The vast conspiracy

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Moi, Nov 24, 2003.

  1. Moi
    Offline

    Moi Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,859
    Thanks Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    The ONLY GOOD place
    Ratings:
    +11
    It seems to me that even the UN was under the impression that Iraq posed a threat and had proliferated WMD's- which, by the way are not just nuclear weapons- as late as 11/8/03. How can anyone now claim that President Bush is a liar when the entire free world thought the same thing? In all the speeches from President Bush, Tony Blair and other coalition partners, I have not found one reference where they've mentioned WMD's other than in the vein that Saddam has the capability of creating them, the desire for more of them and the will to use them. The report from the inspectors clearly supports that biological, chemical and conventional weapons are being found and Iraq continued to have the capability to create more (against UN resolutions) and that they were pursuing nuclear as well (big time against UN resolutions).

    The absence of a live nuclear war head doesn't make the above statements false. In fact, I'd say that these actions were just in time....I'd hate to have waited until the nuclear bomb was in the air headed for the USA to decide to do something.


    For those of you who care to read...

    http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/TestFrame/f2ea3b325ab183fac1256c8b003c2034?Opendocument

    Resolution 1441 (2002)


    Adopted by the Security Council at its 4644th meeting,
    on 8 November 2002

    The Security Council,

    Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

    Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

    Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

    Recalling that its 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,

    (emphsis in bold added)
     
  2. dijetlo
    Online

    dijetlo Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Yes, yes it does. If a policemen claims "the guy was coming at me with a knife" he better be able to produce the knife. Claiming the UN backed our actions in Iraq in any way is also a bit confusing. The UN pointedly refused to sanction the invasion and occupation. People have questions Moi, major valid questions about how and why we've ended up in this mess. Questions GWB is going to have to answer if he hopes to avoid his fathers fate of becoming a 1 term president.
     
  3. SLClemens
    Online

    SLClemens Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    And what of Tony Blair's claim that Iraq was ready to deploy chemical weapons at 45 minute's notice? Total BS. France argued that Saddam may have had some WMD capacity but that there was no urgent threat. They were a lot closer to the truth.
     
  4. nbdysfu
    Offline

    nbdysfu Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    829
    Thanks Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +29
    "The last time the French asked for 'more proof' it came marching into Paris under a German flag." ---David Letterman :D
     
  5. dijetlo
    Online

    dijetlo Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Very amusing, but incorrect.
     
  6. nbdysfu
    Offline

    nbdysfu Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    829
    Thanks Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +29
    France is not now the nation it was then; it should be wiser for it. Was France asking Nevil for help and getting only "Peace In Our Time," or was the ruling body of France blindly seeking the same policy dijetlo? Sorry, actually I guess that's a gaping hole in what I remember.

    From what I know Hitler came to power using his army of brown shirts' riots to win the support of the ruling party by violently taking care of the socialist and communist parties for them. Soon the number of troops in the military was raised well above that agreed upon in the peace treaties of wwi. Military hardware was stockpiled. Germany began reclaiming many of its smaller but strategically important neighbors. The French were busy building a Maginot line against a cross-channel invasion.

    Originally posted by Moi
    It seems to me that even the UN was under the impression that Iraq posed a threat and had proliferated WMD's- which, by the way are not just nuclear weapons- as late as 11/8/03. How can anyone now claim that President Bush is a liar when the entire free world thought the same thing? In all the speeches from President Bush, Tony Blair and other coalition partners, I have not found one reference where they've mentioned WMD's other than in the vein that Saddam has the capability of creating them, the desire for more of them and the will to use them. The report from the inspectors clearly supports that biological, chemical and conventional weapons are being found and Iraq continued to have the capability to create more (against UN resolutions) and that they were pursuing nuclear as well (big time against UN resolutions).
    ______________________________________________


    Originally posted by SLC
    France argued that Saddam may have had some WMD capacity but that there was no urgent threat. They were a lot closer to the truth.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------

    France appears to be right on nukes, that program _appears to have been entirely mothballed, though not destroyed by Saddam.
    Nukes are actually near impossible to use, because it's a sure thing that the world will condemn you for using them. Did Hitler use chemical weapons on the battlefield, as they had been outlawed after wwi? Saddam had used the other listed wmds before, on his own people.
    There's plenty else to tell otherwise that Saddam was dangerous, so I don't see why we're getting stuck by them on their not being any easily found nukes.
     
