As far back as his January state of the union adrress, president Bush stated as a fact, Sadam had and I quote, " Gone to great lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks, to build and keep weapons of mass destruction." end quote.
In his March 17 statement where he set the 48 hour deadline for Sadam to go, quote, "Sadam still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his ability to have more." end quote.
Planning of the this invasion has included great resources dedicated to find these weapons, teams and mobile labs moving with the troops are scouring the place for any evidence.
What have they found so far? The Marines dug up a school yard 50 miles east of the capital on a tip from a captive Iraqi, they found nothing. Someone reported a strange vial of white powder that turned out to be legal explosives. The most promising find so far were some large drums of a toxic substance that has turned out to pesticides.
What if nothing is ever found? How can Bush ever explain away disrupting a legal " inspection process that obviously was working if no WMD is found? Splitting the Western alliance on false evidence?
If Bush gets the credit for liberating Iraq, he should take responsibility for invading a nation on false and fabricated evidence.
Of course they know this and are already preparing a defense.
They will say Sadam snuck all the WMD out of the country.
Then we can invade another nation!
Yes, but what about the tortured prisoners, and all the bodies they found. I think the USA was premature for attacking Iraq too, but I also think Saddam was a sadist.
True, no weapons of mass destruction were found, not yet. I honestly do not think he had any. Saddam had to go, but he was smart by staying below the radar, and avoiding investigation. However, he did need to go. The only thing that disturbs me, is that they are now without control or Government, what now?
Also, Saddam is not the only dictator in the middle east. I hope Gee Dubya doesnt get a second wind and go after them too. I want those troops to just finish up and get the hell out of there.
If they do not find any WoMDs in Iraq, Bush has made war on false reasons, he has also lied to his people and to the whole world. If there is no WoMDs in Iraq, the only right thing for Bush to do would be to resign.
Hypothetical Situation:
There are two kingdoms. One is red and one is blue. The king of the blue kingdom knows that the king of the red kingdom is cruel to his subjects. The blue king also suspects with good reason that the red king is planning to attack the blue kingdom. So the blue king sends his knights over to the red kingdom and takes out the red king. The people in the red kingdom are soooo happy and grateful (even though they are prejudice against blue people.) However no evidence is found that the red king was going to attack. The people in the blue kingdom are furious because they never liked their king anyway so they crucify him. The people in the red kingdom are very surprised but they don’t really care because now they are free and they never liked the way the blue king looked anyway.
Sorry I’m getting off into fairyland.
My point is that people who never liked Bush are looking for any fault he has. They assume that he “lied” and “deceived” people so that he could invade Iraq. That doesn’t fit the situation because he has never been too concerned with public opinion about the invasion or proving to people that there is reason to invade. It’s more likely that he honestly believes there are (or was) weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. People who don’t like Bush make him out to be this person who manipulated people into letting him invade Iraq. Why would he want to invade Iraq for no reasons whatsoever?
thats actually a good point
Originally posted by ioshee
Why would he want to invade Iraq for no reasons whatsoever? maybe to scare people. or maybe because he wanted to. also i think if they don't find WoMD that he will have some people sneak in some and claim them as Iraq's. I liked bush when he first started his election campaign in 98 he said some realistic things that were nice but then when he gave his arguments against gore i found him to be an utter and complete idiot with a huge ego and passion to kill/hurt.
Iam still waiting, where are the tons of WMD? A few traces here and there is not going to cut it.
Of course the excuses are already being prepared. 1rst they said, well maybe Sadam snuck the WMD out of the country while we were busy attacking. Sneaky bastard.
Or the latest Rumsfeld excuse, "the looters are stealing the WMD and we never will find it!"
Come On!
Originally posted by griff38
Iam still waiting, where are the tons of WMD?
North Korea. :D
Bush may have just been using Iraq as a warm up. If so, we're in real trouble.
Originally posted by Eldritch
North Korea. :D
Bush may have just been using Iraq as a warm up. If so, we're in real trouble. yeah. im gonna get a huge lead plated bomb shelter if bush declares war on korea.
Well those 50 suicide vests they found in that school disturbs me even more.
Kind of unrelated, but I did not vote for Bush. I don't believe I ever will. He was a horrible governer, and yes, he is brash and arogant, not the kind of person I look up too. And don't get me started on that Dick, Chaney...
You can say "dick" without it getting censored? :eek: :confused:
Dick?
DICK-DICK-DICK-DICK-DICK-DICK-DICK-DICK-DICK-DICK!! HAHAHA!
...DICK!
