US Planting WMD in Iraq!

[headscratcher4]

There, got your attention. I write this to predict the predictable…and to ask a question.

Where are the weapons of mass destruction?

I am someone who opposed this war, believing it to be ill conceived and the run-up to the war to have been ill managed by the Bush Administration. I am also someone who believes that now that we are committed, we can only win, because a “loss” (and how you define loss may differ) would not only be devastating to the US, but to the cause of democracy, human rights, freedom of speech, etc. -- something that many in the formal "peace" movement never acknowledge.

Now, with that caveat, here is what I want to say. I am not sure we will find WMD. If we don’t, it presents an interesting sidelight to the pretext for this war. However, I note, to date, that we haven’t yet found such weapons.

My point is this: if and when we do, there will be a huge conspiracy theory – especially in the Arab world – that any such cache of weapons was planted by the CIA with the help of Israel. In addition, if such weapons are used, it will be alleged by the Saddam supporters, that we used them on our-selves, or to kill Iraqi civilians, etc.

This is all speculative, of course, but it seems to me that – and I want to say this now and feel other’s reactions – if the US were going to plant these weapons to be discovered, wouldn’t we have done it at the first opportunity we had in Iraq? In short, if we were going to “prove” the pretext and do so through duplicity, wouldn’t such weapons have been “found” already?

Any way, I am just speculating/predicting that if WMD are discovered, or used, the US will be blamed and doubted by many who call for peace but who have always failed to confront the horror show that is the Iraqi regime…such is the power of the US as evil idea just now.

Just ranting incoherently from the sidelines….

[Marquis de Carabas]

If it was the plan to plant WMDs to show the world the evidence, it would be wise not to do so too early.

First, if it looks too easy, it will immediately arouse suspicion. "Oh wow, look at this, the first house in Umm Qasr is a Chem factory." just reeks of "too convenient."

Second, one would want to wait to plant until they knew it was necessary. If they plant some WMDs, and get found out, any subsequent (real) discoveries of such will be disbelieved from the start. So, wait until you really have no evidence before you risk planting it.

Your points about the lead-up to the war and the seeming ineptness of the Bush 'diplomacy' are well taken.

This is exactly the reason why I don't trust what my government has to say regarding anything 'found' in Iraq. We have a lot at stake... finding WMD is imperative to our ability to justify the action afterwards.

[specious_reasons]

<wild speculation on>

If no WMD are found, we may be able to claim, since we knew they had them, we knew where they were, and we destroyed them during the initial bombing runs.

Of course, we only gave the inspectors information that didn't reveal our sources and methods, everything else is classified. That's why the UN inspectors didn't find anything.

<wild speculation off>

[rikzilla]

I believe that if Saddam had really given the control of these munitions over to regional force commanders like the early reports said, we'd have seen them used against us by now. Remember, in Basra none other than "Chemical Ali" is in charge. A man who has used WMD in the past with no problems. The defence of Basra is on the verge of collapse, and yet Ali hasn't given the order?? Seems mighty out of character if you ask me!

Perhaps Saddam never distributed the chem munitions to these commanders?? Or perhaps the regional commanders have decided they don't want to star in a war crimes trial?? Or perhaps the men have refused the order?? Or (more likely IMHO) he never sent these arms into the field. Or...WTF....maybe he really doesn't have the damned things!! There are a variety of reasons why WMD's have yet to be used....I guess we'll find out later eh? ;)

I think that after Baghdad falls we'll have an intelligence coup the likes which have rarely been seen before. Once Baghdad is under coalition control and investigations begin, I doubt it will be long before we have ample evidence of all of Saddam's shenanigans....those we know about...and those that will come as a surprise.


-z

[corplinx]

Originally posted by headscratcher4

Where are the weapons of mass destruction?


Most likely hidden. My guess is any WMD will be found after the war is over and we can finally talk to people who we couldn't before. With the inspectors in Iraq, I am sure the WMD were kept under wraps instead of in places for deployment.

Currently, we have found much circumstancial evidence that will hopefully lead us to the weapons themselves (assuming they exist).

The war has been going on for a matter of days, I don't expect to hear about a weapons cache found sitting out in the open desert. My guess is underground bunkers or the infamous "mobile" units. Of course, finding that mobile unit in a country the size of Iraq is easier said than done. To find that sort of unit, you need plainclothes special operations people on the ground talking to people.

I will be very dissappointed in Bush/Blair if they do not find WMD. However, I'll also be very forgiving. WMD was not the only reason we went in.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Estimated Prophet
Your points about the lead-up to the war and the seeming ineptness of the Bush 'diplomacy' are well taken.

This is exactly the reason why I don't trust what my government has to say regarding anything 'found' in Iraq. We have a lot at stake... finding WMD is imperative to our ability to justify the action afterwards.

I beg to differ.... if there are no WMD found,...and we admit it, the admission alone would go a long way to showing the rest of the world that we do not lie.

IMHO, we will find ample evidence of wrongdoing by the regime... and that coupled with the liberation of the Iraqi people will make this war well justified...with, or without the WMD's.

-z

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

What was the Bush/Blair premise to authorizing a first strike on Iraq?

Was it not to disarm him and prevent him from using his resources of suspect weapons to attack western countries?

Can the war be justified if the suspect weapons are not found by stating simply, we got rid of a bad man.