  7. dijetlo
    Online

    dijetlo Guest

    Ratings:
    +0

    No worries, NB. It seems a rather esoteric hole, but if you want to fill it, a synopsis is available.
    True, but the anology is faulty. Islamic terrorism is not state sponsored, it is a religious movement. If Al-Qaeda are the brown shirts, Saddam Hussein is certainly not Adolph Hitler. OBL has repeatedly called for the destruction of his government along with all other non-islamic states in the ME. We are likely facing some of OBLs' fellow travellors in Iraq, along with baathists and every Muhjahadeen who has enough money to get there.
    Based on Kays mid report, all we've found so far that stands up to independant scrutiny is a rusty bucket of botulism that you can make with eggs and milk. We attacked him because his WMD capability and his ties to terrorism made him a threat to us (remember the pre-emptive doctrine). If we can't demonstrate either, our actions can only be considered colonialism at its' boldest. What that translates to for you and me is a breakdown in the forces that are needed to combat global terrorism and the creation of a fertile breeding ground for future terrorists. I wouldn't put Iraq in the win column for GWB or the US unless we can prove our actions were prudent and timely. The best we can hope for in any other scenario is to slap a government together and get out, but even that is a forlorn hope now that we are engaged in an escalating guerrilla war with the lunatic fringe of the middle east.
     
  8. Moi
    Offline

    Moi Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,859
    Thanks Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    The ONLY GOOD place
    Ratings:
    +11
    The object of my post was the UN's agreement that Saddam posed a threat and had WMD's- that's a direct quote from their resolution of 11/8/02 (sorry, typo earlier). The inspectors had not been able to determine their destruction.

    The President, congress and the other coalition partners relied on that information, coupled with other intelligence indicating that (i) destruction never took place and (ii) had, in fact, geared up to create more.

    As for the analogy of the policeman, yes, if a policeman claimed someone threatened him with a knife and he was able to arrest the man immediately, the knife should have been found. However, in the same analogy, if the policeman claimed that someone threatened him with a gun and the gun was, in fact, found - but unloaded - the threat was still real and the policeman acted justly.

    WMD's have been found during our search. No, a nuclear warhead hasn't been found, but never, to my knowledge, has anyone said that they believed he had warheads, specifically. The report by to congress in October clearly indicates that biological and chemical weapons were found, capabilities were being increased and that nuclear materials were found. Given that, it's difficult to say that those for this action were, in fact, liars as some on this board have claimed.
     
  9. nbdysfu
    Offline

    nbdysfu Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    829
    Thanks Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +29
    Nice link dijetlo, but it left out what I was trying to remember[so here it is:eek:], Which is why France, The neighboring historic opposition to Germany, is so absent from the abbreviated history of this particular point in time. When Hitler gained power in 1933, he began by starting the increase of the armed forces from the maximum allowed by the agreement signed to end wwi, 100,000 men of 7 divisions, to 2,750,000 in 103 divisions including six armored and four motorized divisions and 4,000 modern fighter bombers, in the following six years. I've never found a reference to France blinking an eye at that, except where it is said that France's colonial interests elsewhere could be used as an easy distraction to get Hitler his way.

    Quoted from Alan Bullock.Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives.c1991[HCP Ltd. London],p1993 Vintage Books, USA

    According to November 1937 Hossbach transcripts of Hitler cabinet meeting
    The date[for bkreig] was fixed by the relative progress of Germanys' and other nations' rearmament. After the period 1943 to 1945, the relative advantage given by german rearmament would decrease; German equipment would begin to be out of date, and other nations which had begun to rearm later would overtake her.
    Hitler defined the first objective as "to overthrow Checkoslovakia and Austria simultaneously to remove the threat to our flank in any possible operation against the West." In addition to providing better and shorter frontiers as well as the manpower for 12 new divisions, the incorporation of the two Central European states with Germany would mean "an acquisition of foodstuffs for 5-6 million people, on the assumption that the compulsory emigration of 2 million people from Checkoslovakia and 1 million from Austria was predictable." At no point did Hitler refer to the "liberation of the Sudeten Germans from the intolerable persecution by the Czechs" which he made the justification for his actions in the Czech crisis of 1938; he spoke only of the "overthrow" of Czechoslovakia as a state, and "crushing the Czechs." Hitler, however, did not pursue this glimpse into the future. He hardly referred to Eastern Europe, where the conquest of Lebensraum was to take place, or to Russia and Poland, but confined himself to the preliminary phase, "the necessity for action which might arise before 1943-1945" and to the two hate inspired antagonists, Britain and France . . . who were opposed to any strengthening of Germany's position in Europe or overseas." He saw the opportunity for action arising in two cases: if internal strife in France reached the point of Civil War and she became incapable of war, or if France
    became embroiled in war with another country, and so became unable to act against Germany. If either contingency occured,the opportunity must be seized to overthrow Austria and Checkoslovakia. Hitler spoke of the second "coming definitely nearer," possibly emerging from tensions in the Mediterranean "even as early as 1938," especially if Mussolini chose to remain in the Balearic Isles and became involved in a war with France and Britain. This would provide a splendid opportunity for Germany to begin "the assault on "Czechoslovakia . . . with lightning rapidity." German policy should be therefore to prolong the Spanish war and encourage the Italians to establish a permanent occupation of the Balearics.