*giggles*
Umm.. so yeah..what am I, 5? :o Jesus..
Anyways.. like, where are the WOMD's? :confused: That was the reason for this whole war.
I bet these weapons have been shipped into Syria, North Korea, Afganistan (come one..there's got to be something left to bomb there!), Cuba and... who else do we got? Russia and China? O.o. :eek:
Seriously, I really hope they find huge amounts of WOMD's in Iraq. This war, all the killing, needs a reason. No matter what happens, this will remain a political disaster for the US, but.. man... if they don't find ANY weapons of mass destruction.. that would make 'em look really, really bad. :(
DICK!
*snicker*
I just read on the plane back from Madrid that USA has found some evidence of chemical weapons during a routine check in an airport. It was something like 24 baseball-bat sized warheads which they suspected contained a nervegas.
Still, it feels somewhat a hollow basis for going to war. Let's be frank here - how many middle east nations have got that few warheads just for protection? How many in the western world?
Had he used them during the period from the end of the gulf war to this war, or even during this war I could have spotted the hazy justification that Bush used.
But the moral high ground is looking like a muddy pile of compost dung to me, with recycled threats from a decade ago and homebrewed terror connections and documentation.
Yet, for the time being, it's a solid humanitarian victory to see Saddam's brutal police state collapse. What remains is to see whether the people will actually be able to live in the democracy promised and what impact this war will have on the world.
BTW - what happened to that huge camouflaged factory of WOMD's in the desert?
Any info about that? Anyone?
Originally posted by Luc Solar
You can say "dick" without it getting censored?
Well, it is his name isn't it?
Originally posted by Luc Solar
BTW - what happened to that huge camouflaged factory of WOMD's in the desert?
Any info about that? Anyone?
A political joke. The British defense minister (I think) had to go out himself and say it was false.
You guys actually think that the sole reason for invasion was WMDs? How about removing a regime that should have been long gone...
WOMD's.
That's what it was all about. "No more time for the weapons inspectors! Saddam is lying and hiding the WOMD's! Saddam is a threat ot the US because he has WOMD's!"
That's why the US attacked. The rest of the world said "You can't attack without proof. Let the weapon instructors do their job. etc. etc."
How many countries in the world does not approve of the US goverment or Bush particularly? I'd guess about half of them. Do these 80 countries give the US an ultimatum "Get out, Bush..or we'll **** up your country!"
No. You just don't do that. This is not a western, it's real life. You don't attack a country because you don't like it's leader, especially without the permission of a helluva lot of countries and the UN.
The feeble basis of the whole operation was "disarming Saddam" because he "is a threat to the US".
If we now find out that Saddam did NOT have any WOMD's, that Iraq was NOT a threat to the US.... oh boy. :( shame-shame...
If all that I stated above was/is untrue or not the real reason then it's all the more disgusting. Oil? A personal disapproval of the president of Iraq? You don't slaughter tens (hundreds?) of thousands of people because of that.
Seriously, dear Americans: IT'S NOT YOUR GOD DAMN BUSINESS!
According to 100% of all international law experts, what the USA did was grossly illegal. Illegal and disapproved of by the UN and most countries (besides Afganistan, Israel and Ologa-Bologa-Island.)
If Iraq was not a threat to you, what on earth are you guys doing there???? Some ulterior motive, perhaps? :rolleyes:
I'm so confused.
About the camouflaged factory >> a pretty nice trick, I must say. An ANONYMOUS source from the Pentagon conveniently leaks this information at a crucial point of the war. :disaprove I guess Bush felt like the war needed a justification so that at least some protestor would start thinking that he might be doing te right thing.
Worked like a charm, didn't it? Bought the US a few more days to get their war going. Probably half of you Americans still think that they have found a WOMD factory totally proving that Bush was right all along.
But we'll see.... who get's the contracts, who gets the money, who gets the oil, who appoints a nice, friendly US-biased goverment..
I hope I'm being way to cynical.
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
You guys actually think that the sole reason for invasion was WMDs? How about removing a regime that should have been long gone...
That regime should've been long gone yes, I agree on you with that. But my main point now is: If THAT was/is one of the main reasons to go to war, then prepare for a future with coming decades of war, because that Iraqi regime isn't the only one on this planet that's evil. Now this might be a start of coming years of global warfare with the US army (with the help of others of course) ' freeing' all nations with such evil regimes, but it is scary to think of the consequences such future wars will have (eg. more death, nuclear warfare, chemical warfare, etc).