There are other "bad men" in positions of authority in numerous countries.

Will getting rid of "bad men" be the justification needed to depose these men and their regimes. Will this set the precedent for a change in the way countries deal with undesirables and uncooperative Regimes?


Some sober discussion needs to be had about the implications of countries having policies of deposing "rogue states".

[Mel]

Having embedded reporters & this extensive television coverage will go a long way towards keeping the 'coalition' as open and honest as can be expected.

Personally, I think the 3,000 chem suits was just the beginning of what we'll find. The atrocities under Saddam's reign are stunning and the world has already been shocked by the likes of Hitler, Amin, Milosevic etc.

It's hard to say how the world will respond...... even though the Arab & Muslim countries do not PUBLICLY show support for US/UK policies doesn't mean they are completely AGAINST us.

Will getting rid of "bad men" be the justification needed to depose these men and their regimes. Will this set the precedent for a change in the way countries deal with undesirables and uncooperative Regimes?

There's the crux of the biscuit. Any country can use this excuse against any other country whose leader they don't like, or consider to be (in black-and-white-idiotic-Bushspeak) 'evildoers'.

We have set the example others will undoubtedly follow in this regard: 'They might be a threat to us someday.'

[Mel]

Originally posted by Estimated Prophet


There's the crux of the biscuit. Any country can use this excuse against any other country whose leader they don't like, or consider to be (in black-and-white-idiotic-Bushspeak) 'evildoers'.

We have set the example others will undoubtedly follow in this regard: 'They might be a threat to us someday.'

If you're going to insist on being logical, I'm afraid you will not be elegible to run for office in the future. lol

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Estimated Prophet

Any country can use this excuse against any other country whose leader they don't like

Rubbish. Pure Rubbish. I hate to talk in polarizing terms but my tolerance for mindless nonsense is at an end.

Saddam is a terrorist
He is Genocidal
He finances terror groups
He Harbors terror groups
He tries to aquire bio/chem/nuclear weapons every time we turn around
He is genocidal
He is unpredictable
He has a past of inciting regional wars in a very unstable region.
He is a source of Israeli/Palestinian instability


In short, I don't think we are setting a precedent for anything. The precedent for the nato coalition to take out a genocidal regime was set long before this administration came into office.

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by corplinx


Rubbish. Pure Rubbish. I hate to talk in polarizing terms but my tolerance for mindless nonsense is at an end.

Saddam is a terrorist
He is Genocidal
He finances terror groups
He Harbors terror groups
He tries to aquire bio/chem/nuclear weapons every time we turn around
He is genocidal
He is unpredictable
He has a past of inciting regional wars in a very unstable region.

I think we should say allegedly more often... Still, here you make a very amazing point.

He is a source of Israeli/Palestinian instability
Brilliant! The ENTIRE HISTORY of that conflict can be attributed to one man!!! Why oh why didn't we see this?

:rolleyes:


In short, I don't think we are setting a precedent for anything. The precedent for the nato coalition to take out a genocidal regime was set long before this administration came into office.

*edited to fix formatting*

I wrote: Any country can use this excuse against any other country whose leader they don't like


Corplinx responded :Rubbish. Pure Rubbish. I hate to talk in polarizing terms but my tolerance for mindless nonsense is at an end.

The list of grievances against S.H. is interesting, but how does it refute what I said in any way? Other countries can easily use our pre-emptive strike argument against anyone they want.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Estimated Prophet
I wrote: Any country can use this excuse against any other country whose leader they don't like


Corplinx responded :

The list of grievances against S.H. is interesting, but how does it refute what I said in any way? Other countries can easily use our pre-emptive strike argument against anyone they want.

One of the points I have come to realise about this war too. It is all very well to say you are doing the right thing, (or even scarier, what god wants you to do), but how can you do so without a properly formed judicial process?

Dubya has been quite happy to sign execution warrants for people that may not even be guilty, as governor. As pres, the stakes get a little higher.

some light reading

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/03/1048962878557.html



Why US juggernaut is so dangerous

If the US wins overwhelmingly, it will feel it has the right to act unilaterally anywhere, writes Guy Rundle.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by corplinx


Rubbish. Pure Rubbish. I hate to talk in polarizing terms but my tolerance for mindless nonsense is at an end.

Saddam is a terrorist
He is Genocidal
He finances terror groups
He Harbors terror groups
He tries to aquire bio/chem/nuclear weapons every time we turn around
He is genocidal
He is unpredictable
He has a past of inciting regional wars in a very unstable region.
He is a source of Israeli/Palestinian instability


In short, I don't think we are setting a precedent for anything. The precedent for the nato coalition to take out a genocidal regime was set long before this administration came into office.

Supporting Terrorism(One of many)
Genocide (there are attempts to get a legal system going to deal with this, the US does not appear to be keen to back it).
WMD (no proof yet)
Starting Wars. (now thats cute).

Why Saddam, why now?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Why Saddam, why now?

Simply because we wouldnt be able to round up a coalition later to do it. We have momentum in the war on terror currently and if we drop the ball the game might be over. Iraq is the colon of terrorism and we're giving it a good enema. Bin Laden's group might not be there but there are other groups on our list of terror groups there.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by corplinx


Simply because we wouldnt be able to round up a coalition later to do it. We have momentum in the war on terror currently and if we drop the ball the game might be over. Iraq is the colon of terrorism and we're giving it a good enema. Bin Laden's group might not be there but there are other groups on our list of terror groups there.

but that is exactly how it comes across. "You let us all get the Taliban and Osama, thank you very much. Oh, and by the way, this guy Saddam...."

