If Bush Lied - A Thought Experiment

[frithrah]

**Originally posted by adaher
Let’s see. The ICC has not indicted Saddam Hussein, but has indicted Tony Blair. It appears the US staying out was a good idea. **

*Originally posted by clairobscur *
**Err…Sorry, perhaps I’m just wholefully ignorant since I didn’t follow the news during the recent days…But did the ICC actually indict Blair? Aren’t you mixing here the complaints recently brought in a Belgian regular court with the ICC? **

I’m not really familiar with this either, but there is a glaring mismatch here by making Blair equivilent to the US.

If Blair is indicted, it may or may not be a good thing for BRITAIN.

The U.S. staying out might be a good idea for Bush, so he could avoid indictment, which could be a bad thing for the U.S.

Bush and the U.S. are not synonimous, nor are Blair and Britain.

[Desmostylus]

Here’s the Blair/ICC story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2933140.stm

The Athens Bar Association says it will file a suit against Britain at the International Criminal Court - the recently created tribunal for cases of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

The lawyers call the attacks by the United States and British forces against Iraq “crimes against humanity and war crimes”.

They have listed a number of international treaties they say the two countries have violated.

These include the United Nations Charter, the Geneva Conventions, the Hague Convention and the International Criminal Court’s statute.

Dimitris Paxinos, the head of the lawyers’ association, told the BBC the lawsuit will be filed within a fortnight.

[Rossarian]

*Originally posted by Squink *
**After all, with the end of the cold war, the intell bureaucrats had to come up with some justification for their own existence. **

I’ve heard a few Cold War-era intelligence analysts comment on how boring intel was back then as compared to now. The world got even more confusing at the end of the Cold War - there was no need for intel bureaucrats to justify there existence - they were needed even more than before.

[China_Guy]

*Originally posted by NurseCarmen *
**Why was Bush in such a rush to invade? **

2 things. First, was the summer so you either invade before or after it gets real hot. Second, soon as the invasion is successful the price of oil will drop and the overhang on the global economy will be lifted. You’ve got some serious 9-24 month range before cheaper oil filters through to the average Joe feeling better about his spending power. If you wait until the autumn to invade, then you’re at serious risk of getting trounced in 2004 on economic issues and then watch your successor take credit for the rebound.

Bush the senior hasn’t forgotten that this may have been the deciding factor that caused his own election loss.

[squeegee]

*Originally posted by squeegee *
**I guess Shodan lost interest in his own thread. I would’ve loved to hear that brilliant theory of his. I’m crushed with disappointment. **

[Shodan]

Sorry for the delay in my return to this thread - things got busy at work, where I usually post, and the PC at home has been usurped as well.

My scenario on “what really happened in Iraq” with regard to the WMD is posted in this thread..

*Saddam was willing to give up what he had to (the poisons he had already stockpiled) in order to retain control of Iraq, and the production facilities he could conceal. Then, if he won the war (“won” meaning in this case any situation in which he retained power), he could fire them up, and be no worse off than before. *

And:

*The imminent danger to American interests is the continued presence of a regime like Saddam’s in the Middle East - since we now have verification that he was in possession of the mean to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons.

You need to realize the distinction between tactical and strategic thinking in war. Saddam could have used his WMD against the invading troops, and won, possibly, a tactical victory or two. But, as I said, it would have prevented those who wanted an excuse to support him from pretending what many on the SDMB would like still to pretend - that he was not actively attempting to amass WMD. And use of WMD might have won him a battle, but it would have made little or no difference in the war. The US and her allies were going to win, one way or another. Saddam might have increased the body count, but after his inevitable loss, had he actually used poison gas or anthrax, he would have had no chance to remain as dictator. His best chance - indeed, his only chance, and a chance that it turns out did not pay off - was to try to stall the invasion, and turn world opinion against the US with suicide bombers, attacks by soldiers in civilian dress, and other actions designed to create situations he could use to blame human rights abuses and war crimes on the US. Remember all the US uniforms he had stockpiled? He was going to blame all that he could on the US, and hope for a negotiated settlement that would leave him in charge - just as after Gulf War I.

Fortunately, the speed of the overwhelming US victory exceeded his ability to stall and to fake atrocities. So we wind up where we are - Iraq has destroyed all the poison gas and anthrax, so they could claim they were clean after the war, but retained the mobile production facilities they wanted to use to rebuild their WMD after the sanctions were lifted.

Do you think Saddam missed the difference between North Korea and his own regime? NK has nukes, and the world is therefore much more leery of invading her. If Saddam could survive the war, he could create a stockpile of anthrax and (if possible) nukes, and present the world with a fait accompli - and, if the White House is occupied with a foreign policy moron like Clinton or Jimmy Carter, Saddam could negotiate a fat aid package as NK did in 1994 which could be disregarded at will. Then Saddam brings out his weapons, and blackmails the world or the Middle East as he intended all along. *

Feel free to ask if I am not clear on any of this.

This has been an interesting thread. It seems our beliefs of what happened are not always very far apart - the difference seeming to be that those on the Left are willing to condemn Bush for agreeing with what virtually everyone on earth said prior to the overthrow of the Iraqi regime - that Saddam had not accounted for his WMD. As well as disagreement on whether or not it would have been a good idea to allow him to go along without ever doing so.

I liked the blog in particular, light strand.

Regards,
Shodan