The US elections.

[Alex Green]

Operation Desert Storm: ... the choice (from the us gov.) to leave the iraq population to there fate (the US cut a deal with Saddam that time, and the population who had risen against Saddam was left to there fate...)

So you didn’t like it when we made deals with Saddam and you didn’t like it when we got tired of dealing with him and tossed him out? ::biggrin

I believe the reasoning at the time was that if the Iraqis threw off Saddam with only minimal assistance then the resulting government would have more legitimacy. In addition, we didn’t want the job ourselves, and the deals we had made with the other counties didn’t include (and probably specifically excluded) throwing him out.

...if you had a police in your neighborhood that used an excessive amount of force, ignored court orders to pay fines [then]... his/hers claim of being a "good guy" might be taken with a barrel of salt.

It is my sincere belief that part [global cop] is to be played by the UN or another neutral party.

Since when is the UN a neutral party, or even a competent one? The UN is made up of members who follow their own agendas. They don’t magically set those self interests aside when political matters come up.

This explains why we have nutty things like Sudan being re-elected to a seat on the Human Rights Commission (“A radical, Islamic dictatorship complicit in genocide is sitting in judgment on the policies of Western democracies.” Link ).

In the case of Iraqi, your “court” was bought and paid for. The UN set up the oil-for-food deal, and Saddam used it to siphon off millions (and we may hear the word “Billion” before everything is said and done) and use that money to influence officials in France and Russia. That was on top of the (large) amount of money that they had loaned to Saddam, and the future business interests (i.e. oil) that they hoped to get out of it.

The US should have gotten UN permission to go to war.

But the UN should have given that permission.

That it played out the way it did is (IMHO) more a reflection on the UN than the US.

Here is a crazy idea, why don’t we do it [play cop] together?

Good in theory, but it sucked in practice. The world was given the opportunity to do that in Bosnia. The UN stepped in and created “safe havens” for the Muslims... except the Serbs didn’t listen to all the fine talk coming from the UN and killed the people in the Safe Havens anyway. And that’s where the mess stayed until the US stepped in with actual force, rather than the threat of force.

The unreal part is this was in Europe. At the moment if the US doesn’t play cop, then it just doesn’t happen.

[ezekiel]

But they thought they did. Hussein was deliberately trying to give the impression to the world that he still had WMDs and was just good at hiding them. Lots of people, including all of the various intelligence services believed him. In order to know for SURE you'd have to wait for him to use them. Waiting for a repeat of 9-11 on a grander scale didn't seem like a good idea.

Actually, no, they didn't. Various Intelligence sources have said that they informed Bush that there was no imminent threat from Iraq, no evidence of WMDs and no Al Qaeda link. Bush insisted that they keep looking at the "Iraqi threat" (meaning, find a link). See, the Administration lied to you. I don't know how many times this has got to be repeated to come through. They lied...to you...There was no threat nor was there a belief of a threat.

I'll shed no tears for him.

Neither will I...what about the tens of thousands killed by US forces?

That's a principle that has worked for centuries. But it used to be the first sign of attack was troops massing on the boarder. In this case the first sign of attack might be a nuke going off in New York. Hussein worked very hard to give the impression that he was up to that kind of thing, I don't think it's George's fault for believing him. I do think it is France's fault for both believing Hussein but not wanting to do anything anyway.

Its a principle that was reaffirmed in the UN charter little over 50 years ago. As I said we've discussed this before, here's what I wrote in the thread I linked earlier:

Aggression, unauthorized violence, is prohibited as agreed upon by the members of the UN upon the signing of the Charter of the United Nations. We ban aggression for the same reason that we ban gunmen in our societies. We can't have a rule that says anyone can pick up a gun a do what they want.

So why not ban all violence? Cause that's not what's happened, States still have a right to the use of Force when authorized or for self defense.

1) There's no way the Nations would accept it otherwise.

2) Nations should have a right to protect themselves when otherwise they would be attacked (and this does NOT mean that the war on Iraq was justified and legal)

3) If there wasn't a right for the use of force then it would have removed all deterrent effect from the law. Defending Nations would receive the same sanctions as aggressors.

