Let's not forget...

[jimnyc]

So many people harp on the pre-war assertion that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and that none have been found to date. This is not what Iraq was accused of. Iraq was accused of not complying with resolution 1441 and more importantly resolution 687.

As outlined in 687, Iraq was to destroy it WMD under international supervision. Iraq still had these weapons when inspectors left in 1998, and these weapons were neither destroyed or accounted for.

It clearly stated in 687 "Iraq shall submit to the Secretary-General, within fifteen days of the adoption of the present resolution, a declaration on the locations, amounts and types of all items specified in paragraph 9 and agree to urgent, on-site inspection as specified below". They have not fully complied on this matter.

It also stated that they would "destroy, remove or render harmless" all chemical and biological weapons & ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometers." They were found to be in material breach with their ballistic missiles and have not fully complied with chemical weapons and biological weapons. Why did they not destroy these weapons in front of inspectors OR account for their destruction? Where did the missing biological weapons go? If they were destroyed, why not account for them?

There are plenty that like to state that this is an "illegal war". I guess they conveniently forgot that authorization was granted in 1990! Yes, thats right, these shenanigans with trying to get Iraq to come clean have been going on for nearly 15 years. Here is part of the original resolution:

"resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area"

It was up to Iraq to hand over the weapons or account for their destruction, they had not. As written in previous resolutions, it was up to Iraq to end repression to it's civilian population, they had not. It was up to Iraq to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and other 3rd world country detainees, they had not.

Iraq had breached so many resolutions that I don't even have enough space here to list them all. So you can claim all you like that we haven't found WMD yet, and I still believe we will, but lets not forget the resolutions they laughed at and ignored.

 

[Amras]

Iraq was accused of not complying with resolution 1441 and more importantly resolution 687.

That's right. They were accused of not complying with those resolutions (and of course all those that preceded them). I followed that debate very closely. All the other countries in the Security Counsel agreed that Iraq was not complying as it should. That was the reason why resolution 1441 passed the SC. The question was, how would the world community handle this situation and whether such a breach would automatically justify a US led coalition to invade Iraq. That was the position of France, China, Russia and Germany.
I would agree that men such as Saddam Hussein should not have the benefit of the doubt but no one could offer solid evidence to prove that they still had WMDs. The rockets that were not in compliance with previous resolutions were being destroyed.

Especially the US and British administrations told us that Iraq posed an imminent threat for international security (and lives of US citizens).
I was sceptical about that allegation before the war and even more now. When I put my TV on, I see a third world country where absolutely nothing works. The oil industry, power plants, hospitals, the sewage systems, security, you name it. I do not see a nation that could contend with the US in any way.

There are plenty that like to state that this is an "illegal war". I guess they conveniently forgot that authorization was granted in 1990!

That's the anglo-american position and it's certainly debatable. International law forbids preemptive warfare. That military option came back on the table in 2002 when the white house published the "Bush doctrine", that was a rather radical change to the US foreign policy of the last 30 years. It's a hegemonial and highly controversial policy. As a leading nation, that might work for you, but it becomes a very unstable element to international peace if more nations would adopt a similar military policy. Either it was illegal or the US led coalition bended international law to it's limit.

Whatever, time to make my point.

Maybe a lot americans care about the legitimacy of this war, it's not a secret that parts of the american administration do not like international institutions such as the UN, for good reasons and some reasons I cannot understand. I know who the neocons are and what they have been writing about Iraq for years.
Many people outside the US doubt your motives and wonder whether the UN process was a farce. It gave you the time to keep the diplomats busy for some time while you brought your armed forces in position. All along the diplomatic campaign, the US made it very clear that they would act with and eventually without the UN. That attitude was considered to be arrogant and self-righteous abroad. Wolfowitz even admitted that they chose the WMD issue for bureaucratic reasons.
As long as the US won't find those darn weapons, all sorts of bizarre conspiracy theories, weird rumours will cross the world and the credibility of the US will remain damaged for some time.

Personally, I believe that the US did it to create a strategic change in the middle East. Some ppl wanted a change to the status quo and now they got it.

Maybe Bush lied, maybe he believed in what he said, maybe the intelligence was manipulated, maybe he was right and I will look like a fool in 6 months

Time will tell... hopefully. I just have my doubts that the justification can be found in a UNSC text.

Keep your eyes open, some interesting books about it will be published in the years to come

 

[eric]

Amras,

Welcome to the board. We look forward to reading your views !

 

[eric]

Amras,

That is a well balanced post. I do not have time for a full reply right now, but check back later. One question I would like you to consider is : When is the line crossed from defense to pre-emption?