Let me explain it like Ioshee's fairyland situation: Hypothetical Situation:
There are two kingdoms. One is red and one is blue. The king of the blue kingdom knows that the king of the red kingdom is cruel to his subjects
That is what ioshee wrote. Problem is that in the "real" world, the red kingdom isn't the only one with a king that is cruel to its subjects. There is also a purple kingdom, a pink kingdom, a green kingdom and a grey kingdom with kings who are cruel to their subjects. So if the blue kingdom decides to attack the red kingdom just because it has an evil king, why should blue only attack red? Are the red people more special than the other ones? I don't think so.
Perhaps the blue king doesn't actually care much about the red kingdom's people, and the blue king only attacked red because of some natural resources the red country has... *cough*..
And if the Blue king says he attacked Red, because he thinks Red threatens him, then he's a bit unaware of the situation, because the Purple king is most likely a bigger threat with his newly built long range catapults.
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
You guys actually think that the sole reason for invasion was WMDs? How about removing a regime that should have been long gone...
Well, Bush didn't mention regime change until very late in the game. And to the best of my knowledge never said anything about "liberating" opressed people until the war was almost started.
If this was the main reason or even secondary, why did they not say it from the begining? If Bush had said a year ago "the Iraqi people are opressed and need our help." Alot more of us would be supportive.
I have never heard a single person say, "lets' keep Sadam!" Of course everybody with 2 brain cells to rub together is glad he is gone.
But the Bush admin didn't ever use humanitarian concerns to invade untill the last moment.
It is a total PR ploy. If Bush gave a damn we would have been better prepared to deal with the riots and unlawfulness that has always occured at the end of a war. We had tons of military MP's (military police) ready for such events in the Gulf war, why not this time?
Weapons of Mass Destruction will be found in Iraq.
Even if they weren't there during the war.
If I were Darth Rumsfeld, I'd ship over some of our own WMD's that were scheduled for destruction and bury them in the desert. Then I'd have an Iraqi agent leak the location to BBC or some other press agency. Then assign a special ops group to accompany the reporters on "their" lead.
This was never a war about WMDs. Nor was it about the oppressed peoples. It was, and is, about economic control of the region. The West has been attempting to control intrests in the Middle East for hundreds of years. Before oil, it was about trade routes. Today, it's probably both.
If it were about oppression, we would have sent SOMEone into the Congo after nearly 1000 (that's a "1" followed by three zeros!) men, women and children were massacred in the span of a couple of hours.
If it were about oppression, we would have stayed the course in Somalia, where warlords control the economy and people died, and are still dying, of starvation because of it.
If it were about oppression, we would go into Chechnya and "liberate" the civilians there who are being denied medicine, food, shelter, clothing, and education by the Russians.
If it were about oppression, we would pressure the corporations that exploit the labor of women and children in periphery nations and regions such as Indonesia to pay a minimum, FAIR wage with SAFE working conditions.
If it were about oppression, we would assist the Zapatistas in Mexico, who are unable to defend themselves against death squads that call themselves "Peace and Justice" brigades.
Then again.... maybe all these places are on the list.
Originally posted by Zodiac
So if the blue kingdom decides to attack the red kingdom just because it has an evil king, why should blue only attack red?
And >>
1) What if the blue king thinks that the red kingdom worships a false god?
2) What if the blue king thinks that the red kingdom is not being fair by putting custom tariffs on blue products?
3) What if the red kingdom sells catapults to Gray kingdom but not to blue.
4) What if the red kingdom is not a democracy ruled by a king, but instead by some strange religious cult?
Well... 1) The red kingdom must be crushed and their religion abolished. They're worhipping a wrong god and their evil thoughts have been getting followers in the blue kingdom as well. To protect what is Right and Our kingdom, we must attack!
2) The red kingdom is hampering the economic growth of blue kingdom. For the sake of our motherland we must attack and force blue kingdom to drop the tariffs.
3) The Gray kingdom becomes a threat 'cause they have catapults. To protect ourselves we must attack Grey Kingdom and steal..*cough* destroy the catapults. We must also attack red kingdom so that they'll never sell catapults or at least not to anyone but blue kingdom... oh yea: in order to protect our freedom.
4) A democracy ruled by a king is the only right way. Any other form of governance is just not right. The people of red kingdom must be oppressed because they don't have identical rights to ours. We must attack and appoint a new goverment that resembles ours and shares & enforces our values, because they're the only ones that can/should exist.
We, the Blue Kingdom are the good guys. We are just doing what's right in the eyes of God. Just protecting our country, that's all...