Now you could spend a lifetime studying the subject and you'd still be learning and having a jolly good time towards the end but I'll try to water it down for you. The Charter mentions use of force as being lawful:

Article 51: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

Basically article 51 stated that customary law regarding self-defence remained in effect.

The second area of lawful use of force is any authorized coercion, as long as not ultra-vires (outside of their competence), as authorized by either the Security Council under article 24 or chapter 7 of the Charter, or little known to the public, as authorized by the general assembly acting under chapter 4 of the Charter. The General Assembly's competence is very limited and the use of force couldn't be for enforcement action but it could be for peacekeeping.

Finally, and this is the heart of the matter, there's article 2(4) of the Charter

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Please note that it also prohibits the threat of use of force. Anyway, now that we're through with the basics, onto other stuff...

For all lawful use of force under the right of defense, individual or collective, there is, under customary law, a requirement that the responding force be both necessary and proportional. So necessity and proportionality are read into the right of defense, even though they don't appear anywhere in the Charter. Just to be sure everyone's following me, there's no need for the security councils approval for the right of defense.

So what am I getting at? I'm not saying the International Courts should substitute their judgment over that of head's of states, far from it. I'm saying that Head's of States should act in accordance with International Law as stated within the UN Charter. Does a judge substitutes his judgment to that of a killer? No, he judges his actions when the killer should've abided by the law. The law is there, what's lacking is enforceability though the Nations have come a long way in very little time. What's sad is that certain nations, ok, just one really comes to mind, are really undermining what has been accomplished so far if not jeopardizing the UNs very being.

...

and that's what I wrote then, back to now.

There are lots of things that are Bush's fault. The War in Iraq isn't one of them (although miss-handling the aftermath is). I think if Gore had won we *still* would have had the war. If you are the President then part of the job description involves protecting the country. Waiting for a nuke to go off in New York to "prove" something you believe but can't prove isn't doing your job.

How is the war not Bush's fault? I just said that Intelligence services informed him of the lack of threat or Al Qaeda link. Hussein supported Hamas in Israel by paying compensation fees to families of suicide bombers, that's it. If Gore or even McCain were president, why would they have had the war? The Afghan war, yes, maybe. There's no way they would've had the Iraqi war though. By your reasoning a Nation could attack anyone they feel like even if they can't prove any wrongs...Might makes right, american hegemony indeed.

And yes, there were other reasons for the war besides the WMD. But without the WMD I don't think the other reasons would have been enough, and without the other reasons I think the WMD would have been enough. Of course, if Iraq hadn't had oil then France probably wouldn't have tried to stop it. 

Exactly, which makes the fabricated claim of WMDs doubly wrong...no?

All of his Generals and such believed he had them. Some of them had stocks of environmental suits and the like (never can tell when those might come in handy). He actually was (counter to the restrictions working on delivery missiles (never can tell when you will need those either). All of his scientists believed that he would resume a big push for them the minute the sanctions ended. And finally, he played games with the inspectors for years and let his people starve.

What Iraqi generals knew isn't the point. Hussein had a huge ego, who cares if he told his population he could beat the crap out of any other nation? He couldn't. If the US was really scared of threats to their security they would've invaded North Korea, not Iraq. Kim Jong Il is a much greater threat and they do admit to working on nuclear weapons, they do have nuclear capability and they do threaten america (though in almost rings tongue in cheek...I think he threatens nation to show his people he's got the bigger dick). He isn't much nicer than Hussein, he starves his population to build huge monuments and such. Really, this takes the Bush administration's credibility and flushes it even further down the loo.

France has nukes. They also have control of their nukes and don’t traffic with terrorists (or make their own terrorism). So we don’t worry about France. Ditto most of the countries that have them.

France has a huge Arab community with periodic conflicts erupting. They've arrested Al Qaeda operatives. They also have corsican sovereignist terrorists to deal with. To think that the US is more under threat of terrorists or more knowledgeable because of 9/11 is kinda insulting. No, they didn't think Iraq was a threat. No, France isn't a threat...wait a sec! Doesn't *gasp* Pakistan have nuclear weapons now!!! It's full of Muslims! Evil terrorists could steal one of their nuclear warheads...I think we should invade now!

