1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

A critical revelation re: WMD

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Drjones, Apr 24, 2003.

  1. Drjones

    Drjones member

    "Deaf Smith" over on GT posted this in a thread of mine.

    I think it is such a crucial point that should be obvious, but isn't obvious to most.

    Times like these make me love the internet and these forums the most.

    I'll translate for the few who will surely misinterpret this:

    We don't have to "prove" in order to "justify" this war that Saddam has WMD.

    The entire frickin' world already knows that he DOES in fact have WMD.

    Saddam himself has admitted it.

    What do you think the 14 UN resolutions were about?

    I know I went "duh" when I read this. :eek:
  2. JitsuGuy

    JitsuGuy Well-Known Member

    So now it's about UN Resolutions? Let's say the war is about UN Resolutions and Iraq's failure comply. If this is the case, Israel has broken WAY more UN Resolutions then Iraq has.

    So again, what's this war about?

  3. Azrael256

    Azrael256 Well-Known Member

    Israel has "broken" resolutions that seek to destroy its soverignty as a nation. Iraq has broken resolutions imposed on it after it repeatedly displayed its willingness to violate the soverignty of other nations. Furthermore, which of the resolutions against Israel included the threat of force?
  4. HBK

    HBK member

    Israel is a very small country. Their very existence rests on the edge of a knife. Iraq should have been dealt with in the early 90s, but Clinton didn't have the balls, or just didn't care. What would you expects from a president who "loathes the military"?
  5. Justin Moore

    Justin Moore Well-Known Member

    Okay, I'll bite. The administration's position was that the UN was basically irrelevant (which it is), but on the other hand uses non-compliance of the UN RESOLUTIONS as justification to go in? How's that for twisted logic?

    Ron Paul puts it better than I can:


  6. BigG

    BigG Well-Known Member

    You can go around the bush (ha ha) as many times as you want trying to figure a justification for this war. In Georgia we have a simpler way of looking at it: "He needed killin." :p
  7. Thumper

    Thumper Well-Known Member

    What's it about? It's about over. :D
  8. OF

    OF Well-Known Member

    It's more like when our interests coincide with the UN's position, we may use them as a tool to assist us politically. The US is not going to go to war for the UN. If the UN wants to enforce their sanctions, let 'em enforce them. We do what we do because we need it done. If the UN happens to agree, fine. If they don't screw 'em. Which is exactly what happened.

    It should be obvious that the UN is irrelevant at this point. It may have been UN resolutions that were being violated, but the UN opposed our actions in the end. The UN is irrelevant. And when the whole story comes out about Kofi and his band of Thugs siphoning billions off of the oil for Food program and rubber-stamping Iraq's use of it's portion of the funds to build propaganda broadcasting stations and sport stadiums then the UN will be unmasked as not only irrelevant, but totally corrupt as well. By showing some massive cojones and showing the candy-arse Democrats what real leadership looks like, Bush (and Blair) have managed to not only oust Hussein and set the stage for radically altering the face of the middle east, but he's managed to put another nail in the UN's coffin at the same time. Every one of our enemies is shaking in their shoes. 8 years of inexcusable weakness under the 'leadership' of the Democrats and Clinton has been shown to have been nothing but a temporary reprieve for our enemies. Clinton emboldened our enemies as he weakened us. Bush has reversed that damage and then some in less than a month. Playing Mr. Nice Guy got us killed by the thousands. No more Mr. Nice Guy.

    This war is going to go down in history as one of the most brilliant geo-political gambles of our time. If it works out in the long-term, and we end up with something resembling a capitalist republic in Iraq, it'll be one for the history books. If not, and we end up with another theocracy over there, there is plenty of other positives this war has brought about to have made it well worth it anyway.

    - Gabe
  9. Thumper

    Thumper Well-Known Member

    Precisely. The U.N. is a tool, not a diety. Why do some want to see it as such?
  10. CMichael

    CMichael Well-Known Member

    First the resolutions are different. The UN's regarding Israel were only recommendations.

    Second they should Israel should give away the land and at the same time the "Palestinians" were to give peace. They didn't comply either.

    Third I don't care about the UN. Hussein had to go because he was a direct threat to the US by its aggresive sponsorship of terrorism and it's WMD that it can use by giving it to a terrorist and attacking the US by proxy.
  11. CMichael

    CMichael Well-Known Member

    GRD Excellent post!
  12. longeyes

    longeyes member

    This war was and is about projecting national power.

    You either like that or you don't, depending on your temperament and hormone level. The rest is polspeak and fancy dancing.
  13. Derek Zeanah

    Derek Zeanah System Administrator Staff Member

    Exactly. The rest is justification for the action (which Bush was pushing for back when he was still campaigning for president, btw), and the justification changes based on what looks to go over best this week.

