So THIS is the scam that Bush is going to use to justify his war...

Great Debates
81

Olentzero, as you requested, the 1999 UNSCOM reports:

On chemical weapons: http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/990125/dis-chem.htm

On bio-weapons:
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/990125/dis-bio.htm

On missiles:
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/990125/dis-miss.htm

On Iraqi efforts to obstruct inspections:
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/990125/dis-acti.htm
IIRC, there was no nuclear report, as the IAEA cleared Iraq prior to 1999.

I can’t find the 1998 report right now; I’ll keep plugging.

Sua

82

If I understand your principle, Olentzero, wrong-headed US support for Saddam in 1988 means that the US must continue to provide wrong-headed support forever. Do you really believe this?

US policy may have been poorly chosen in 1988, but I don’t see where that requires us to make wrong policy decisions in 2002. This would be carrying consistency too far! If anything, maybe our past (alleged) mistake gives us an extra degree of responsibility to correct things now.

83

Is it possible that in the early 80s, it was Iran that was clearly the greater threat, and the US was supporting the lesser of two evils?

Should we or should we not attempt to fix mistakes we made previously?

84

For the USA to claim attrocities as an excuse to oust Saddam shows some nerve. Saddam used poison gas against Iran with the full help of the USA who, among other things, supplied the necessary intelligence knowing what it would be used for. The US was a necessary accessory to these acts.

More recently the US has been complicit in mass murders in Afghanistan when hundreds of Taliban were murdered by holding them in 40 ft shipping containers and left to suffocate. The US forces stood by and did nothing to prevent it.

That the USA should erect itself in the judge of all morals is laughable. It has as much to be ashamed of as any other nation, if not more. Let us have a little humility and get off our high horses. Maybe war needs to be made on Irak, but justifying it on the grounds that the regime has infringed on human rights is just laughable.

85

sailor, this argument has been used repeatedly, and I’ve never seen the logic. Your position is that the U.S. has acted badly in the past, so it is not allowed to act properly in the future.

Sua

86

You act like that was Saddam’s only atrocity. Perhaps you’ve never heard of “Operation ANFAL”- a genocidal program which Saddam used to kill at least 100,000 Kurdish civilians. Or maybe you’re unfamiliar with the time he crushed the Shi’ites, in the south, and put 30,000 civilians in their graves. Or maybe the destruction of the ancient marshes and the forced removal of their native population. Or perhaps the torture chambers that Saddam has put hundreds of dissidents to their deaths in…

87

“The only possible source of new information would have been from intelligence agencies. I doubt that they provided him with confidential intelligence…”
Why not? What about leaks from elements within intelligence agencies which wanted to prevent a war. It needn’t even have been an official policy from the top.

Even apart from that he may have obtained information from UNSCOM that had been collected before but he had not yet seen. Or he may have drawn different conclusions from the same raw information that he had previously had. There are lots of possibilities apart from him being a “flat-out liar” for which you have not provided any real evidence.

88

So certainly you would support massive increases in humanitarian and development aid to Nicaragua, Guatemala, Chile, East Timor, Iran, Vietnam… If you don’t then ask your self why our “responsibility” can only be invoked when war is a possibility.

89

Actually, I believe that would depend on their payloads. There was some fear during the Gulf War that Saddam either did or could have put poison gas into a Scud and hit Tel Aviv with it. And anthrax spores don’t weigh as much as fissionable material.

If you want to quibble, the Enola Gay wasn’t a WMD, either. Neither is an ICBM. They are just delivery systems. The warheads are WMD.

I just can’t come up with a reason to believe the Iraqis are hiding their Scud development equipment for an innocent reason.

Regards,
Shodan

90

I find it difficult to credit the idea that there was ever any chance that the war with Iraq could be averted.

Much has been made by some posters, to this and other threads, of Bush’s “consultation” with the UN. Why this should be held to be impressive escapes me. Our Leader has made no secret of his intention to proceed with regime change regardless. The only UN decision he will accept is enthusiastic approval for what he intends to do anyway.

Suppose I stop you on the street, and put a gun to your face and say “I’m going to blow your head off. However, first I will consult with my Mom. If she agrees that that is the correct course of action, she can help me blow your head off. If she fails in her duty and moral responsibility to agree, I’m going to blow your head off - with the help my friends.” Well, whoop-de-fuck-a-doo. Consultation.

The inspection by the UN is an apparent ploy to gain some kind of control over the situation. It is almost certainly doomed to fail.

Whats especially odd is that if Saddam bin Laden is the evil conniving bugger that he purported to be, and I have little doubt that he is, complete and utter compliance with the UN is a perfect ploy. If he destroys everything he has, turns over reams of evidence that it will takes months to confirm, he gains everything. He is shown to the world, most especially the Moslem world, as the victim of the Great Satan. Once everybody goes away, he can re-make any of these weapons at his convenience.

Be that as it may, the hawks have painted themselves, and us, into a corner. They cannot back down. And once war begins, they must go all the way, house to house through Baghdad if necessary. At what cost? Who knows. Will Iraqis resist a foreign invader? Who wouldn’t?