Look, i could be stupidly optimistic in our government, but i am pretty sure that the US of A would not invade another foreign, sovereign country without just cause. First, there is no logic to it. There is no point to gain by taking down Iraq, unless they do (or did :) ) post a threat to the world. The people were living in a police state, for crying out loud! There were government rape-rooms!!! I think that the US is justified, regardless of whether there are WMD's or not... and I do think that there were, and i think it is perfectly possible that they are in syria.
They found plenty of dirty materials there, and plain and simply the opression of the people of iraq was definetly reason enough.
Originally posted by mr116
There is no point to gain by taking down Iraq, unless they do (or did :) ) post a threat to the world.
There are other reasons for it too.... *cough*oil*cough*
And of course, Dubya want revenge for the last war.
The people were living in a police state, for crying out loud!
Many people does. And some of these countries are even supported by USA.
There were government rape-rooms!!!
Do you really think there were?
Think about it: Have you seen any footage of it? Have you seen any pictures of these rooms that can make sure these room are gov rape rooms?
Or is the whole thing just something the media feeds you.
They found plenty of dirty materials there, and plain and simply the opression of the people of iraq was definetly reason enough.
They did find some pesticides, but I do not believe those are illegal according to UN ;) .
Regardless of what is found, might have been found, or could be found, the point remains that there was NO evidence prior to the invasion.
I see a lot of justification going on both with politicians and the citizenry who want to believe in their leaders. "Saddam was obviously a bad guy/evil dude/Hitler II/ etc. and the Iraqi people were oppressed/tortured/beaten/raped/robbed/tickled/what-have-you."
The problem with these justifications is that they are valid for just about anything but invasion. They are valid reasons for embargo, sanction, inadmittance to world/regional organizations, and for not sending an invitation to the Christmas party. But you can't invade a nation for having a bad leader.
If that were the standard (and it just may now be), then that would mean that the United States must now involve itself in every instance of equal or greater oppression.
I certainly hope no one here thinks that Saddam was the most/only oppressive ruler of his time. There have been many of his caliber, there are some now, and there will be more in the future.
Now, the U.S. government has analysts and think tank gurus that are aware of all this. They also realize that precedent of this type could be bad. They're obviously gambling that the world in general will buy the Bush admin.'s reason(s) for invasion (which, interestingly enough, appear to have evolved/morphed somewhat from 2001). In so doing, they will quietly forget to bring military attention to other oppressive regimes that could use some change.
So what would be the payoff worth this type of gamble?
Answer: "Economic control of the region." Oil.
Does everyone really think it's coincidence that both the President and Vice-President have strong ties to the American Oil Industry. Dick was the CEO of Halliburton Oil. This same company stands to make almost $500 million in oil field work in Iraq after being awarded a contract that was "without competition" so says USA Today (
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2003-04-10-halliburton_x.htm)
I'm not "bashing" the U.S. as some here have suggested in the past. Quite the contrary. But I am "bashing" Emperor Bush and Darth Rumsfeld :p
Isn't every war at the end of all the good deeds and bad at the very core just about economics?
Very nice post Skinwalker. Thumbs up there for the explanation.
Originally posted by Cosmos Jack
Isn't every war at the end of all the good deeds and bad at the very core just about economics?
Pretty much. It plays a big role anyway.
When countries go to war, they must carefully analyze the loss and gain of it. If financial ruin is the economic result of it, there must be some other gain outcome, even if it that can mean stability in the area, or the world.
Often, though, the economic reasons are valued the heaviest. And it looks like it will stay this way for a long time.
But why is this so bad? When USA helped us win WW2, they weren't doing it for our blue eye's sake. They were afraid to get raped as well, and had an economic partner in England. And look what came of it - by and large it was all good.
I do strongly think that the right to invade a nation is part of national sovreignty... If the leaders of our country think that that is in the best interest of anything (world peace, or even our oil reserves) then they have the right to do what they see fit, since we as a nation did elect them.
Originally posted by mr116
I do strongly think that the right to invade a nation is part of national sovreignty... If the leaders of our country think that that is in the best interest of anything (world peace, or even our oil reserves) then they have the right to do what they see fit, since we as a nation did elect them.
Does this mean that Russia has every right to invade Finland if they see it fit? Does this mean that Norway has every right to invade Sweden if they see it fit? Does this mean that Canada has every right to invade USA if they see it fit?
What's the difference?
Originally posted by Breton
Does this mean that Russia has every right to invade Finland if they see it fit? Does this mean that Norway has every right to invade Sweden if they see it fit? Does this mean that Canada has every right to invade USA if they see it fit?
What's the difference?
