post-war era. Like I’ve said before, I’d have conceivably supported a better-negotiated campaign under ceretain circumstances and I’ve always believed Saddam had WMD of some sort, at least at the chemical level. I’ll be surprised ( though again, not shocked ) if none turn up.

10

So, does the US invade Russia now?

11

Oh, I dunno, I bet it’ll all blow up and blow over, business as usual.

But yeah, I’d definitely expect it to be a “personal blow to Blair”. A quick cruise through the Beeb’s archives, in hindsight, is fascinating.

December 22, 2001,
‘Constructive’ Blair-Putin talks end

October 10, 2002,
Blair seeks Russia’s help on Iraq

October 11, 2002,
Russia foresees deal on Iraq

October 11, 2002,
Blair upbeat after Putin Iraq talks

October 28, 2002,
UK backs Russia over [theater] siege

The Tony and Vlad Show, As The World Turns, in tonight’s episode, “You said you loved me! And all this time–it was Saddam! It was Saddam all along! You bastard! I hate you!”

12

1.) Absolutely nothing we discover after the fact can be a retroactive justification for the invasion and destruction of another sovereign country.

  1. So what if the Russkies were helping Saddam? What’s little Shrub gonna do about it? Nothing. If he had really had the sack for a fair fight we’d be invading North Korea. Junior is a gutless little punk when it comes right down to it. He only fights tomato cans.
13

your article does not in fact “back this up in spades.” Nothing in the article explains why Russia and especially France have engaged in what you charcterize as extreme opposition to the war. The only motive cited in the aticle is economic interests. I am a little skeptical of this story anyway, these documents apparently list the locations of terrorist camps how the hell did a newspaper get its hands on it? This thing should have been sent to the pentagon in a locked box.

14

How did the paper get its hands on it? Given that this is Iraq, and the looting and such going on there, someone could have just walked up to a Telegraph reporter and said, “I found some really juicy stuff in that building over there. I’ll give it to you for $10,000”

Diogenes:

If your argument is that the war was wrong under any circumstances, yes. But if your argument was based on, A) Not getting U.N. Security Council approval, or B) Not believing that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, then yes, this document should cause you to reflect on that decision.

Looking at these documents as legit (for the sake of argument - I await verification), do you really believe that the U.S. had any chance of getting SC approval for this war under any circumstances? This wasn’t ‘botched diplomacy’, or U.S. unilateralism. This was a threat from Iraq, and a stacked deck against the U.S. in the U.N.

And if part of your opposition was because Russia and France were saying that they didn’t buy U.S. evidence of WMD, doesn’t it change your mind in the slightest to find documents showing that Russia knew all about an advanced nuclear program hidden from the world? Doesn’t that blow their arguments right out of the water?

And don’t be surprised if the U.S. intelligence services knew EXACTLY how much in bed Russia was with Saddam. They knew Russia was providing forbidden anti-tank missiles, night vision goggles, etc. It’s clear now that the U.S. had at least one mole very deep in Saddam’s government.

It also explains why the U.S. couldn’t reveal some of their intelligence. You don’t give up a deep mole just to try to get the vote of a country that your own intel suggests is working against you in the first place.

IF this document is true, it explains much about the political atmosphere leading up to the war. If similar evidence is discovered suggesting France was on board, it explains even more.

It also totally destroys any argument against the war based on supposed U.S. ‘unilateralism’. That’s like saying the U.S. shouldn’t have gone to war against Germany unless it could get the approval of Italy. If Saddam was working directly with France and Russia, then their votes on the SC were never going to happen, under any circumstances.

15

I can’t believe you actually said this. What does “Shrub” (BTW that nickname makes you seem so intelligent & adds a lot of weight to your arguement) having sack have to do with North Korea.

As Commander-in-Chief, he’s not supposed to go around looking for a fair fight. When it’s necessary to use are armed forces, he and the senior leadership are supposed to put them in the best position to win with the fewest possible casualities.

Maybe, I know it’s a stretch, but just maybe he doesn’t want to see tens of thousands or even millions of civilians and military killed. Nah, that can’t be it. He just has no balls.

16

John Well, you’ve got my sentiments down.

17

My argument is that the US had (and still has as of now)absolutely no evidence that Iraq was a threat to the US. It is totally irrelevant what we find after the fact. The invasion was illegal.

If the police find contraband while searching a house without a warrant and without the consent of the owner, then the search is still illegal. Finding something doesn’t make it legal. Finding out that the judge who refused to sign a warrant was corrupt doesn’t make it legal. Nothing makes it legal. Nothing.

My analogy isn’t really completely accurate because the US isn’t even the cops. We’re just a bunch of redneck vigilantes with guns.

18

1 - The Russians may not have changed much since the fall of Communism in their conduct of foreign policy. Certainly the U.S. should proceed under that assumption until proven otherwise.

Re WMDs and whether this war was a good solution to that problem:
1 - The U.S. had better find themselves some serious WMDs soon, or Bush is going to have some serious explaining to do to the world community.
2 - On top of that, with Iraq in chaos at the moment, conditions are ripe for all kinds of weapons to up and walk out of that country, something that could only happen because of the conditions created by this war. So in terms of what the stated aim of this war was, the opposite of what was wanted has so far been accomplished: as of this moment, the world is a seriously more dangerous place than it was before this war began. This of course excludes the more obvious danger inherent in a Western power occupying an Arab country.
It’s like a chess move made by a bad player: unable to see two moves ahead, he blunders in and puts himself in a position to be mated.
And on preview, what Diogenes said, minus the hyperbole.

19

He’s supposed to defend his country against threats, is he not? Well NK is a real threat, not a phony one like Saddam. Kim Il Sung has basically been jumping up and down, waving nukes at us and talking shit about what a little bitch Junior Bush is. What is Junior going to do about it? just wait until they nuke us. Bush invaded Iraq on the pretense that they were a brutal regime which was a threat to the US. (except it turns out Bush was lying about the “threat” part no shock here) There’s no question that both those things are also true of NK. What is the Smirk going to do about it? When? What if Kimmy just continues to give him the finger?

What should he do about Russia if this story is true (which, frankly, I doubt)? What about all his big, tough talk about countries that help or harbor terrorists? I guess that only applies to countries that can’t fight back.

Let’s also not forget GWB’s personal cowardice and dereliction of duty during Vietnam. Once a gutless punk, always a gutless punk.

20

So just to be clear. Are you advocating a war with N. Korea?