Whats most galling is having opposed this monstrosity every step in the way, I must now hope that everything comes up roses for Our Leader. I must hope that our forces are instantly triumphant, and he comes gallumphing back with Saddam’s head on a pike, to the cheers and plaudits of a grateful nation. I have to hope that. Because the alternative is dreadful. A disaster where I can point a finger and say “I told you so!” is too hideous to contemplate. I have to hope that it is thier soldiers who must be sacrificed, thier children orphaned, thier streets filled with reeking “collateral damage”. Not ours. And I sincerely loathe the men who have forced that upon me.

And the final insult? We couldn’t quite manage to extend benefits for our unemployed. Can’t seem to find the extra money for health insurance for our children. But war? Ah, well, thats different.

Shit like this makes the Baby Jesus pukes His little guts out.

91

Well, whether or not a SCUD is technically a “WMD” or not, they were controled items under the UN rules- and thus already, day1, a violation.

So let me get this straight. We need to make the following assumptions: 1. Iraq really doesn’t have any WMD. 2. The USA really doesn’t have any proof that they do- the CIA etc are lying. 3. When the Inspectors come up with nothing (see #1), Bush will say “Aha, but that is just proof they are really well hidden, we have evidence they are there- but we aren’t going to show it to anyone”. And then invade anyway.

Now, I can believe the CIA is lying. Believing that Saddam has nothing hidden is MUCH harder. Asking me to accept a policy that would have Bush in front of a warcrimes tribunal is a fair stretch also. BUT- asking me to accept all 3? Sorry, I’m not the Red Queen. When you pile this many assumptions together, you lose me. Why not talk about fairies causing sunspots? When & if #1 comes true, then try again. Until then…

92

“I find it difficult to credit the idea that there was ever any chance that the war with Iraq could be averted”
I wouldn’t be so sure of that. There appear to be many within the administration including in the CIA and the professional military who don’t want war. Not to mention Powell.

Plus there isn’t much support for a war around the world if the UN doesn’t sign on. For instance Turkey has made its assistance conditional on UNSC support.

IMO it is precisely the strategy of right-wing ideologues like Pearle to make everyone think that the war is inevitable so as to create a self-fulfilling prophecy . I don’t see any reason to co-operate with that strategy.

93

I quite take your point, Cyber. As a pessimist, I love being wrong. Turkey’s condition of UN approval is a hopeful sign. But what approval, exactly? Majority vote by the General Assembly?

Nonetheless, The Man Who Fell Up is on record as asserting that if the UN “fails in its moral duty” (not a quote, a paraphrase) American goes anyway.

If he backs down now, the Hawks will go totally ballistic. The Sane Party (us) will be pissed about being taken to the brink, further underlining suspicions that it was all about the election. And if he were to avoid war, regardless of its political cost, it would be an act of supreme statesmanship and moral courage.

In the words of Buddy Holly “That’ll be the day”.

94

The Armenian genocide was not perpetrated by the same government that is in charge now.

95

I doubt that it depends solely on him.

Neville Chamberlain avoided war - for a while. Hardly an “act of supreme statesmanship”, since he was dealing with much the same sort of personality in his foreign policy as is currently running Iraq.

Regards,
Shodan

96

“But what approval, exactly? Majority vote by the General Assembly?”
No, a new UNSC resolution specifically authorizing war.

“The Man Who Fell Up is on record as asserting that if the UN “fails in its moral duty” (not a quote, a paraphrase) American goes anyway.”
Maybe but he might yet be convinced by ,maybe, the CIA, professional military etc. that unilateral war isn’t worth it if Saddam is co-operating with inspectors and if countries like Turkey aren’t on board.

One of the reasons I am reasonably optimistic is that the professionals in the administration are a good deal more sober-minded than the neo-conservative ideologues. For instance recall the statements by the CIA that Saddam was unlikely to attack the US unless attacked first. These people understand what they are getting into.

In any case regardless of the likelihood of war,like I said, I don’t see any reason to help the likes of Pearle by making it seem inevitable.

97

Sua:

You are a liar.

You showed that Ritter’s stance has changed since 1998, and have entirely ignored his explanations for why he has changed his opinion. Furthermore, you have not shown any instance of Ritter lying. Let me explain: changing your opinion over a period of four years does not equal lying.

You, on the other hand, have lied, and continue to lie. You slander an honest man simply because what he has to say does not fit your ideology.

You are despicable.

98

Oh dear.

99

Why don’t you open a pit thread, there, Chumpsky?

100

Oh, sweet Jesus, not that “Neville Chamberlain” Bushwa again!

OK. Lets say ol’ wimpass Neville stood up to Hitler, as you suggest he should have.

With what? How in the hell was England going to assert its majestic power in Czechoslovakia? Winston Churchill had his moments, this was not one of them. He knifed Chamberlain in the back, knowing full well that Britain was in no position to interfere in a military way in Europe, other than offering its soldiers for gloriously moral slaughter.

Chamberlain made the best of an impossible situation, and has been shit on ever since.

And “personality”? Of what conceivable relevence is that? OK, Saddam is Hitler. Let’s invade France. Makes about as much sense.

Actually, come to think of it…No, never mind. Forget it.