    None of this came as a surprise to Hitler's listeners. . . . Hitler expressed the view that "almost certainly Britain, and probably France as well, had already tacitly written off the Czechs,"


    . . .
    March 13th 1938
    Litvinov [USSR] warned the Central Committee: "The annexation of Austria is the greatest since the World War, and is frought with the greatest dangers, not least to our union." But all that Litvinov could do was to offer to consult with the other powers on the best way to check further aggression:

    "It may be too late tomorrow but today the time for it is not yet gone if all the states, and the Great Powers in particular, take a firm and unambiguous stand."

    Litvinov was referring specifically to Checkoslovakia, with Russia and France bound by treaty to assist, if attacked. . . . In fact as he told the U.S. ambassador privately, neither the French[Mediterranean] nor the Russians[Stalin's removal of veteran leadership in Red Army] had any confidence in each other and he thought it likely the Czechs would cave in. . . . Stalin had none of the difficulty of the British and French leaders had in recognizing that Hitler was following a course that would lead to war if he was not stopped, that there was a common interest in preventing war, and that if the powers acted together they could force him to back down. . . .

    The French did not reply at all, the British though Litvinov's proposal of a conference inappropriate, as it would divide Europe into two camps and appear to be branding Germany as an agressor[duh]. This confirmed Russian skepticism that they[France, Britain] were not serious about collective security[League of Nations i presume], in which case Litvinov's proposal absolved the Soviet government from responsibility for its failure. . .
    __________________ __________________

    Which is suggesting France ignored threats and obligations against themselves and their allies, the banned rearmament of Germany, in favor of protecting their colonies from Italy.
     
  10. dijetlo
    Online

    dijetlo Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    They were wrong Moi. He had no chem or nuke program, even Kay has said as much. He's claiming a bio program existed, but has failed to find proof that he's willing to share with the world. (The "proof " from the mid report failed to impress anybody.)
    The problem with your analogy is Saddam never threatened us with anything. He wasn't capable of threatening the Northern half of his own country, and without WMDs' and terrorists to deliver them he certainly wasn't able to threaten us.
    No Moi, they haven't found squatt. No WMDs', no manufacturing facilities dedicated to producing, no labs dedicated to developing them. We've found a big goose egg so far, unless you count a rusty bucket of botulism. Don't take my word for it, read Kays Testimony to the Senate intel committee
    From the report.
    But no proof such activity took place, the equipment was being monitored by the UN, as well as the sites for 8 years with no evidence any of it was used to grow killer germs. He's talking about an "incubator" he found in a medical laboratories. When a culture is taken of your throat, for example, the culture is grown for a day or so in one of these before it can be tested for strep.
    " possibly used in human testing of BW agents", or possibly not Again, no evidence. No bodies of the victims of this testing, no containment capable of stoping the spread of these virulent germs. Just a prison hospital, we have those, don't we?
    The referent strain is botulism, which occurs naturaly. This is the bucket of Botulism that got Kay laughed at by the intell committee.
    Again when pressed, these were civilian labs involved in the treatment of these diseases.
    " that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment". He has some papers on laser enrichment that were published in a scientific journal and some titanium parts from a centrifuge, both acquired when the Iraqis dismantled thier nuke program in the mid 90s'.
    Ah yes, thier radio shack airforce. The UAVs' were real enough, unfortunately they were just model airplanes and not modified for reconasciance or dispersal of aerosal contaminates, and as such not a threat to anybody.
    A friend of mine who works in the committee recounted a closed door exchange that went something like this.
    I think it was Senator Rockafeller who asked, "Did you find a scude?"
    Kay "No"
    Rockafeller "So what does this mean, "continuing covert capability"
    Kay" They had the ability to make the fuel."
    Rockafeller: "For a rocket they don't have"
    Kay: "Yes sir"
    Which they were destroying at the initiation of hostilies at the request of the UN.
    More vapor, like the Nigeria yellow-cake scandal that blew up all over the whitehouse this summer.
    The bottom line is we invaded the country under the doctrine of pre-emtion and have failed to find the "growing threat" our attack was based on.
    Perhaps how you understand why the opponents of this war are so motivated, the war was sham, the WMDs' were a sham. I hate getting played for a fool, especially by my own president. He was contained and should have been left in his box.
     

Share This Page