So you didn’t like it when we made deals with Saddam and you didn’t like it when we got tired of dealing with him and tossed him out? 

I believe the reasoning at the time was that if the Iraqis threw off Saddam with only minimal assistance then the resulting government would have more legitimacy. In addition, we didn’t want the job ourselves, and the deals we had made with the other counties didn’t include (and probably specifically excluded) throwing him out.

I think he meant that the US promised iraqi dissidents their support against the iraqi regime. A revolution started...and they were left to their fates. Really, it makes you wonder why there's a lack of trust from the arab world towards western nations, no? Britain did the same to "Iraq" when Prince Feisal helped British troops in the first world war (Lawrence of Arabia's story...) and were promised control of Syria...but it was given to the French. He lobbied for the arab cause, was rebuked and later was offered the Iraqi territories which he reluctantly accepted. The Iraqi Kingdom was formed. Later they pulled a territory away from Iraqi rule, Kuwait, and that's how that conflict started.

The US should have gotten UN permission to go to war.

But the UN should have given that permission.

Based on what? That the US said there were WMDs when there was no evidence?

The unreal part is this was in Europe. At the moment if the US doesn’t play cop, then it just doesn’t happen.

France has troops in Congo...no oil there. France also had ground troops in Yugoslavia which why they quarreled with the US when they wanted to bomb the place and put their peacekeepers at risk. The UN vetoed air strikes and when air strikes did take place in 1994, the serbs responded by taking UN peacekeepers hostage. That's why all hell broke loose in 1995. Serbs expected no response from the UN but instead France then worked with the US and they bombed and attacked 'safe areas'. Other nations do police, they just don't blare it to everyone to make sure everyone takes notice. CNN used to be decent, now you can't see anything that doesn't directly concern americans on it. I'd switch news networks if I were you.

[Alex Green]

...Various Intelligence sources have said that they informed Bush that there was no imminent threat from Iraq, no evidence of WMDs and no Al Qaeda link. Bush insisted that they keep looking at the "Iraqi threat" (meaning, find a link). See, the Administration lied to you. I don't know how many times this has got to be repeated to come through. They lied...to you...There was no threat nor was there a belief of a threat.

You are going to have to provide links for this. My impression is that although some relatively small players said it wasn't proven, and they only stand out after the fact because they were right. The vast bulk of the players felt otherwise.

"For years, they [british and American intelligence services], like every other western intelligence service, had advised their governments that Iraq's WMD programmes were a persistent menace." Link

"There is now criticism that the Bush administration did not seize upon the frail intelligence it had to stop the September 11th attacks, yet also criticism that stronger-but still frail-intelligence led to the decision to invade Iraq. How would [bush] have been judged, he asked, if an Iraqi or Iraqi-assisted attack had taken place after he had shrunk back from the issue?" Link

Both of those links are from July of '04. When you look back in time to Feb '03, (before the war)

"Iraq's systematic deception of the first lot of inspectors sent to disarm it after the Gulf war is a matter of record, not conjecture. Iraq placed so many obstacles in front of these inspectors that they withdrew in 1998. Now the Iraqis maintain that, having pushed the inspectors out, they voluntarily destroyed all the chemical and biological munitions they had worked so hard to conceal—and kept no record of how and when they had done so. It is not only the Americans who consider this account incredible. It is only a week, remember, since Hans Blix, the chief inspector himself, told the Security Council that Iraq even now had not genuinely accepted the UN's 12-year-old instruction to disarm, reiterated unanimously last November in Resolution 1441. Without Iraq's active co-operation, he said, the inspectors could not verify that it had disarmed by playing “catch as catch can”. A country with Iraq's record deserves no presumption of innocence." Link

On the French (same link as before) "Mr Chirac is not alone in thinking that America under Mr Bush and after September 11th is prone to taking unilateral action in the world. But in the case of Iraq Mr Bush has worked carefully through the Security Council. That decision produced Resolution 1441, warning Iraq of serious consequences if it failed to take this final opportunity to disarm. Mr Hussein has failed, and the Americans rightly insist that serious consequences must now ensue. If the French president thinks he is upholding the authority of the Security Council by allowing Iraq to treat such resolutions with scorn, he is wrong. "

(More recently on French violations of the sanctions) Link

How is the war not Bush's fault? ... If Gore or even McCain were president, why would they have had the war?

