# Disturbing Evidence From Baghdad Regarding Russia **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 13, 2003, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disturbing-evidence-from-baghdad-regarding-russia/168365 "2003-04-13T01:07:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2003, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disturbing-evidence-from-baghdad-regarding-russia/168365/21 "2003-04-13T05:36:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Fugazi \* > \*\*So just to be clear. Are you advocating a war with N. Korea? \*\* No. I’m trying to show that Bush’s decision to invade Iraq was hypocritical and that his stated motivations were extremely disingenuous. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2003, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disturbing-evidence-from-baghdad-regarding-russia/168365/22 "2003-04-13T06:00:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*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. \*\* Inavding NK would guarantee that those nukes would be used. Use your head, man. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2003, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disturbing-evidence-from-baghdad-regarding-russia/168365/23 "2003-04-13T06:05:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*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. > > \*\* Oh, good, this is GD, not the pit. Can I have a cite for how the invasion was “illegal”? ---
**Author:** ![Rockford](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ac8455/32.png) [@Rockford](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rockford)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2003, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disturbing-evidence-from-baghdad-regarding-russia/168365/24 "2003-04-13T06:34:32Z")
\*\* > [@](#): > > Weirddave- > Oh, good, this is GD, not the pit. Can I have a cite for how the invasion was “illegal”? \*\* Here you go. http://www.post- [gazette.com/forum/comm/20030319lob0319p1.asp](http://gazette.com/forum/comm/20030319lob0319p1.asp) \*\* > [@](#): > > Weirddave- > Inavding NK would guarantee that those nukes would be used. Use your head, man. \*\* So then you admit that Iraq probably doesn’t have nuclear weapons. I think that you should maybe use your head. :wally ---
**Author:** ![Rockford](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ac8455/32.png) [@Rockford](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rockford)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2003, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disturbing-evidence-from-baghdad-regarding-russia/168365/25 "2003-04-13T06:35:54Z")
Let me try that again- [http://www.post-gazette.com/forum/comm/20030319lob0319p1.asp](http://www.post-gazette.com/forum/comm/20030319lob0319p1.asp) ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2003, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disturbing-evidence-from-baghdad-regarding-russia/168365/26 "2003-04-13T06:39:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*1.) Absolutely nothing we discover _after_ the fact can be a retroactive justification for the invasion and destruction of another sovereign country. \*\* Good point. Thank goodness we were completely justified in going in there to begin with. Marc ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2003, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disturbing-evidence-from-baghdad-regarding-russia/168365/27 "2003-04-13T07:00:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Weirddave \* > \*\*Oh, good, this is GD, not the pit. Can I have a cite for how the invasion was “illegal”? \*\* [My pleasure:](http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/GAres3314.html) > [@](#): > > \*\*United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX). Definition of Aggression > > Article I > > _Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition._ > > \ > > Article 2 > > _The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity._ > > \ > > Article 5 > > \*1. No consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression. > > 1. A war of aggression is a crime against international peace. Aggression gives rise to international responsibility. > 2. No territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression is or shall be recognized as lawful\*\*\* ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2003, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disturbing-evidence-from-baghdad-regarding-russia/168365/28 "2003-04-13T07:11:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MGibson \* > > * * * > > Good point. Thank goodness we were completely justified in going in there to begin with. > > Marc \*\* There are two legal justifications for aggression: 1.) self-defense (your country has already been attacked) 2.) You can _prove_ (to the satisfaction of the UN, not Tony Blair and Micronesia) that another country poses an imminent threat. You have to prove it \*before \* you invade, not afterwards. Which justification did the US meet? ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2003, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disturbing-evidence-from-baghdad-regarding-russia/168365/29 "2003-04-13T12:58:36Z")