If our intelligence picked up signs of Russian missles being fueled or silo doors opening, should we wait until they are launched before we act, or should we act right away?

If a massive wave of warplanes are heading toward the continental US should we wait until they are in the 12 mile costal boundry before interception?

It is a fine line indeed.

Eric

 

[jimnyc]

Hey, Amras, welcome to the board!

I guess the world community looked at things from different angles. The USA was dealing with the worst terrorist attack on it's soil in history. US pilots have been being fired upon for nearly 12 years as they patrolled the no fly zones. I believe some of the other countries you named had a bit of financial interests in Iraq as well, specifically deals signed with Saddam years earlier.

Rockets may have been being destroyed, but that wasn't enough in my opinion. There were strains of biological weapons unaccounted for, and Iraq refused to comply with that order. This man had used these types of weapons on his enemy and his own people previously, so there was no doubt he would do it again. Many warheads accounted for in 1998 were missing and Iraq failed to account for them.

If they had these weapons previously, and they couldn't be accounted for and Iraq failed to comply on there whereabouts - what were we supposed to believe happened to them?

I also disagree about the current state of Iraq. Their Oil Industry IS up and running, and better than before the USA arrived. Don't forget how much they did to THEIR OWN resources after leaving Kuwait. Power has been restored to most areas, and to some areas that Saddam's regime took out after the war started. Hospitals are operational. I can't honestly speak of the sewage system just yet, I'll have to research that. The security is getting better in my opinion. They had a whole new police force within 2 months of the US led occupation, and things are growing and getting more stable daily. Banks have been repaired and reopened, and new currency has been put into use. Streets have been repaired and more get repaired daily. And lets not forget the best improvement of all, freedom for the people - especially women! Listening to radios and watching TV has never been better for the Iraqi's (that last part was sarcasm, but true)

 

[Man of 1951]

Well isn't if funny that the US uses the UN to serve their purpose (the resolutions) but then calls the UN irrelevent when they decide to do something against what the US says? If we are to abide by the rules of the UN, we have to abide by all of them including the thing against pre-emptive war.

If our intelligence picked up signs of Russian missles being fueled or silo doors opening, should we wait until they are launched before we act, or should we act right away?

If a massive wave of warplanes are heading toward the continental US should we wait until they are in the 12 mile costal boundry before interception?

I wouldn't call it pre emptive if the US knows that those missiles are going to american soil. I would call it pre emptive if its said that 'we believe that the silo doors may open in several months where the missiles will be sent to America'
that would be pre emptive, when you 'believe' something will happen. But when they are happening, it wouldn't be pre emptive, thus the idea of 'pre'

 

[jimnyc]

Well isn't if funny that the US uses the UN to serve their purpose (the resolutions) but then calls the UN irrelevent when they decide to do something against what the US says? If we are to abide by the rules of the UN, we have to abide by all of them including the thing against pre-emptive war.

So the resolutions were just something that the USA wanted? Can you please show me where just the USA agreed to resolutions at the UN? I believe it is a community effort, voted on and signed by all.

What did the UN as a world governing body mean when they stated Iraq shall be held accountable to the resolutions using "all necessary means to uphold and implement"? And were not sanctions imposed as a result of Iraq's failure to abide by these resolutions? But yet the whole world agrees sanctions were necessary, but YOU hold the USA responsible! Your refusal to acknowledge this as a community issue and not solely the US makes it even more apparent you are just a US hater. Either state unequivocally that the entire world is terrorists, including Canada, for the sanctions imposed - or withdraw your comments as a misguided attempt at smearing the USA. Or maybe just admit that it was Saddam's failures that lead to his own citizens deaths.

 

[Man of 1951]

Originally posted by jimnyc
So the resolutions were just something that the USA wanted? Can you please show me where just the USA agreed to resolutions at the UN? I believe it is a community effort, voted on and signed by all.

What did the UN as a world governing body mean when they stated Iraq shall be held accountable to the resolutions using "all necessary means to uphold and implement"? And were not sanctions imposed as a result of Iraq's failure to abide by these resolutions? But yet the whole world agrees sanctions were necessary, but YOU hold the USA responsible! Your refusal to acknowledge this as a community issue and not solely the US makes it even more apparent you are just a US hater. Either state unequivocally that the entire world is terrorists, including Canada, for the sanctions imposed - or withdraw your comments as a misguided attempt at smearing the USA. Or maybe just admit that it was Saddam's failures that lead to his own citizens deaths.

Sorry, but your making extremely false conclusions or assumptions about what I've been saying.