Well, let's say Russia invades Finland, Norway invades Sweden, and Canada invades the USA.
First thing that'll happen is that according to NATO, USA will declare war on Norway, Russia, and Canada, for invading other NATO members (Norway and Canada, obviously, are no longer allies of the NATO nations, not Finland, Sweden, and the USA, at least). Russia doesn't have allies.
So it'd be (at least):
Aggressors:
Norway
Russia
Canada
If these aggressors have a damned good reasons for their suicidal invasion, maybe one or two other nations will join.
Defenders:
Finland
Sweden
Germany
England
France
Italy
Denmark
USA
...to mention some NATO members.
All other nations joining the war.
Most likely, the three agressors would ally, and Russia does have nukes, but we would eventually lose to the USA and NATO, maybe after taking Sweden and/or Finland, and temporarily occupying some US cities.
Similarily, if Iraq and China had a mutual protection treaty, the USA couldn't have invaded them without setting off a war with China, which most likely would also involve NATO, countries neighbouring China like Taiwan and Japan, and countries neighbouring Iraq like Israel. It'd be really close to a World War.
See my point? We've got allies, Iraq didn't. The USA, thus, had absolute power to invade them, as the president doesn't even require Congress approval to invade someone (:mad:).
So if the USA wants to invade someone, it's not their right, but they simply have the power to refuse to give a damned crap, so they don't.
I do strongly think that the right to invade a nation is part of national sovreignty...
I do have some very good questions for you then:
If you don't care about international treaties, why did you sign them?
If you don't care about the UN, why did you not just join, but also have the UN HQ built in the States?
If you believe in sovereignity and every country doing whatever the heck it pleases, why do you come up with treaties and vote for many of those that others in the UN come up with for other nations?
When you say it's okay since the people wants to do it: What makes you think it's right just because the people want it? You may say that the governmnent represent the people, but in this case, it's just as much the other way around: The people have been swayed by the government.
The response of an egocentric, arrogant and ignorant american would be: "The difference is that our government is the best there is, and they're always right when it comes to tough and big decisions (because of the vast amount of information they get). And I trust them completely, otherwise me and my fellow americans would not have elected them."
*p u k e*. :rolleyes:
Fortunately, not all americans are like that.
Unfortunately, some are! :mad:
Originally posted by Wilhuf
Those crying deception have themselves deceived.
If you actually read the article and not the headline, you might have noticed something that all the WMD finds have in common. The article began with "A suspected mobile biological weapons lab..."
Note the word "suspected."
The article also notes that the "lab" was cleaned very thoroughly. At the moment, the authorities have no idea what was done in the "lab."
The thing that this find has in common with all the others? No confirmation. Not yet, at any rate. We hear nothing of the conex containers that were located a couple weeks ago. We hear nothing of the stash of barrels that contained suspicious chemicals from two weeks ago..... etc. We hear nothing about these anymore becuase there's nothing to hear.
Now I agree, it seems likely that its purpose was nefarious, but we also have to ask: was the "lab" in use recently? If so, where are the agents that were produced?
But whether or not any WMDs were present or not isn't the real point. The real point is that WMDs were the excuse that we used to invade the nation. Many nations within that region have WMDs against the will of the United Nations. Libya, Syria, Jordan and Iran all have confirmed or strongly suspected to have chemical/biological weapons. Isreal even has nuclear weapons.
ECONOMIC CONTROL OF THE REGION.
Russia could never take Finland! :swear:
Those bastards *tried* back in the days they were big and powerful, but...
...pwned.. :p
I have to say that the stuff about "I'm bigger so I'ts alright for me to beat you up if I want to" was pretty hilarious. :D
Yeah...sovereignty is way overrated. In Bush we trust. :rolleyes:
You know, a funny detail about this is that Saddam Hussein has never had any Weapons of Mass Destruction! We know this.
You see, the defenition of Weapons of Mass Destruction is "A weapon that can kill very many people in a very short time, and from a certain distance". According to Dieter Rцhrich, professor in physics, the only weapon that fits to this description, and thereby the only weapons that can be called Weapons of Mass Destruction are nuclear weapons. Saddam has never had nuclear weapons.
And I doubt he had chemical/biological weapons anyway.
For instance, it is only a myth that the Weapon Inspectors were kicked out of Iraq in 1998. The Iraqi regime refused to cooperate 31. Oktober 1998, because they had gotten a letter from the Security Council, wich indicated that even if Iraq did cooperate, they didn't have to remove the oil blocade, wich was put on Iraq by the SC. However, two weeks later, the Weapon Inspectors were allowed into Iraq again and allowed to continue their inspections, wich ran smoothly, until the leader of the inspectors decided to pull them out at 16th December. They weren't kicked out, they pulled out themselves.