    It could be because:
    • Hussein tried to assassinate Bush Sr,
    • or because Hussein was a "huge" threat to the US (having done nothing to us in the previous decade),
    • or because terrorist training camps were in (Kurd-controlled) northern Iraq,
    • or because we're taking the moral position that only we and our allies are allowed to have nukes and bio/chem weapons, and we knew with 100% certainty that there was ongoing wnd production in IRAQ as we were promised (though such has yet to be proven),
    • or because we've finally decided to make him pay for gassing his own people (as we couldn't when we did it because he was our pawn against Iran),
    • or because he called Bush one day and said "neener neener neener -- can't catch me!",
    • or because Halliburton and the like make money building oil infrastructure and needed a few billion in new contracts in order to fund Bush's next election campaign,
    • or because he "just needed killin'" (makes it hard to justify North Korea being untouched though...)

    Lots of likely (and unlikely) justifications. Who cares? Our leadership decided to "proactively defend" the country against someone who had taken no overt act against us, against the wishes of the rest of the international community. Right or wrong, we have to suffer the consequences now. (Though I wonder, under that doctrine, would Hussein have been justified by attacking CONUS with nukes/chems/bugs first as he knew we were going to attack him?)

    Personally, I think lots of folks in the US want us to throw our weight around and make the rest of the world comply with our desires/morals/government system/whatever. People want to see an American Empire (for lack of a better word), and justify actions like this in a number of ways, none of which address the base issue (damn it, we're right to do this and the rest of the world should thank us for doing them this favor!)

    Regardless, the rest of the world is starting to see us this way -- the rogue nation that acts in its own self-interest regardless of the norms of international law or anything else that seems contrary to our desired course of action. Whether the perception is right or wrong, others will have that in the backs of their minds for the next 50 years or so.

    My own personal fear is that we haven't learned from the last 5 decades, and the results of this conflict in the long run will be no better than financing and training Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were, even though those looked like good bets a few decades ago. Unintended consequences in effect. :(
  14. KMKeller

    KMKeller Well-Known Member

    I believe now, and always have that there is much more to this than we're seeing and that the true agenda for everything that's going on politically or has gone on politically for the last 50 years in the US has yet to be seen. I think we can all safely say that each government in this world has an agenda they follow and we can only sit here and guess as to what it is. But I think Iraq was the most recent in a number of stepping stones that will involve a pretty fundamental shift in world politics including but not limited to dissolution of UN (or tremendous weakening), modification of NATO structures and the foundation of an American or Western alliance akin to the EU consisting of countries around the world. I believe Iraq was the line in the sand to bring the fundamental "illicit" structures currently in place (France, Germany, China, NK, Iraq) to the world view and we will, in the next couple of decades, see more clear lines drawn between socialist and republic states and their agenda for mankind. I wouldn't be surprised if NATO and the UN become opposing structures that have mutually exclusive memberships. You're one or you're the other... now where did I put my tinfoil hat?

  15. bountyhunter

    bountyhunter member

    Not Trying To Start a War

    But, the simplistic statement in the first post was clearly understood by all and repeating it does nothing to address the issues raised by the invasion:

    1) Bush himself (or even the US) does not have the authority to unilaterally decide at which point a country's "non compliance" with a resolution merits invasion and destruction of a country's government. We all know that was personal, and the discussion can proceed intelligently if we all admit it.

    2) Bush 9and the US) came off as a hypocrite waving the "UN sanction" banner as an excuse to invade, since he had publicly (and repeatedly) declared that the UN was "irrelevant" because they would not support his war. Out of one side of his mouth, he was saying that failure to comply with the UN required an invasion. Out of the other side, he was saying he did not need to heed the UN because they didn't agree with him. That dog never did hunt.

    3) Colin Powell (and Bush) cut and ran at the end when they were about to request a new resolution to enable them to act with Un sanction because they knew it would be voted down. Again, they showed complete disregard for the UN. So, waving the "not complying with a resolution" flag doesn't work.

    4) Bush CHOSE to justify his invasion to the American people by using WMD's. He said that Iraq was near detonation of a nuclear weapon and that required us to invade immediately. All that is a matter of public record, and was stated more than once publicly. he can't cut and run from what he said, or try to fall back on the "resolution" excuse. He did change later to a "we need to bring freedom to Iraq" theme when he was hedging his bets, but the WMD issue was raised first by Bush in speeches that go all the way back to his inauguration (If you don't believe me, check it out). Don't blame the public for expecting Bush to deliver.

    I agree Saddam was a ba$**** and had chem weapons. I just don't agree it rated an invasion and all the problems we have now inherited. I also think Bush lied through his teeth about having Intel on Iraq's nuclear program to justify a war whose primary objective was to asassinate the guy who tried to kill his daddy. Time will tell. If there is proof, let him put up or shut up.
  16. OF

    OF Well-Known Member

    "Doctrine of Pre-emption/American Imperialism":

    Name me one war since World War II, excepting possibly Afghanistan, that was not pre-emptive. This is nothing new.