“Illegal” doesn’t apply. The UN is not an international form of Congress, passing binding laws on its members. We negotiated a resolution stating that serious consequences would result from Iraq’s non-complicance. We then agreed NOT to have a vote on the precise nature of those serious consequences, and do not need explicit permission to invade. Hypothetical: Some country, explicitly hostile to the US, announces they have nukes, have delivery systems, and would enjoy bombing NYC, Washington, and Amarillo, Texas just for the sheer pleaure it will give them. The rest of the world, for some strange reason, decides they could care less, and our UN proposal to invade and neutralize this hypothetical country is voted down 157-1, But everyone is the US, INCLUDING YOU, is scared shitless and thinks we’re surely toast if we don’t do anything. What’s your recommendation? Do we invade “illegally” or do we die? Remember, you believe with all your heart that this threat is real and dire. Your call. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2003, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disturbing-evidence-from-baghdad-regarding-russia/168365/30 "2003-04-13T13:08:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber \* > \*\* Remember, you believe with all your heart that this threat is real and dire. > > Your call. \*\* But why exactly do you believe this? Is it because the posited “some country” actually said this stuff? Or because your own government said it, despite the lack of any real evidence, and despite the lack of such a statement from the “some country”? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2003, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disturbing-evidence-from-baghdad-regarding-russia/168365/31 "2003-04-13T13:24:03Z")
An interesting hypothetical. More interesting because it applies very closely to North Korea, and not even remotely to Iraq. NK does indeed have, or will have, nukes and has indeed publicly expressed hostility. So, of course, we invaded Iraq. The quote about “believing” is also telling. Did GeeDubya believe that Iraq posed a direct and immediate threat to the US? We are given to believe that he did. But on what basis? Some form of international clairovoyance? One can only hope that we are not being led to war by men who accept utterly flimsy forgeries as fact. But, absent any other intelligence, this must currently stand as plausible. As it currently stands, we are compelled to conclude that GeeDubya is sincerely stupid or cleverly mendacious. As to our dealings with the UN, it is hard to imagine a less impressive display of diplomacy, short of Colin Powell unzipping his trousers and peeing on Koffi Anan’s shoes. We obtained R. 1441 by _explicitly_ promising that we would not imply or assert that it _automaticly_ justified war in the event of Irai non-compliance. We sent our ambassador to the UN, Mr. Negoponte, carrying exactly that message: we would return to the UN and seek a authorizing resolution, thus explicitly recognizing UN authority in this matter. You will recall, I’m sure, Fearless Misleaders display of chin-jutting _machismo_, as he resolutely declared he would seek that 2nd resolution regardless of the “whip count” so that we could “see all the cards.” Perhaps there is another interpretation possible, other than “bald faced lie.” Please be so kind as to share such, if you have it. ---
**Author:** ![McDuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f1d935/32.png) [@McDuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/McDuff)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2003, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disturbing-evidence-from-baghdad-regarding-russia/168365/32 "2003-04-13T14:57:18Z")
Did we ever work out who bugged all those offices in the EU buildings? ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2003, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disturbing-evidence-from-baghdad-regarding-russia/168365/33 "2003-04-13T15:12:29Z")
Lucy–“We obtained R. 1441 by explicitly promising that we would not imply or assert that it automaticly justified war in the event of Irai non-compliance.” Cite? “We sent our ambassador to the UN, Mr. Negoponte, carrying exactly that message: we would return to the UN and seek a authorizing resolution, thus explicitly recognizing UN authority in this matter.” Open up your dictionary to the “ex-” page: you seem to lack a clear understanding of what “exactly” and “explicit” mean. The “exact” message, according to you, was that we would “seek” an authorizing resolution. We did seek one for a couple of weeks there, and when it became apparant that it was going to be vetoed, no matter what arguments or agreements we made, we stopped. Show me where we promised, explicitly or implicitly, to bang our heads against the wall. “Explicitly recognizing” UN authority? No, that’s (at best) an implicit recognition. An explicit resolution would have stated, unambiuously, that the US will abide by the security council’s decision, no matter how it contradicts our own position. I don’t think even you would