[corplinx]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
ENTIRE HISTORY[/i] of that conflict can be attributed to one man!!! Why oh why didn't we see this?



Don't be an ass. I said "a source" and not "the source" for a reason.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Estimated Prophet
The list of grievances against S.H. is interesting, but how does it refute what I said in any way? Other countries can easily use our pre-emptive strike argument against anyone they want.

What I am trying to get you do to is define this preemptive strike arguement for me? I have seen a simple "get them before they get us" doctrine laid out that sets any sort of preemptive strike policy.

I hate to bring this up, but the last gulf war never officially ended either. I mean hello, this guy has been targetting planes in the no-fly zone ever since the he signed and then **** on that treaty that he never complied with. He also tried o assassinate our president (but of course, Clinton bombed in retaliation). Not to mention, humanity itself couldnt make a preemptive strike against Saddam since he is on the crimes against humanity top-ten list.

In what way is this a preemptive strike at all?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


One of the points I have come to realise about this war too. It is all very well to say you are doing the right thing, (or even scarier, what god wants you to do), but how can you do so without a properly formed judicial process?


I have a question along this line:

Suppose we find Saddam Hussein alive. What are we going to do?

Capture him? Or kill him?

Statements from the adminstration yesterday concern me. When I hear "There is no situation we would accept that would end the war and allow Saddam to live."

I was shocked. What if he surrenders? Are we still going to kill him?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by pgwenthold

Statements from the adminstration yesterday concern me. When I hear "There is no situation we would accept that would end the war and allow Saddam to live."

You put in quotes, so please provide evidence that the Bush administration released this statement.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Kodiak


You put in quotes, so please provide evidence that the Bush administration released this statement.

From

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-04-03-defense-briefing_x.htm

"Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Thursday there was "not a chance" that the United States would agree to an arrangement that would halt the war and allow Saddam Hussein to survive."

So again I ask, what happens if he surrenders?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


From

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-04-03-defense-briefing_x.htm

"Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Thursday there was "not a chance" that the United States would agree to an arrangement that would halt the war and allow Saddam Hussein to survive."

So again I ask, what happens if he surrenders?

That's better. I'm sure Rummy meant "survive" in the political sense.

If he surrenders, he'll be tried for either war crimes or possibly tried within his own country by the new government for the crimes he committed against his own people.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by corplinx
Saddam is a terrorist
Arguably, so is Bush. Dropping bombs on a country that has not attacked us could be called terrorism because it kill non-combatants.

He is Genocidal
US. Native Americans. Remember?
He finances terror groups
The US government has financed terrorist groups (like the Contras) and it does nothing to stop Americans from funding terrorist groups like the IRA and (arguably) the JDL.
He Harbors terror groups
Still no evidence for this. None of the 9-11 terrorists were Iraqi, nor have we encountered any of the Taliban in Iraq.
He tries to aquire bio/chem/nuclear weapons every time we turn around.

As soon as the US destroys all of its WOMDs, then we can preach to others. Until then, it remains hypocracy. And who is the only country to use Nukes against humans? Stand up and take a bow, US.
He is genocidal

You said "genocidal" twice. Is this just to make your list look longer, or did you add it for emphasis? As far as we can tell, though, he has not tried to make slaves of another race as the US has done in its history.
He is unpredictable
He seems quite predictable to me. You or I could probably write one of his press releases and it would be indistinguishable from his own. But even if he is unpredictable, I fail to see this as an excuse for war.
He has a past of inciting regional wars in a very unstable region.
Exactly what is the US doing right now?

He is a source of Israeli/Palestinian instability

So is Israel. Should we take them out next?

In short, Corplinx, all of your excuses for war could true of the US, in spades. Would other countries have been justified in attacking us when we were wiping out the Native Americans? When we were holding slaves? When we build WOMDs?

I love my country very much and I hate to see it become an aggressive, lying, bullying hypocrite. You ought to hate that too.

[DanishDynamite]

rikzilla:I believe that if Saddam had really given the control of these munitions over to regional force commanders like the early reports said, we'd have seen them used against us by now. Remember, in Basra none other than "Chemical Ali" is in charge. A man who has used WMD in the past with no problems. The defence of Basra is on the verge of collapse, and yet Ali hasn't given the order?? Seems mighty out of character if you ask me!Indeed it does.
Perhaps Saddam never distributed the chem munitions to these commanders?? Or perhaps the regional commanders have decided they don't want to star in a war crimes trial?? Or perhaps the men have refused the order?? Or (more likely IMHO) he never sent these arms into the field. Or...WTF....maybe he really doesn't have the damned things!! There are a variety of reasons why WMD's have yet to be used....I guess we'll find out later eh? ;) Yeah, and maybe when John Edward makes mistakes it's because there are evil skeptical vibrations nearby.

Even if chemical weapons are found, it would only be a figleaf for the legality of this operation. A bit like storming a home without a warrent and then actually finding drugs.