    "Hussein was not a threat to the United States" / "taken no overt act against us":

    Just a few thoughts while I have a minute here at work: There is significant evidence that Iraq was the state sponsor of the first WTC bombing (which was supposed to topple the first tower into the second while simultaneously releasing cyanide gas) and that Clinton ignored this to keep from getting embroiled in a mess he didn't have the stomach for. Instead, the Clinton administration pushed the 'lone radical' theory of terrorism and sent the justice dept. to take care of it. Hussein is an animal whose sole purpose in life is/was to hurt the US in the most destructive way possible. Since Gulf War I he has lived for nothing else. He has spent the last decade in an extremely effective game of cat-and-mouse thwarting the UN-led inspections, getting Clinton to do exactly what he wanted him to do and defying every possible aspect of the cease-fire. Why? To get the means to hit the US as hard as he can. It is/was his mission in life. He was on the verge of aquiring the means. To justify Hussein's WMD programs because we have them is what I'd have to call more than a little superficial. To be nice about it. Trying to justify your sitting by and doing nothing while someone cocks the hammer on the pistol pointed at your head is more to the point.

    Hussein tried to assasinate an American President. Why is this laughed off? Yes, it was GW's father. So what? He was still a president of this nation, and that is an act of war, last time I checked.

    The fact that the Iraqi people no longer have to fear being dragged to the torture chamber (of which there was one in every town just to increase efficiency) is a bonus, as far as I can tell. If they take to freedom, fantastic, if they screw it up...well that's the middle east isn't it. Clinton ignored the problem of Hussein until it was about to boil over. Bush and Blair had the stones to step up and deal with it. We were fully justified in our correct and proper action. It is a good thing on so many levels it is almost impossible to understand how the war has the opposition it does.

    About the rest of your list, Derek, try replacing 'or' with 'and' and see how it sits.

    "We played the UN like a fiddle":

    Good. We used them to simultaneously try to get those who didn't get it onboard and show the UN to be the ineffective, worthless and outright dangerous institution it is. Totally devoid of leadership. Corrupt. Explain to me again how trashing the UN is a bad thing? We payed lip-service to those morons waaaaay longer than we should have, and now we're getting static for not paying more.

    - Gabe
  17. Delmar

    Delmar Well-Known Member

    It's good to see all the conspiracy theorists are alive and well.

    The UN did not vote 100% against the US and our allies in going to battle against Saddam. The idiots who put the UN together made sure, or at least thought they made sure that the major powers of the world would have control of the leading issues of the day. That is no longer so, and of course, the UN has never been a democratic style body.

    The only statement Bush made which made any sense to me is that we have the right to self defense, with or without the UN's approval. All this hue and cry about our invading Iraq-and some of the arguements having some pretty good points if you factor in some maybe's, but I have yet to hear anyone say Saddam was a nice guy, nor am I likely to.
    Fact is, the moron invaded Iran, Kuwait, and tried Saudi Arabia too. I am glad we did not wait around for that fool to come up with nuclear weapons or a military big enough to do real damage to the world.
    If that means he gets a lickin if he does not play nice with the other chillens, than so be it.

    North Korea? They just might be next if they don't back off. Same goes for Libya and a few other places. If you want to get these strongarm dictators to back off, you have to let them know you mean business, and that means a couple of them get the business.

    Bottom line? Don't wait for dangerous people with an open hostility towards you to get strong enough to do you harm-hit them when it is easy to do so-it saves lives on both sides. No-we are not the world's policemen, but if it comes down to either that or wait until they are strong enough to slaughter Americans wholesale, then its time to whack them really good.
  18. Zak Smith

    Zak Smith Moderator Staff Member

    Suggest the following reading: The Liberty Doctrine By Michael McFaul from Policy Review.

    Intro paragraph:
    This is a long, but very worthwhile article.

  19. tech

    tech Well-Known Member

    I think GWB saw Iraq as a valid threat to the security of the USA. He acted on his assumption of threat. It is his JOB.

    I remember all the whining at the goverment after 9-11. How could our goverment let this happen?

    Are these the same people who are whining about proactive action?

    You have a pedifile move in next door and see him watching your child. Do you wait for him to act or take care of the situation before something terrible happens? This might be a hard line vigilanteism but you have kept your family safe. At the end of the day this is whats important.

    It is a hard mean world out there...

    I just wanted to say that I am proud that there are Americans who are not afraid of being politicaly incorect in the eyes of the world. We took out the trash and have plans to clean up the block. They don't have to like us... But they will have to deal with us.... Or play nice.

  20. CMichael

    CMichael Well-Known Member

    We did have about 60 countries in our coalition.

    To me the most significant part of the Bush Administration's war against terrorism is that during the Clinton Administration, the terrorists and their sponsors saw how weak the US can be, i.e. the cruise missiles at the empty tents and pulling out of Somalia because of terrorist acts. UBL and Hussein used this in their rhetoric.

    The Bush Administration is showing the whole world how strong the US response can be. We invaded using ground troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    What I find very fascinating is that the Bush Administration IMHO banked that Hussein thought that the US was made up of whimps.

    In the first Perisan Gulf War there was a month long bombing campaign first.

    In this war we used a very fast ground invasion. I doubt Hussein expected it. I think the shock and awe wasn't so much the air campaign as it was the ground one.

    In any case hopefully the US' enemies will gain valuable insight in what waking up the sleeping giant can do.

Share This Page