Cite?
It wasn’t Nigeria that Saddam didn’t buy Uranium from, it was Niger.
Or, of course, both of the above
Ninas grandpa, they didn’t buy uranium from anybody, Niger or Nigeria. That’s the point; it was a lie from the get-go.
We may disagree on what “law” means. To me, it means something that describes what will necessarily happen (i.e., a law of nature) under given circumstances. Or, prescriptively, I take it as meaning a rule of conduct the violation of which will in the ordinary course of events be adjudicated, and/or noncompliance with which will be met by the application of juridical or governmental force, in a manner that is predictable to actors subject to such law.
Because (I submit) there is no predictable enforcement mechanism for “international law,” and no effective or designated adjudicator or enforcer for violations of it, I take much of “international law” as constituting, for all practical purposes, a set of aspirational principles. Some people may want to see a (meaningfully-empowered) world court or UN police force with the regularized power to spank countries violating “int’l law;” others (including many Americans) would dread such enforcement mechanisms; but the fact that Bush purported to be enforcing “UN Law,” while the Gen. Assembly and Security Council all claimed he was flouting it, seems to show me that “int’l law” is as yet theory rather than practice.
Sure it was. But the lie was that they bought it from Niger, not that they bought it from Nigeria.
According to the radio news (NPR) Deputy/Assistant Defense Secretary Wolfowitz is telling Vanity Fair that the search for WMD and claim that they were in Iraq was a “bureaucratic” pretext for the invasion because it is the causa belli that everyone agreed on, and that the real reason for the invasion was to allow the US to pull its troops out of Saudi Arabia.
Can this be accurate? If so, how is it possible that the guy who was the chief drum beater now says that the publicly expressed reason, the reason enunciated by the Secretary of State (who was a fine soldier and a decent person) to the UN and the whole world, the reasons declared by the PM of the UK well as by our President , the reason the US has damned and ridiculed France and Germany for refusing to accept, were just a cover to get troops out of Saudi Arabia? Does this amount to a declaration that the US deliberately lied and what you going to do about it?. Am I misreading this?
Maybe Iran??? I’m sure the people who were on the receiving end of those weapons in the Iran-Iraq war would be receptive to helping Saddam hide his chemical weapons.
“Pssssst… hey Saddam, yeah you, send them over here so the infidel americans can use it as an excuse to attack us.”
DrDeth I’m still giving Bush and company the benefit of the doubt, but not for much longer, hence my list of possible states. If he had them, and he moved them where’s the public eveidence of that? If he had them and he destroyed them, where’s the evidence of that. I think Saddam had fewer than even he thought/stated.
Read Ninas Grandpa’s post again, Rickjay.
[quote]
It wasn’t Nigeria that Saddam [color]didn’t[/color] buy Uranium from, it was Niger.**
It was a joke.
Welcome, to SDMB, NG.
As for the Bush administration not knowing that there weren’t any there, I certainly don’t know why they weren’t paying attention to Hussein Kamal Saddam’s son in law, and former head of the Nuclear weapons program, when he stated to the UN in 1995 that
quote:
All chemical weapons were destroyed. I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons - biological, chemical, missiles, nuclear were destroyed.
Kamal was subsequently sent back to Iraq and he was executed. This information was reported in 4 Feb. issue of Newsweek. Unfortunately Newsweek has a pay archive, but here is some further information.
Dammit, That wasn’t supposed to happen.
Anyway, I posted the above a while back in another thread. Here are the cites: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/un/unscom-iaea_kamal-brief.htm
Even Blair, who used to be a pretty sharp cookie, is claiming there must be a pony while he digs through the pile of horseshit under the Christmas tree. Here is a pretty pathetic set of statements:
Don’t let the doorknob hit ya where the good Lord split ya, Tony.
On the other hand, perhaps only the ones who lie in order to start wars will be impeached.
Defense #1, he didn’t lie. He received bad intelligence information and based his decisions on that.
Always keeping in mind that the House will have to vote articles and the Senate will have to convict.
Wow! Now, I’ve lost yet more confidence in my government. I was sure that WMDs would be planted by our invading forces. How can our government not have made such contingency plans beforehand?
Wow, it’s just as I predicted on page one of this very thread the Administration set up an intelligence team to tell them what they wanted to hear, and people are already allowing the team to take the hit. The CYA is working I see.
For c) who did not know it? Perhaps the CIA reported accurately that there was little evidence of WMDs, and the information was filtered. Now, maybe Rummy lied to his president, but more likely Shrub made it clear what he wanted to hear, and that’s what he heard. I rather suspect that telling a president who wants there to be WMDs that there aren’t any is not a good move.
Anybody want to guess what the opinions polls would have said if Shrub floated the idea of invading Iraq just to get rid of Saddam? I bet not very good - before the war there was majority support only with UN involvement.
It seems to me that Bush is just like Richard Nixon, except not so honest.
For gods sake dude, can’t you read? Sometimes asking for a cite is legit, sometimes it is just being a jerk.
Not even OliverH disputes that pre-Blix there were WMD in Iraq. The UN saw them, we saw them. Lightstrand has posted Kamal’s quote where he said they destroyed them. Could they “destroy” something than never existed? Don’t be a jerk.
Well, Grey- there is damn little evidence he destroyed them (well, maybe a few), and there is less that he moved them, I’ll admit. But they did exist, and we can’t find them now. So- what DID happen to them? Faeries? :dubious:
CBE- you make a point. However, later SH was on much better term with Iran- note that he sent a lot of his warplanes there to escape Operation Desert Storm. Whether or not he’d also trust them with illegal WMD is atmatter of guesswork. OTOH, he was pretty damn freindly with Syria, and he smuggled a lot of stuff into & out of Syria, so that is a better guess.
Let us put this as a logic problem. 1. SH had massive amounts of WMD- at some point in time, post Desert Storm. 2. They don’t seem to be there now. 3. There is little evidence he destroyed them- and such evidence should be obvious. 4. There is no evidence he moved them, but such evidence would not be obvious. He must have either destoyed them, or moved them. So- which & when? Then- why?
Hang on there Sparky, don’t be using my cite as evidence of your WMD.
Kamal said that he destroyed the WMD after the First Bush Family War. This would have been in compliance with UN resolutions.
Yes, Iraq certainly had WMD, as we know from the gassing of the Kurds, but those WMDs are not why we went to war in the Second Bush Family War.
Why is it so hard to believe that they destroyed them in 1991 as Kamal said they did? Is it simply that it won’t fit into your agenda? Where is the evidence that they weren’t destroyed then? They haven’t used them, no Scientist has affirmed they were producing them, and they can’t find them.
Also “massive” is a somewhat deceptive amount, wouldn’t you agree? As a Microbiologist I have been doubtful of Iraq’s ability to produce any kind of significant amounts of toxins. It ain’t an easy process, especially if you’re trying to hide it. Anthrax is a different story, but I can hide a slant of B. anthrasis in my pocket. Is this “massive”? I don’t think so. However, I can *guarantee, that the Bush Administration will use that slant as “evidence”.