I do recall seeing some pretty funny footage of Iraqi officials not letting the weapon inspectors do their job, though.. :D
It was like: "sure, you can search this building but not quite yet... 'cause we need to get some..stuff done first." :rolleyes:
or
"We got nothing to hide but if you don't give me those documents back I'll have to shoot you all. I promise you'll get them *all* back next week but first we need check what exactly it is you got there."
...yeah right!
Pardon my French but the idea that "economic control of the region" is the American objective in operation Iraqi Freedom is utter horsesh*t.
US Department of Defense representatives testified before the US Congress that the military operation in Iraq could cost up to $80 BILLION. And another $FIVE BILLION per year for the occupation and reconstruction. Assuming the US commitment is relatively short, say five years, that will run the American taxpayer $105 BILLION. A longer commitment costs more.
Here's preemptive strike: Don't waste your time griping about how Haliburton and its subcontractors are "war profiteering." Guess who has to pay Haliburton and its subcontractors for their work? THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER. $Hundreds of millions, payed for by Americans. Not the EU, not the UN.
Operation Iraqi Freedom is NOT a money-making exercise. The US does not intend to and will not profit in this endeavor. WAKE UP!
For the reality-challenged here, I'll help you think through the implications of a MOBILE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS LABORATORY:
Imagine that you're a third world dictator bent on intimdating and controling your neighbors. The obvious thing to do would be to build a Chemical, Biological, Riadological, Nuclear (CBRN) capability to leverage power projection ability. This was necessary since your air force was mostly destroyed in 1991, and those aircraft that weren't, are now under Iranian control since you ordered them to flee to Iran.
Now, understand that in 1991 you were required, under INTERNATIONAL LAW to disarm and dispose of said CBRN ability. Pesky United Nations inspectors had traversed your brutal dominion for twelve years, looking for the goods. Until you finally kicked them out, that is. :D
Yet an annoying country, those infidel do-gooder Americans, and their British puppets, just wont shove their heads up their collective *sses and go away, unlike much of the rest of the world. They aren't buying your claims of innocence. How could you achieve your goal under these appalling imperialist conditions? What to do, what to do?
Enter the MOBILE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS LABORATORY. The concept is simple and effective. Haul a camoflaged vehicle around hinterland Iraq, and develop CBRN ability. Keep it clean, in the event that it is captured. Gotta maintain plausible deniability, after all.
Besides, why worry. Most countries will simply look the other way. After all, noone gave a sh*t about what you did to the Iranians back in the 80s. Hell, they don't care what you do to your own civilian population. At least not enough to actually DO something to stop it.
... Except for those Imperialist Americans and Brits!
you can't invade a nation for having a bad leader.
This is the core flaw in the existing international system. Too many countries shoving their heads in the sand, pretending the problem will go away, rationalizing their inaction and acquiesence. ANYTHING short of confrontation. It's a DISGRACE.
Fortunately we have leaders such as US Undersecretary Wolfowitz who actually believe and ACT on the premise that Human Rights should take FRONT and CENTER stage, backed up by FORCE, in international policy.
Yes it is neoconservative idealism, but it is about time a country stood up to the rest of the world and and acted for what IS right.
For the reality-challenged here, I'll help you think through the implications of a MOBILE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS LABORATORY:
Imagine that you're a third world dictator bent on intimdating and controling your neighbors. The obvious thing to do would be to build a Chemical, Biological, Riadological, Nuclear (CBRN) capability to leverage power projection ability. This was necessary since your air force was mostly destroyed in 1991, and those aircraft that weren't, are now under Iranian control since you ordered them to flee to Iran.Hmm.. yes. ONE facility.
If he had ten or a dozen or a houndred, sure I'd be scared, but he can't manufacture and store many bio-weapons with only one facility to. IMO, if he wanted a war, he'd do far more damage with conventional means.
And the other big question:
If Saddam had WMDs, why didn't he use them when the Coalition rolled in? It could have turned the tide of the war a bit, at least delaying the US Juggernaut long enough for Saddam to actually ready and fire those Scuds at Israel... for he was going to, right? That he was a threat to the neighbouring nations was another reason the Coalition invaded.
But no. No WMDs. No invading or harrasing neighbouring nations except from one missile that hit a Kuwaiti Shopping Mall (don't think there was anything but that).