claim that’s what we did. The UN is a debating society, where international pressures can be voiced, and deals can be struck. If Bush changed his mind–or his rhetoric, or even lied–it has no binding commitment to any policy. Your logic seeks merely to trip Bush up verbally, which he is quite efficient at doing himself, thanks. Of course he may have more demonstrable proof that NK is dangerous than Iraq is–but if NK is SO dangerous that the point past which an invasion could go badly is in the past, then we can’t invade NK anymore, but may instead have to rely on diplomacy without the backing of force, which is not so wonderful an idea. We got outselvs into this situation with NK because Bush understood that he could never sell going to war with NK without AT LEAST the tangible proof that they have WMD and intend to use them. Or are you advocating invading NK with the full knowledge that your warnings about invading Irag would be even more sound than they are regarding NK? Demostylus–“But why exactly do you believe this?” No, no, no. In my hypothetical, YOU believe this. Doesn’t matter why. I’m jumping six steps ahead of you, and putting the ball in your court. Or are you saying that you refuse to believe that any country will ever intend to do the US harm until after the harm has been committed? ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2003, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disturbing-evidence-from-baghdad-regarding-russia/168365/34 "2003-04-13T15:17:13Z")
Rockford- Where did I say Iraq did have nukes? I thought I was going to get quoted those U.N. definitions of agression. What all of you don’t seem to understand is that the US is a soverign nation, and one of the perogatives of a soverign nation is to invade another one. They also have to deal with the consiquences of their actions, as stated in the passages you quoted.It is up to the UN to charge the US with violating these provisions and they have not done so ( to my knowledge ). Finally, singning the UN charter is not the same surrending your soverignty to the rest of the world. ---
**Author:** ![AbsolutelyFabulous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb8c5e/32.png) [@AbsolutelyFabulous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AbsolutelyFabulous)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2003, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disturbing-evidence-from-baghdad-regarding-russia/168365/35 "2003-04-13T15:19:28Z")
If the UN is to be legitimate it needs to act legitimately. It’s inaction against crimes committed by heinous governments is apalling. To keep siting their articles is absurd at best. I’m not talking about just Iraq. Do a history check of the UN. If the UN wants to question the legitimacy of this war then maybe they should start by questioning their own legitimacy. Below is a speech from Kofi Annan. I’d say 16 resolutions later, several useless arms inspections and still no results after 12 years makes military action quite legitimate, legal, and very justified. Logic to the contrary still amazes me. [un.org/news/press/docs/2002/sgsm8378.doc.htm](http://un.org/news/press/docs/2002/sgsm8378.doc.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2003, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disturbing-evidence-from-baghdad-regarding-russia/168365/36 "2003-04-13T16:33:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber \* > \*\*“Illegal” doesn’t apply. The UN is not an international form of Congress, passing binding laws on its members. We negotiated a resolution stating that serious consequences would result from Iraq’s non-complicance. We then agreed NOT to have a vote on the precise nature of those serious consequences, and do not need explicit permission to invade. > > Hypothetical: Some country, explicitly hostile to the US, announces they have nukes, have delivery systems, and would enjoy bombing NYC, Washington, and Amarillo, Texas just for the sheer pleaure it will give them. The rest of the world, for some strange reason, decides they could care less, and our UN proposal to invade and neutralize this hypothetical country is voted down 157-1, But everyone is the US, INCLUDING YOU, is scared shitless and thinks we’re surely toast if we don’t do anything. > > What’s your recommendation? Do we invade “illegally” or do we die? Remember, you believe with all your heart that this threat is real and dire. > > Your call. \*\* If there’s no actual _proof_ they have nukes, you have no right to do anything. If you can prove another country has both the means and the intent to harm you, then you have an imminent threat, but you would still have to prove your case to the UN _before_ you started killing babies over there. Believing something “with all your heart” is a pretty lame reason to kill people, and in the case of Governor Bush, we have someone who is extraordinarily credulous about the flimsy and/or fabricated evidence. Bush is also a guy who believes “with all his heart” that Jews can’t go to Heaven, so I really have no confidence in Junior’s personal certitude. It’s now becoming embarrassingly apparent, after all, that Iraq had no ability at all to hurt the US, and Bush was either confident and wrong or he was lying through his teeth. Either way, his word is obviously worthless. I’d rather see some _proof_, thank you very much. ---