They would have had it because they would have had the same intelligence conclusions that Bush had (see above).

Neither will I...what about the tens of thousands killed by US forces?

A big piece of that is the previously mentioned "mishandled aftermath". But something else to keep in mind is Hussein killed an average of what, 20,000(?) people a year? And that doesn't include the various wars he started.

What Iraqi generals knew isn't the point. Hussein had a huge ego, who cares if he told his population he could beat the crap out of any other nation?

"Generals" isn't the same as "Population". The point I'm making is that if the intelligence had been better, say, if we had bugged one of his Generals, the conclusions would have been the same. The upper echelon of his military believed that they had WMDs. (I can't link to that, I'm remembering it from NPR).

[Bahamut810]

Im trying to stay out of this (I usually get a bit heated when I talk politics), I just wanted to point out one thing (any more and its no turning back)...

A big piece of that is the previously mentioned "mishandled aftermath". But something else to keep in mind is Hussein killed an average of what, 20,000(?) people a year? And that doesn't include the various wars he started.

That dosen't make our killing of civilians any better. Its that sort of thinking that led to the Mai Lai Massacre in Vietnam (an entire village of men, women and children slaughtered becuase some Viet Cong might have been there. 4 people survived, one american refused to participate).

We can't be the Supermen that we think we are if we keep acting like Lex Luthor (so to speak).

[ezekiel]

Nearly a year after U.S. and British troops invaded Iraq, no evidence has turned up to verify allegations of Saddam's links with al-Qaida, and several key parts of the administration's case have either proved false or seem increasingly doubtful.

Senior U.S. officials now say there never was any evidence that Saddam's secular police state and Osama bin Laden's Islamic terrorism network were in league. At most, there were occasional meetings.

here

Tenet himself (CIA director) told the Administration there was no immediate threat. I know I've seen a documentary with several high ups commenting on the lies but I can't recall the name of it. Not F911 which was a bit too obviously Bush bashing in my opinion. I'd link you to some of Clarke's comments as well but I imagine you'll discredit them since he wrote a book on it.

Btw, your links need registration to be seen. They seem like editorials to me.

[Ayre el KaBeer]

Just alittle reminder all while things are still civil, since this topic (along with most pollitics) can get heated, if you feel yourself getting angry pull out of the thread for alittle while to cool down. I know it's unlikely for the people here to start flaming each other but it's better to be safe than sorry.

My friends and I have gotten pretty pissed in the past 'discussing' pollitics, since our last big argument 3 of us have banned the topic in our cars (In the car there is no democracy, for I am el presidente'!), and one has banned it from his home (he's the only one of us that can since he lives alone ::rolleyes ).

Anyway, my opinions on the matter though far more extensive and usually are wrapped in a show of a greater understanding boil down to this:

Resource wars (oil, territory, a place to slap a base on, etc.) are nothing new, to conceal them as a liberation of a people and a deffence one's own territory and getting the majority of voters to believe it is something of a small masterpiece. I don't condone Bush's actions (ends can't justify the means here) and dispise he got in again, though I wasn't supirised at all that he did, but his 'people' pulled off the biggest load of crap so far this century and got away with it scott free, probably at the expence of the american public as he's got the fundumentalists angrier than before.

Being of middle eastern decent myself, I've seen what the war has done to people I normally consider rational and reasonable, get agry and afraid of what they consider "the american threat". I've heard some rooting for the terrorists because they think there's noone else going to fight to protect their homes, families, etc. when "the americans need to top up their oil reserves". And these are the one's that aren't followers of islam, hell one's an aethiest.

Bush hasn't helped anyone in the long term apart from himself and the oil companies, and has set back multiculturalism at least 50 years.

Just my 2 cents... getting alittle heated here myself so I won't be replying in this one anymore.