Here's preemptive strike: Don't waste your time griping about how Haliburton and its subcontractors are "war profiteering." Guess who has to pay Haliburton and its subcontractors for their work? THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER. $Hundreds of millions, payed for by Americans. Not the EU, not the UN.
Operation Iraqi Freedom is NOT a money-making exercise.
Nope, it's not a money-making exercise for the american taxpayer. But that's not the case for those bigger chiefs at Haliburton (& Co). They are getting richer from those contracts. and well.. you even said the american taxpayer has to pay Haliburton and its subcontractors for its work too...
.. so if I was an American taxpayer.. I'd feel screwed. :(
Originally posted by Wilhuf
Imagine that you're a third world dictator bent on intimdating and controling your neighbors. The obvious thing to do would be to build a Chemical, Biological, Riadological, Nuclear (CBRN) capability to leverage power projection ability. This was necessary since your air force was mostly destroyed in 1991, and those aircraft that weren't, are now under Iranian control since you ordered them to flee to Iran.
But you don't need to build chemical and bilogical, since you have gotten these weapons from the USA and gotten help to denvelop it to kill Iranians (they later gave weapons to the Iranians to kill the Iraqis, but you don't know about this).
Now, understand that in 1991 you were required, under INTERNATIONAL LAW to disarm and dispose of said CBRN ability. Pesky United Nations inspectors had traversed your brutal dominion for twelve years, looking for the goods.
And they haven't found anything very bad. And since the US cannot find anything either, I doubt that is because the UN inspectors are bad.
Until you finally kicked them out, that is.
Wrong. It should be "Until they pulled out after advice from the US representative at UN".
Yet an annoying country, those infidel do-gooder Americans, and their British puppets, just wont shove their heads up their collective *sses and go away, unlike much of the rest of the world. They aren't buying your claims of innocence. How could you achieve your goal under these appalling imperialist conditions? What to do, what to do?
Yet again, this shows the wrong picture. The rest of the world never wanted to leave Saddam alone. They just wanted to solve the matter peacefully, unlike certain others. Every country knows that Saddam isn't innocent.
Enter the MOBILE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS LABORATORY. The concept is simple and effective. Haul a camoflaged vehicle around hinterland Iraq, and develop CBRN ability. Keep it clean, in the event that it is captured. Gotta maintain plausible deniability, after all.
I know a better one: They threw all their chemical weapons onto a space ship and flew it to Venus, where they will get it when the coast is once again clear. :rolleyes:
No really. There is nothing that leads to the excistance of these Mobile Labs, and far from anything that proves anything. It is only speculations and accusions.
Besides, why worry. Most countries will simply look the other way. After all, noone gave a sh*t about what you did to the Iranians back in the 80s. Hell, they don't care what you do to your own civilian population. At least not enough to actually DO something to stop it.
Well there is one country that does give a sh*t: USA. After all, it is them who are giving you what you need to kill the Iranian people and oppress your own population. Yes, Saddam has many reasons to be thankful to USA.
This is the core flaw in the existing international system. Too many countries shoving their heads in the sand, pretending the problem will go away, rationalizing their inaction and acquiesence. ANYTHING short of confrontation. It's a DISGRACE.
Can you mention any of these countries?
Because I don't know of any.
Yes it is neoconservative idealism, but it is about time a country stood up to the rest of the world and and acted for what IS right.
Tell me: What is right? To kill innocents? To occupy another country without any real reason?
Most of the Iraqi people didn't like Saddam. Just as most of the Iraqi people doesn't like being occupied by US.
And remember, kids: If everyone were socialists, there would be no wars.
This is the core flaw in the existing international system. Too many countries shoving their heads in the sand, pretending the problem will go away, rationalizing their inaction and acquiesence. ANYTHING short of confrontation. It's a DISGRACE.
The International Law is fine, but the way it's followed is the real flaw! I think the biggest flaw in the current Security Council is the veto right for the five (US, UK, France, China and Russia). permanent members of that council. You accused countries of not going into confrontation and "shoving their heads in the sand", but it's actually the US who vetoed the most when the Security Council DID want to act against crimes at human rights.
Each of the 5 priviliged countries has used their right to veto several times, with the United Stated topping the bill of number of vetoes in the Security Council (73 times since 1990!!). Many of those vetoes favoring Israel, the US' ally, in their conflict with the Palestinians. Now while some vetoes were correctly used for the preservation of peace, other were not.
By misusing their right to veto, I think those members misused and/or even abused their power for their "own" (most likely economic) reasons, and not for the protection of the humane situations in other countries. :mad:
It's time to put an end to this current veto system and establish a new and more equal voting system without privileged members.