BTW, (before you start flaming) please be aware that I have previously stated that I am a lukewarm supporter of this war. I have decided that, in this case, the end justifies the means.
I think that after Baghdad falls we'll have an intelligence coup the likes which have rarely been seen before. Once Baghdad is under coalition control and investigations begin, I doubt it will be long before we have ample evidence of all of Saddam's shenanigans....those we know about...and those that will come as a surprise.Yeah, let's hope we can find some good dirt.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Tricky

US. Native Americans. Remember?

The US government has financed terrorist groups (like the Contras) and it does nothing to stop Americans from funding terrorist groups like the IRA and (arguably) the JDL.

As soon as the US destroys all of its WOMDs, then we can preach to others. Until then, it remains hypocracy. And who is the only country to use Nukes against humans? Stand up and take a bow, US.

You said "genocidal" twice. Is this just to make your list look longer, or did you add it for emphasis? As far as we can tell, though, he has not tried to make slaves of another race as the US has done in its history.

The difference is that these acts occured under different administrations, whereas it is Saddam's administration that is directly responsible for all the things that have happened there. Using the U.S. killing of indigenous Americans, U.S. slavery, or the bombing of Hiroshima as an argument against the current administration and its actions is ridiculous.

[Wile E. Coyote]

Originally posted by Tricky

US. Native Americans. Remember?

The US government has financed terrorist groups (like the Contras) and it does nothing to stop Americans from funding terrorist groups like the IRA and (arguably) the JDL.

Still no evidence for this. None of the 9-11 terrorists were Iraqi, nor have we encountered any of the Taliban in Iraq.

As soon as the US destroys all of its WOMDs, then we can preach to others. Until then, it remains hypocracy. And who is the only country to use Nukes against humans? Stand up and take a bow, US.

In short, Corplinx, all of your excuses for war could true of the US, in spades. Would other countries have been justified in attacking us when we were wiping out the Native Americans? When we were holding slaves? When we build WOMDs?

I love my country very much and I hate to see it become an aggressive, lying, bullying hypocrite. You ought to hate that too.

These are some of the most ridiculous statements I have seen regarding this, and I am quite surprised they actually came from you, Tricky.

By your logic, America having committed crimes against humanity in the past bars it from ever preventing or stopping those same crimes in the future. This is blatant advocacy for despotism and tyranny.

By the same logic, a man who used to beat his kids is not allowed to interfere in the beating of someone else's kids.

You just threw your whole argument out the window with this pile of statements.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
rikzilla:Indeed it does.
Yeah, and maybe when John Edward makes mistakes it's because there are evil skeptical vibrations nearby.

Even if chemical weapons are found, it would only be a figleaf for the legality of this operation. A bit like storming a home without a warrent and then actually finding drugs.

BTW, (before you start flaming) please be aware that I have previously stated that I am a lukewarm supporter of this war. I have decided that, in this case, the end justifies the means.
Yeah, let's hope we can find some good dirt.

Now...why would a nice guy like me flame you??!! :D Why, you are practically being reasonable! :D

However your analogy doesn't hold up very well. It's more like the release of a man on parole. His parole was his agreement to stop dealing drugs. He goes home, deals more drugs right away, but hides them well...the police surround his house, and beg, threaten, and cajole the owner 17 times over the next 12 years to please stop dealing drugs, while in the meantime the neighborhood is destroyed and the crime rate soars....and then finally after getting the finger for the umpteenth time they go ahead and storm the place.

Kinda counterintuitive, this 12 years of appeasement,...don't you think?

-z

[Tricky]

Originally posted by tjwojo
By your logic, America having committed crimes against humanity in the past bars it from ever preventing or stopping those same crimes in the future. This is blatant advocacy for despotism and tyranny.

I am merely asking that those who favor this war admit that their reasons are not because the US is so moral. There is plenty of despotism and tyranny in the world outside of Iraq. In fact, Saudi Arabia is such a despotic country, that it spawns terrorists like a swamp spawns mosquitoes. With all the crimes against humanity going on in the world, why pick Iraq?

Originally posted by tjwojo
By the same logic, a man who used to beat his kids is not allowed to interfere in the beating of someone else's kids.
If a man beat his kids but was never punished, then he should accept the same punishment as another man that he turns in for child abuse. The "do as I say, not as I do" type of authority always sticks in my craw.

Originally posted by tjwojo
You just threw your whole argument out the window with this pile of statements.


Sorry you don't like the arguments. Go ahead and throw them out the window if you like. That way you won't have to face the ugly truth that the US is just as guilty of the stated crimes as Iraq. It isn't a pleasant thought.

But I am not one of those guilty hand-wringers that feels that we are a terrible country for the past crimes we have committed. What is done is done. Neither do I think that we can take the moral high ground and claim that we have the right to interfere in other countries because they are doing evil things. There are plenty of evil things going on in the USA right now, enough so that ANY country could use the same logic we are using as an excuse for invading us. Of course they won't, because the US is very powerful and they would probably lose. Of course, the US is powerful enough to not worry about such problems. We can throw our weight around without fear of serious reprisal (outside of some scattered terrorism).

There may be some good reasons for this war, though I personally think they are outweighed by the bad, but let us not stick our noses in the air and pretend that this is for a noble cause. Such jingoism in the face of our own history, both distant and recent, only feeds the hatred of our enemies.

What was it Spiderman said? "With great power comes great responsibility."