Firstly when i said "the US uses the UN to serve their purpose (the resolutions)..." i said that as it the US says the UN is a good thing when it serves their purpose because the UN made the resolutions. Then they call the UN irrelevent when the UN decide to oppose the view of the US. I don't see how that says that the US were the ones making the resolutions.

WHEN DID I HOLD THE US RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SANCTIONS? WHEN?? TELL ME?? In the other forum i simply said the fact that extra people have died as a result of the sanctions. Geeze. I dont understand it. I didn't say these things.

"What did the UN as a world governing body mean when they stated Iraq shall be held accountable to the resolutions using "all necessary means to uphold and implement"?" Then tell me what did the UN mean when they said they would not support the pre emptive war on iraq. What did that mean? Also, the UN inspectors were doing their job, and they were disarming iraq. I think Hans Blix would know more about how long it would take to completely disarm iraq than you. So when he says "it will not take weeks nor years but months", is months too long of a time to wait to stop a war from occuring which has killed several times more civilians the sept. 11th attacks????????????????

"Or maybe just admit that it was Saddam's failures that lead to his own citizens deaths."
Saddam's failures HAS resulted it many civilian deaths. But the FACT IS THAT MMOOOORREEE CHILDREN HAVE DIED AS A RESULT OF THE SANCTIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is frustrating, next time you should read what i type.

 

[jimnyc]

WHEN DID I HOLD THE US RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SANCTIONS? WHEN?? TELL ME?? In the other forum i simply said the fact that extra people have died as a result of the sanctions. Geeze. I dont understand it. I didn't say these things.

Well, lets see, you started a thread called "American history that most Americans don't know" and then stated:

1991 to present: American planes bomb Iraq on a weekly basis. U.N. estimates 500,000 Iraqi children die from bombing and sanctions.

So you throw the sanctions in there while talking about America, but you didn't mean just America? I'm confused!

Saddam's failures HAS resulted it many civilian deaths. But the FACT IS THAT MMOOOORREEE CHILDREN HAVE DIED AS A RESULT OF THE SANCTIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is frustrating, next time you should read what i type.

I did read your post, but the children who died were as a result of Saddam and Iraq's failure to abide by the UN resolutions. You see, I have my opinion and you have yours. Now do you see what I meant earlier about stating things as facts when they were only your opinions?

 

[Man of 1951]

Yeah sorry, but i didn't intend to imply the US was at fault because thats not what i think. I just posted that because it might be interesting to hear, but you're right, it wasn't said in the appropriate thread.
I understand what you mean, but its still fact that the children that died, would not have died if the sanctions were not imposed. Thats the conclusion of report from UNICEF. You're right, we differ in opinions, but in this case i see it as fact.

 

[Amras]

Thank you for the warm welcome. I'll excuse myself for not replying, I was really busy the last couple of days.

When is the line crossed from defense to pre-emption? If our intelligence picked up signs of Russian missles being fueled or silo doors opening, should we wait until they are launched before we act, or should we act right away?

Thank god, that's not a likely scenario anymore.
In 1956 the US national security council formally adopted a preemptive war strategy. At that time this was a necessity and seemed to be the right choice, both the US (1952) and the Soviet Union (1953) had developed H-Bombs.
In October 1957, the satellite Sputnik was launched into orbit. It amazed and frightened people around the world, because that achievement revolutionized intelligence gathering and enabled the Soviet Union to build ICBM’s. As a result, America built the DEW line around the Arctic - Defence and Early Warning system.
At the end of the 1950’s, the CIA estimated that a russian missile attack would kill 20 million Americans and 22 million would be injured. In 1961, only 5 years after the adoption of a preemptive strike policy, both countries had enough firepower to destroy the world. During that decade the theory of MAD developed - Mutually Assured Destruction. This meant that if Russia power attacked the west, the west would make sure that they would suitably retaliate i.e. bomb humanity back into the stone age.
After the Cuba Crisis in 1962, which almost culminated in a nuclear war, world leaders had to move to a position where they could trust each other. Throughout the 1960's and 1970's "detente" (that's french ) had been used to ease bad relations between the superpowers.
The US abolished it's preemptive strike doctrine in 1972 when it ratified a treaty concerning biological warfare. However, this did not stop the nuclear arm race.

If you would ask me if preemptive strikes against nations will be the key to win the war against terrorism, then my answer would be no.

 

[Amras]

If they had these weapons previously, and they couldn't be accounted for and Iraq failed to comply on there whereabouts - what were we supposed to believe happened to them?