But there lies this other problem: The current five members love their current privileged status and the power they gain from it, and they sure as hell don't want to lose it. :( The taste of power sure is sweet. :(
And remember, kids: If everyone were socialists, there would be no wars.
Huh?
Do you mean as in democratic:confused:?
Why didn't Saddam use WMDs when the Coalition rolled in?
Because he wanted to exact political rather than military damage. Obviously if Saddam used CBRN that would lend justification to the Coalition's operation. That was unacceptable to him.
Also it could be that Hussein never had the chance to issue the final release order for their use, if he was eliminated during the operation.
Anyway, the fact remains, whether Haliburton profits or not, is that Iraqi Freedom COST the US in absolute terms. The anti-Americans here (and you ARE an anti-American) cannot justify their complaints that Iraqi Freedom is of some kind of Imperialist exercise.
BTW a US veto on the security council is a GREAT thing, given that countries such as LIBYA and CUBA are on the HUMAN RIGHTS Committee. :rolleyes:
Yes the taste of power is sweet, and thankfully the US uses that sweet power to promote FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY. :)
What is right? To kill innocents? To occupy another country without any real reason?
This is supreme irony. The question crystalizes the justification for the US operation in Iraq. Hussein has killed innocents. THOUSANDS of them. And has occupied other countries (Kuwait, Iran) without any real reason.
I really wish that those who truly believe in internationalism, and multiculturalism would open their eyes to what the Baath regime was about. Stop sticking your heads in the sand.
Confront, do not appease!
I really wish that those who truly believe in internationalism, and multiculturalism would open their eyes to what the Baath regime was about. Stop sticking your heads in the sand.
Sarcasm: Oh, and I thought the Baath party was a democratic regime:rolleyes:.
Confront, do not appease!
And how, exactly, did we appease Saddam?
NOT by "letting him have WMDs", so don't even think about saying that. Give us some truth here.
Because he wanted to exact political rather than military damage. Obviously if Saddam used CBRN that would lend justification to the Coalition's operation. That was unacceptable to him.
Do you have any evidence to back that up?
Anyway, the fact remains, whether Haliburton profits or not, is that Iraqi Freedom COST the US in absolute terms. The anti-Americans here (and you ARE an anti-American) cannot justify their complaints that Iraqi Freedom is of some kind of Imperialist exercise.
Let me just say this: You can dislike the US military and Bush without hating the USA.
BTW a US veto on the security council is a GREAT thing, given that countries such as LIBYA and CUBA are on the HUMAN RIGHTS Committee.
Don't Cuban nationals have the same rights to human rights as Americans, even though they're "just commies"?
USA's veto on those Child Rights were definetly not a good thing.
Yes the taste of power is sweet, and thankfully the US uses that sweet power to promote FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY.
FREEDOM, DEMOCRACY trough BOMBING, THREATS, and BASHING OF ALLIES. Personally, I can't say I like the tasts of that.
And how, exactly, did we appease Saddam?
If by "we" you mean the French representation to the UN, it was by sitting by and doing NOTHING while in Iraq, THOUSANDS died, and THOUSANDS more languished in illegal, unjust imprisonment, many subject to continual TORTURE.
I can promise you that sitting by and hemming and hawing about how "now is not the right time to act" will accomplish ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in advancing the ideals of freedom and pluralism. Pres. Bush was absolutely right to act when he did.
The suggestion (from the French Ambassador to the UN for instance) to "wait until we have proof" is really the same thing as saying "don't do anything ever." This is appeasement.
I know it is difficult, but the reality you must face is that there are times when the seemingly unspeakable is the right thing to do.
Just because it is difficult and perilous does not mean that Freedom and Democracy should not be stood up for.
Don't Cuban nationals have the same rights to human rights as Americans, even though they're "just commies"?
1. Cubans aren't just commies. Drop the stereotypes NOW.
2. Cuban nationals SHOULD have the same human rights as Americans. Unfortunately they DONT enjoy them in their own country because of the Castro government and CP. The US, because of this, has enacted a series of economic embargoes against Cuba for the past four decades.
3. The Cuban representation on the UN Security Council has between little to nothing to do with representation of the actual will of the Cuban people. The same is true for Libya. It is yet another irony that one would try to advocate for greater Cuban or Libyan representation on the security council, given each regime's lack of legitimacy.
Until they pulled out after advice from the US representative at UN
Exactly. And the US recommendation was driven by the Iraqi statments that UN inspectors' "security could no longer be guaranteed." That is diplomatic parlance for "get out or we'll kill you!"