[Wile E. Coyote]

Originally posted by Tricky


I am merely asking that those who favor this war admit that their reasons are not because the US is so moral. There is plenty of despotism and tyranny in the world outside of Iraq. In fact, Saudi Arabia is such a despotic country, that it spawns terrorists like a swamp spawns mosquitoes. With all the crimes against humanity going on in the world, why pick Iraq?


Sure, why not take on the whole world at one time? I don't think we have the resources. Why does a cop pull over one car for speeding when that car was among many others also breaking the limit? This argument that we should not do something for one if we cannot do it for all belongs back in kindergarten.

Originally posted by Tricky
Neither do I think that we can take the moral high ground and claim that we have the right to interfere in other countries because they are doing evil things. There are plenty of evil things going on in the USA right now, enough so that ANY country could use the same logic we are using as an excuse for invading us.


Although there are plenty of evil things going on in the USA right now, the people have the power to change these things. If the government started killing people for dissenting, then you might have a case for this declaration. Otherwise, this is no argument at all.

Originally posted by Tricky

There may be some good reasons for this war, though I personally think they are outweighed by the bad, but let us not stick our noses in the air and pretend that this is for a noble cause. Such jingoism in the face of our own history, both distant and recent, only feeds the hatred of our enemies.


But it is a noble cause. Whether it is for the Iraqi people or the American people, the removal of Saddam is a just cause. He was not good for either of these countries.

[Wile E. Coyote]

Oops, bad posting problems.

[Wile E. Coyote]

And another mysterious post.

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by tjwojo
Sure, why not take on the whole world at one time? I don't think we have the resources. Why does a cop pull over one car for speeding when that car was among many others also breaking the limit?

I can't hear these cop analogies anymore. Who the f*uck declared the US as cop of the world? GW? Last time I checked vigilante justice was illegal in most parts of the world.

Zee

Sure, why not take on the whole world at one time?

LOL. We pretty much are, with the 'axis of evil' commentary, Afghanistan, Iraq, stern warnings to Syria, (and for some reason I can't imagine, we're going to use diplomacy with) North Korea...

We're bringing the war, and lining 'em up.

[Thumper]

Originally posted by Estimated Prophet


LOL. We pretty much are, with the 'axis of evil' commentary, Afghanistan, Iraq, stern warnings to Syria, (and for some reason I can't imagine, we're going to use diplomacy with) North Korea...

We're bringing the war, and lining 'em up.

If you can't understand why we're using diplomacy with N Korea, you understand nothing.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Tricky

I love my country very much and I hate to see it become an aggressive, lying, bullying hypocrite. You ought to hate that too.

A hypocrit in part because of things that happened over century ago?

Sorry but "we cant do ______" because "a long time ago we did _____" is a weak form of persuasion. Beleive it or not, the current administration wasn't in charge back then.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Estimated Prophet


LOL. We pretty much are, with the 'axis of evil' commentary, Afghanistan, Iraq, stern warnings to Syria, (and for some reason I can't imagine, we're going to use diplomacy with) North Korea...

We're bringing the war, and lining 'em up.
Well, I hope you're wrong, but I fear you're right. Of course, if some of the other "evil" countries buy into the reverse domino theory, then they may realize that their best bet is to unite and attack all at once.

Personally, though, I don't think this is going to happen. It is pretty obvious that GWB has a personal grudge against Iraq (after all, they did try to assassinate his daddy) and he is going to smack them around. I don't believe he is stupid enough to start a program of invading countries, though I admit I have underestimated his stupidity in the past. For example, it is pretty much inconceivable to me that in the space of only a year and a half, he has managed to manipulate world opinion from being overwhelmingly for the US to overwhelmingly against them. This is no ordinary idiot.

If you can't understand why we're using diplomacy with N Korea, you understand nothing.

You missed the sarcasm. We're using diplomacy with NK because they have nukes, and have threatened us with a smackdown should we start bullying them the way we have Iraq.

See, diplomacy with a country that can't attack us, can't run away from us and can't defend themselves effectively, that won't work. But with NK, it's totally different ...

[Tricky]

Yeah, EP. We definately need a better sarcasm smilie that that "rolleye" thing. It is amazing how many people think Randy Newman was being serious when he wrote Drop the Big one (http://www.leoslyrics.com/listlyrics.php?id=72080)

No one likes us
I don't know why.
We may not be perfect
But heaven knows we try.
But all around even our old friends put us down.
Let's drop the big one and see what happens.

We give them money
But are they grateful?
No they're spiteful
And they're hateful.
They don't respect us so let's surprise them;
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them.

Now Asia's crowded
And Europe's too old.
Africa's far too hot,
And Canada's too cold.
And South America stole our name.
Let's drop the big one; there'll be no one left to blame us.

Bridge:
We'll save Australia;
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo.
We'll build an all-American amusement park there;
They've got surfing, too.

Well, boom goes London,
And boom Paris.
More room for you
And more room for me.
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town.
Oh, how peaceful it'll be;
We'll set everybody free;
You'll have Japanese kimonos, baby,
There'll be Italian shoes for me.
They all hate us anyhow,
So let's drop the big one now.
Let's drop the big one now.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by tjwojo


Sure, why not take on the whole world at one time? I don't think we have the resources. Why does a cop pull over one car for speeding when that car was among many others also breaking the limit? This argument that we should not do something for one if we cannot do it for all belongs back in kindergarten.



and why would they wait to be picked off one at a time?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tricky

Arguably, so is Bush. Dropping bombs on a country that has not attacked us could be called terrorism because it kill non-combatants.