**Author:** ![mrblue92](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@mrblue92](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mrblue92)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2003, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disturbing-evidence-from-baghdad-regarding-russia/168365/37 "2003-04-13T16:34:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tamerlane \* > 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. Agreed. One definitely has to consider what is meant by “Russians”. Is it the Russian _government_, acting either officially or through backdoor channels, or is it rogue elements, ex-KGB, organized crime, and/or a combination of groups? One could legitimately say, “the Saudis were behind 9-11,” if one is playing fast and loose with the definition of “Saudis”. We definitely need more detailed information on this before jumping to any conclusions and making any motivational linkage. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic_ > 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. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Weirddave_ > Inavding NK would guarantee that those nukes would be used. Use your head, man. OK guys, hold on. Do we actually have any evidence North Korea _has_ nuclear weapons? They’ve admitted they’re _developing_ them, and I think we can all agree on that, indeed that they might have them within a relatively short time frame, but that doesn’t mean they have them yet. Unless I’ve missed the news and someone would like to provide a cite… Furthermore, it’s a pretty fair bet they don’t yet have the missile technology to deliver warheads to the US even if they had warheads to deliver. Clearly they’re working on that too. OF COURSE North Korea is a threat. But you know, this is still GD. ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2003, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disturbing-evidence-from-baghdad-regarding-russia/168365/38 "2003-04-13T17:17:28Z")
> [@](#): > > Furthermore, it’s a pretty fair bet they don’t yet have the missile technology to deliver warheads to the US even if they had warheads to deliver. Clearly they’re working on that too. I just did a funny internet search: Taepo Dong (western city). For example: Taepo Dong San Francisco. Taepo Dong Seattle. Taepo Dong Los Angeles. You try it, it’s fun. If you live in Florida, hate Tim Robbins, and support ABMs, it’s hilarious. ---
**Author:** ![TheMemeWarrior](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TheMemeWarrior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheMemeWarrior)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2003, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disturbing-evidence-from-baghdad-regarding-russia/168365/39 "2003-04-13T17:20:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > \*\*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” > \*\* Possible, but the Americans were there before the looting started, maybe their too busy to stop the looting of hospitals and private homes but they should have tried to secure valuable intelligence scources. In my mind there are only two possible scenarios A)The papers are fake B) U.S. Intelligence has once again dropped the ball and proven their incompentance with regards to dealing with terrorists despite all the new powers the USA PATRIOT act gave them. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2003, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disturbing-evidence-from-baghdad-regarding-russia/168365/40 "2003-04-13T17:27:38Z")
You’re all missing something. For the U.N. to be the source of legitimacy, it has to be, well, legitimate. If this intelligence proves true (and it’s now being reported on MSNBC and CNN), then this evidence is kind of like finding out a jury member on a trial is taking kickbacks from a mob boss. It taints everything. Russia was saying that sanctions could work. It was saying it needed more evidence of WMD. Those were its stated reasons, and those were the hoops Colin Powell was trying to jump through in order to gain their vote. Now it turns out that in fact Russia was violating the sanctions, and Russia knew damned well that there were WMD programs in Iraq. Furthermore, Russia was actively spying FOR Saddam, passing along sensitive conversations of Tony Blair’s. AND, Russia was providing information Saddam could use to KILL western leaders. And you guys still think was was illegitimate unless the U.N. SC, over which Russia holds a veto, had to approve the war? I find it amazing that some of you who are so quick to accuse the U.S. government of incompetence, bad faith, and conspiracies are so quick to assume that the U.N. is the sole source of legitimacy, and to take the statements of the SC as unquestioned fact. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disturbing-evidence-from-baghdad-regarding-russia/168365.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disturbing-evidence-from-baghdad-regarding-russia/168365.md?page=3)