Have you ever asked yourselves how your intelligence agency got that number?
In his last state of the union speech before the war, Bush explained that Iraq was trying to buy tons of uranium in Niger. That claim originated from a document that was provided by the Blair government. It was uncovered that the document in question was a very cheap forgery. This put Blair in a difficult position. He is terribly smart, so what does he do? He claims that it was true after all, without providing new evidence. If it is true, it should be possible to prove it, but you can never prove that it did not happen. No one is able to gather such information. If those weapons exist, it should be possible to find them in time, but if they do not exist and you claim they do, no one will be able to prove that they don't exist.
Believe them or not, it's up to you. I choose not to.
Before this is over, this conflict will have cost more than 200 billion $, which is your money, not mine. If think you deserve some more answers from your government.

Concerning the reconstruction of Iraq, Jimmynyc, you are very optimistic, maybe even a bit overconfident. That's typically american and a good attribute of your character. I'm german, well at least from my mothers side, so by definition, my glass is half empty. Cheers!

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Amras
Have you ever asked yourselves how your intelligence agency got that number?

Concerning the reconstruction of Iraq, Jimmynyc, you are very optimistic, maybe even a bit overconfident. That's typically american and a good attribute of your character. I'm german, well at least from my mothers side, so by definition, my glass is half empty. Cheers!

I should have been a bit clearer. I was speaking of the weapons that WERE accounted for by inspectors in 1998. When the inspections resumed they were nowhere to be found. Iraq was asked to hand them over or show proof of their destruction. To date neither has occurred.

My family has some German in us as well, also from my mothers side!

Cheers back at ya, Amras!

 

[Warner]

It was all about oil and money.

The Bush Adminstration had to attack Iraq. If something had not been done Saddam would have completed his deal with France and started selling oil to them for Euros.

Oil exchange is conducted in dollars. If Saddam had succeeded in working the deal with France the US dominance of the Global oil trade would have been severely curtailed.

Look at the mess right now. The biggest reason progress cannot be made is because of Cheney's insistence that Iraqi oil be privatized. How can oil revenues be "shared" if the oil is privatized? The Sunni rightfully fear that all the oil revenue will end up in Shiite hands if simple democratic rule prevails. Thus there is no reconciliation possible under the current governmental model.

 

[dilloduck]

It was all about oil and money.

The Bush Adminstration had to attack Iraq. If something had not been done Saddam would have completed his deal with France and started selling oil to them for Euros.

Oil exchange is conducted in dollars. If Saddam had succeeded in working the deal with France the US dominance of the Global oil trade would have been severely curtailed.

Look at the mess right now. The biggest reason progress cannot be made is because of Cheney's insistence that Iraqi oil be privatized. How can oil revenues be "shared" if the oil is privatized? The Sunni rightfully fear that all the oil revenue will end up in Shiite hands if simple democratic rule prevails. Thus there is no reconciliation possible under the current governmental model.

The UN has been proven to be a corrupt and biased organization time and time again. Portraying them as some elite and honest brokers in world affairs is a sham. The only mistake I see is that the US continues to participate and give legitimacy to an organization that is not worthy of even listening too. I wouldn't trust American security to American lawyers much less international "diplomats" who use world politics to pad their own band accounts.
Btw--where is Kofi these days and how rich did he and his family get trying to pretend he was solving the worlds problems ?

 

[jillian]

Look at the mess right now. The biggest reason progress cannot be made is because of Cheney's insistence that Iraqi oil be privatized. How can oil revenues be "shared" if the oil is privatized? The Sunni rightfully fear that all the oil revenue will end up in Shiite hands if simple democratic rule prevails. Thus there is no reconciliation possible under the current governmental model.

But... but... what about the poor Haliburton stockholders???

 

[dilloduck]

But... but... what about the poor Haliburton stockholders???

I love it when peole bitch about stock that they refuse to buy.

 

[Care4all]

I love it when peole bitch about stock that they refuse to buy.

but to SOME, (like me), that would be dancing with the Devil in the bright moon light....



Care

 

[dilloduck]

but to SOME, (like me), that would be dancing with the Devil in the bright moon light....



Care

Pick your poison--you realize that you could take any profits you made form Haliburton and donate it to your favorite candidate. Or help a poor baby bird that fell out of a tree .

 

[Care4all]

Pick your poison--you realize that you could take any profits you made form Haliburton and donate it to your favorite candidate. Or help a poor baby bird that fell out of a tree .

but don't you think reaping the benefits from owning Halliburton, would be like stealing from your fellow uscitizen taxpayers? I know it sounds silly, ridiculous and whatever.... but I knda look at it that way.

And I would be a hypocrite to support them, no matter what their return brought me, because I have complained about their waste of tax payers money, their no bid contracts, etc.... so, for me, it just would be wrong, to buy in to Halliburton's stock.....

But by all means, if ya didn't bitch about them day and night like I have in the past, go for it!

Care