.....

I love my country very much and I hate to see it become an aggressive, lying, bullying hypocrite. You ought to hate that too.

I hope this isn't seen as the kiss of death for tricky, but I think that was an excellent post.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by ZeeGerman


I can't hear these cop analogies anymore. Who the f*uck declared the US as cop of the world? GW? Last time I checked vigilante justice was illegal in most parts of the world.

Zee

It is funny that the U.S. is bashed for being the worlds police yet when we decide to stay out of world affairs we are bashed for not doing anything. It is always a lose lose situation.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by ssibal


It is funny that the U.S. is bashed for being the worlds police yet when we decide to stay out of world affairs we are bashed for not doing anything. It is always a lose lose situation.

Trivialising a complex situation.

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Trivialising a complex situation.

Is it? In this country, when Bosnia and later Kosovo was happening, we were hearing how the Europeans were so disapointed that we were late to the table. In Rawanda, we -- like the whole world -- have been kicking ourselves for not acting sooner. Were those not "police" actions? I write this as someone who disagrees with our policies and how they've taken us into Iraq...but there does seem to be something of a double standard here...our strength is appreciated except when it isn't. I realize there are many distinctions between the situations I just mentioned as well as subtleties, but if the expectation is that we are going to be "cops" ...and to some extent that message has been reinforced by Europe...than it will happen that we (the policy makers) will start to see themselves in that role....

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by headscratcher4


Is it? In this country, when Bosnia and later Kosovo was happening, we were hearing how the Europeans were so disapointed that we were late to the table. In Rawanda, we -- like the whole world -- have been kicking ourselves for not acting sooner. Were those not "police" actions? I write this as someone who disagrees with our policies and how they've taken us into Iraq...but there does seem to be something of a double standard here...our strength is appreciated except when it isn't. I realize there are many distinctions between the situations I just mentioned as well as subtleties, but if the expectation is that we are going to be "cops" ...and to some extent that message has been reinforced by Europe...than it will happen that we (the policy makers) will start to see themselves in that role....

Very well, the problem I have now, is that the US seems to claim the role of the cop, the role of the judge and the role of the legislator. They decided that the rules of the UN were insufficient and made up their own rule of "right for preemptive self defense" which is clearly in breach with the UN charta (Legislator). They decided when and how to act in Iraq (Judge) and they stepped in action (Cop) in the way they find suitable, naimly invasion. By all standards of separation of powers, this sucks.

[edited to add]
Not to be misunderestimated er misunderstood. I hold this anger against the current US government not the americans in toto. I've lived in the states long enough to understand the people's support for the war once your boys are down there. I'm sure they are doing their best to harm as few innocent as possible. Had they come down on Iraq like the allies came down on Germany in the end of WWII, the whole story would have been over in a week.

Zee

[headscratcher4]

Zee: I am not sure I disagree with you...my government's willingness to be unilateral in this situation -- pre-emptively -- certainly gives me pause, and I've expressed those concerns regularly.

However, the point remains that there is a bit of damned if you do/don't. If we don't use the power (in the way Europeans deem legitimate) we are considered weak, isolationist, etc. If we use the power to protect America (as deemed, rightly or wrongly, by the elected leaders of the US), we are cowboys.

We are, I think, fighting the wrong war, but there is a legitimate question to ask, it seems to me, as wrong as we may be (this is not to suggest that now that we're engaged we shouldn't strive to win both the war and the peace), for Europeans, at least, are not our values closer to those Europeans aspire to, than those we are unilaterally acting against?

Now that war is underway, can you imagine a world where Saddam wins? Kim Il Sung? Etc? My issue is how we, as democratically leaning, human-rights appreciating nations deal with the existence of truly evil, repugnant regimes. I don't have the answers, but I fear that if the US and Europe do not stand up together and in opposition to facist and other totalitarian forms of governments, than neither of us is being true to our ideals....

Indeed, we will have sacrificed our ideals on the alter of our repugnance at our reality...I find that both sad and very disturbing.

[gnome]

Originally posted by tjwojo
Sure, why not take on the whole world at one time? I don't think we have the resources. Why does a cop pull over one car for speeding when that car was among many others also breaking the limit? This argument that we should not do something for one if we cannot do it for all belongs back in kindergarten.

I think you misunderstand the argument, though your example will serve excellently to illustrate the point. The policeman cannot pull over all of the speeders; one has to be selected.

The issue here is, how is the selection being made? If the policeman decided to only pull over blonde women, and somoene asked why, the answer "Because they were speeding" would be insufficient. The method of selection needs to be known in order to judge the morality of the action. In the case of the police, the most appropriate choice would be to select randomly. I do not believe this should be the method for choosing wars... nor do I believe that Iraq was selected randomly. Clearly there are reasons Iraq was picked out among the others, and that's what we want to know.

So far almost every reason I've heard sounds like "because they were speeding."

(edited to add almost)

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by gnome

The issue here is, how is the selection being made? If the policeman decided to only pull over blonde women, and somoene asked why, the answer "Because they were speeding" would be insufficient. The method of selection needs to be known in order to judge the morality of the action. In the case of the police, the most appropriate choice would be to select randomly. I do not believe this should be the method for choosing wars... nor do I believe that Iraq was selected randomly. Clearly there are reasons Iraq was picked out among the others, and that's what we want to know.

So far almost every reason I've heard sounds like "because they were speeding."

The reason I believe that Iraq is a 'valid' target is not because they fit one criteria, but they fit many. Not only do they have a poor human rights record, but they also likely have WMD, and have had expansionist plans in the past, and they support terrorism. Some countries may match one or 2 of these criteria, but not many match all of them.

To use your 'speeding' anology, if there are dozens of potential cars to pull over, a cop may decide to not only pull over one that is speeding (poor human rights), but also one that has a broken tail light (expansionist plans), and may be drunk because they are weaving all over the road (WMD). A car doing all of those is a better candidate for being pulled over than one who is just speeding.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Zee: I am not sure I disagree with you...my government's willingness to be unilateral in this situation -- pre-emptively -- certainly gives me pause, and I've expressed those concerns regularly.

However, the point remains that there is a bit of damned if you do/don't. If we don't use the power (in the way Europeans deem legitimate) we are considered weak, isolationist, etc. If we use the power to protect America (as deemed, rightly or wrongly, by the elected leaders of the US), we are cowboys.



You are falling for the false dichotomy. Is there a reasonable middle line?



We are, I think, fighting the wrong war, but there is a legitimate question to ask, it seems to me, as wrong as we may be (this is not to suggest that now that we're engaged we shouldn't strive to win both the war and the peace), for Europeans, at least, are not our values closer to those Europeans aspire to, than those we are unilaterally acting against?



Certainly, the value of self interest is present in all countries, no doubt about that.



Now that war is underway, can you imagine a world where Saddam wins? Kim Il Sung? Etc? My issue is how we, as democratically leaning, human-rights appreciating nations deal with the existence of truly evil, repugnant regimes. I don't have the answers, but I fear that if the US and Europe do not stand up together and in opposition to facist and other totalitarian forms of governments, than neither of us is being true to our ideals....



I suppose that the US would get a little more credibility if it bothered with the artifacts of the Cold War it created that are lying around still.

Unita is still involved in a totally pointless civil war that kills innocent civilians every year. Maybe if the US actually took an active part in cleaning up that mess, it would appear to be more concerned with actual morality than just self interest.



Indeed, we will have sacrificed our ideals on the alter of our repugnance at our reality...I find that both sad and very disturbing.

Indeed there are calls from around the world from those suffering. However, aid from many western nations to those third world countries is actually falling, including Australian aid. Far more people die every year from simple matters of disease, water and food shortages than from tyrants.

As for the those under persecution, the refugee program is supposed to address that. Australia has been quite proficient in ensuring that refugees are treated like dirt.

This is partly due to the new phenomenon of the 'economic' refugee, that is, those who pose as political refugees to get to a new country to get a better standard of living. This is a problem, for sure. Not everyone can move to the west. But once again, if standards of living were better in their own countries, they may not feel like moving so much.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

The reason I believe that Iraq is a 'valid' target is not because they fit one criteria, but they fit many. Not only do they have a poor human rights record, but they also likely have WMD, and have had expansionist plans in the past, and they support terrorism. Some countries may match one or 2 of these criteria, but not many match all of them.

To use your 'speeding' anology, if there are dozens of potential cars to pull over, a cop may decide to not only pull over one that is speeding (poor human rights), but also one that has a broken tail light (expansionist plans), and may be drunk because they are weaving all over the road (WMD). A car doing all of those is a better candidate for being pulled over than one who is just speeding.

The WMD have not turned up yet, and those that may will still be a sorry excuse for weapons given the performance of the rest of the Iraqi armed forces. The expansionist plans have gone by the wayside. Saddam has had to pull his head in. As for the human rights aspect, our own PM has been quite happy to throw Iraqis turning up in Ausralia as refugees into 'detention' centres, while professing his love for them by going to war against Saddam.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Indeed there are calls from around the world from those suffering. However, aid from many western nations to those third world countries is actually falling, including Australian aid. Far more people die every year from simple matters of disease, water and food shortages than from tyrants.

Just want to point out that it is not always easy to separate food shortage deaths from those of tyrants. In many cases, the activities of the dictators is a direct cause of the actual starvation deaths.

Take Iraq for example. Many people like to point to the deaths due to starvation that took place in Iraq over the past decade and blame the sanctions. Yet, in that time, Saddam could afford to spend the money on things like payments to terrorists in Palestine. So, if someone in Iraq starves to death, is it because of a food shortage? Well, yes, but they would have survived had their government spent the money on food rather than weapons.

Many other examples exist of problems which are not brought about by lack of aid, but of the actions of people from the countries suffering. For example, tons of food aid from the U.S. may sit rotting because the leaders there don't want to subject their people to genetically modified food. In other cases in Africa, the white farmers (who had been producing a significant amount of the food) have been driven off their farms, and as a result the food production dropped. (Yes, perhaps the white farmers may have obtained their land due to colonialism in the past, but when there is a food shortage, everyone suffers.)

[gnome]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

The reason I believe that Iraq is a 'valid' target is not because they fit one criteria, but they fit many. Not only do they have a poor human rights record, but they also likely have WMD, and have had expansionist plans in the past, and they support terrorism. Some countries may match one or 2 of these criteria, but not many match all of them.

To use your 'speeding' anology, if there are dozens of potential cars to pull over, a cop may decide to not only pull over one that is speeding (poor human rights), but also one that has a broken tail light (expansionist plans), and may be drunk because they are weaving all over the road (WMD). A car doing all of those is a better candidate for being pulled over than one who is just speeding.

Funny, but I just realized I made a similar argument as what you just made, in another thread.

I guess what I'm arguing against here is oversimplification, and we seem to agree on that.

What I see right now is excessive reliance on the one reason so far that has stuck (poor human rights)--which makes me still suspect that the true reasons are being bypassed in discussion.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


The WMD have not turned up yet, and those that may will still be a sorry excuse for weapons given the performance of the rest of the Iraqi armed forces. The expansionist plans have gone by the wayside. Saddam has had to pull his head in. As for the human rights aspect, our own PM has been quite happy to throw Iraqis turning up in Ausralia as refugees into 'detention' centres, while professing his love for them by going to war against Saddam.

The reason why Iraq's expansionist plans had been curtailed (and the reason why its weapons programs are not more advanced) is because of continued sanctions. Do you think that if we had not been actively enforcing sanctions, Saddam would have been happy limiting himself?

As for the 'human rights' thing, there is a world of difference between putting refugees into 'detention centers' and having them stuffed alive into plastic shredders, or being subject to rape squads. I'm not that familiar with the Australian refugee system, but every country who takes in refugees should be allowed time to examine the refugee's story and claim to make sure they really were in danger in their previous country. (Compare that with Canada, where anyone can claim refugee status, even bin Laden himself, and be released into the general population regardless of the threat they pose.) If the refugees were really in danger in their previous country, they should not mind a short dentention period, if they were properly cared for and housed, and kept safe.

And, of course, you ignored the criteria of them supporting terrorism. (And before you say anything, I'm not claiming they had anything to do with 9/11; there are other terrorist activities they do support.)

[Advocate]

Originally posted by gnome

What I see right now is excessive reliance on the one reason so far that has stuck (poor human rights)--which makes me still suspect that the true reasons are being bypassed in discussion.


I think we have quite a large number of reasons, some more altruistic than others. Does the fact that some of the reasons are selfish (in terms of national interest) negate the reasons that are not? Or should we only get into wars where doing so is against our own interests?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Just want to point out that it is not always easy to separate food shortage deaths from those of tyrants. In many cases, the activities of the dictators is a direct cause of the actual starvation deaths.

Take Iraq for example. Many people like to point to the deaths due to starvation that took place in Iraq over the past decade and blame the sanctions. Yet, in that time, Saddam could afford to spend the money on things like payments to terrorists in Palestine. So, if someone in Iraq starves to death, is it because of a food shortage? Well, yes, but they would have survived had their government spent the money on food rather than weapons.

Many other examples exist of problems which are not brought about by lack of aid, but of the actions of people from the countries suffering. For example, tons of food aid from the U.S. may sit rotting because the leaders there don't want to subject their people to genetically modified food. In other cases in Africa, the white farmers (who had been producing a significant amount of the food) have been driven off their farms, and as a result the food production dropped. (Yes, perhaps the white farmers may have obtained their land due to colonialism in the past, but when there is a food shortage, everyone suffers.)

There are a lot of blacks who oppose people like Mugabe. As I have said before, the problem with relying on someone who can win a war of independence, rather than a peaceful transition of power, is that you end up with a ruler who is good at war. Not necessarily good attributes for a peace time ruler. His only good attributes appear to be his ability to blame the whites and conquer them, not actually run a nation.

However, the road to building a nation still has to be undertaken. African nations, after years of colonialism, will have to learn to stand on their own feet. This can only be done by themselves. The same process by the western nations was equally as bloody. They just got there a few years earlier. Lets not forget how recent the last 'World War' was. In terms of human history, it was only a blink of an eye ago.

[fsol]

The poor human rights issue is concentrated on now because it's kind of difficult to argue against.

-- "We're going to war to save the Iraqi people. Would you rather we left them all to starvation, rape and torture?"

** "umm..."

The thing is it isn't the reason we have gone to war. Apparently that is because of the violation of 1441.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Advocate
I think we have quite a large number of reasons, some more altruistic than others. Does the fact that some of the reasons are selfish (in terms of national interest) negate the reasons that are not? Or should we only get into wars where doing so is against our own interests?

Not at all. But I do think we should get off our high horse and admit to some of the selfish reasons, and engage in debate about them. Are they really national interest, or just the interests of those in power? And if the more honorable reasons for fighting don't distinguish Iraq from other rogue nations, does the addition of a selfish reason make it just?

Maybe it does... I just would like the public to have chance to evaluate it, instead of just being told, "look, they were speeding. You support speeders?"

[Tricky]

Originally posted by fsol
The thing is it isn't the reason we have gone to war. Apparently that is because of the violation of 1441.
That's ludicrous. Shrub was talking about taking out Saddam long before 1441 was ever written.

"Material breach of UN resolution 1441" is the legal excuse for the war. "Freeing the Iraqi people" (those we don't kill) is the moral excuse. "They tried to kill my daddy" is the emotional reason. "We could use the oil" and "We get money to rebuild" are the economic reasons.

There are a myriad of reasons for the war, but in my mind, most of them are either specious, hypocritical or self-serving. But such is the way of the world. The thing is done. Let us hope it doesn't have terribly negative repurcussions.