[Alex Green]

Btw, your links need registration to be seen. They seem like editorials to me.

Sorry about that. The July stuff is reviews of those investigations into the intelligence failures.

Your link does far more to prove my case than yours. You said that Bush knowingly lied about WMD. I said the intelligence services believed Saddam had WMD. Your link says the intelligence services believed he had WMD. That article says that there wasn't a link between 9-11 and Hussein, although he did have various links to terrorists.

The administration's allegations that Saddam still had weapons of mass destruction have been the subject of much greater public and political controversy than its suggestions that Iraq and al-Qaida were in league. They were based on the Iraqi leader's long history of duplicity regarding WMD, which appeared to be confirmed by spy satellite photographs, defectors and electronic eavesdropping.

Nor do I remember Bush ever saying Saddam was an "immediate" threat (that was Blare). I think what Bush said was that he wasn't, but sooner or later he would be.

[madcat82]

Im pulling out of this discussion, it is getting a little to heated for me.

As an clearification, I just want to point out that Ez where right about his assumption about my last post. The validity can, and perhaps will, be questioned. If it is, pleas dont do it in this post, but mail me.

Thanks all.

[ProfPotts]

Bush hasn't helped anyone in the long term apart from himself and the oil companies, and has set back multiculturalism at least 50 years.

Yeah - apparantly America's popularity with the rest of the world is at the lowest point it's been now, under the Bush administration, than it has been since Vietnam.

The world liked Clinton - he started peace talks. The world doesn't like Bush - he starts wars. There's more terrorism around the world since Bush's TWAT (The War Againat Terror) than there ever was before. Terrorists love Bush - he justifies pretty much every piece of propaganda they use to fuel the rage of their troops.

Not being American, I guess I focus more on the President's foriegn policy than anything else - Bush's foriegn policy has never been his strong point...

[ezekiel]

Your link does far more to prove my case than yours. You said that Bush knowingly lied about WMD. I said the intelligence services believed Saddam had WMD. Your link says the intelligence services believed he had WMD. That article says that there wasn't a link between 9-11 and Hussein, although he did have various links to terrorists.

Huh?

one paragraph

The administration's allegations that Saddam still had weapons of mass destruction have been the subject of much greater public and political controversy than its suggestions that Iraq and al-Qaida were in league. They were based on the Iraqi leader's long history of duplicity regarding WMD, which appeared to be confirmed by spy satellite photographs, defectors and electronic eavesdropping.

Which is what you're referring to I imagine...This article is based on the Al Qaeda link not the WMDs. It says that WMDs has already been covered by media coverage not that no lying occured regarding this either. Just because you found this you're dismissing the rest of the article which blatantly says that the Administration lied to you? Okay...

Here.

here.This is the Carnegie Report by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace which states that "Administrations officials systematically misrepresented the threat from Iraq's WMD and ballistic missile programs"

and here. There's actually a whole website dedicated to this that you can peruse at will!

Nor do I remember Bush ever saying Saddam was an "immediate" threat (that was Blare). I think what Bush said was that he wasn't, but sooner or later he would be.

::biggrin

No, the Bush administration said it or they never could've convincingly gone to war.

here

here

here, this is a list of quotes stating that Iraq was an immediate threat.

"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."

• President Bush, 7/17/03

Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."

• President Bush, 7/2/03

"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."

• President Bush 4/24/03

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."

• President Bush, 3/19/03

"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."

• President Bush, 3/16/03

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat."

• President Bush, 1/3/03

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."

• President Bush, 11/23/02

"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."

• President Bush, 11/3/02

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."

• President Bush, 11/1/02

"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."

• President Bush, 10/28/02

"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."

• President Bush, 10/7/02

::biggrin

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."

• President Bush, 9/26/02

::tongue

Need more? Notice I only quoted the Bush ones, not the whole administration and definitely not Blair.

[Sphere]

(studying firework instructions) Light blue touch paper...stand well back.... ::blink

My personal view on the whole Iraq situation is that it would have been much better for everyone concerned if Iraq had been invaded back during Desert Storm when we would have had the backing of a whole ton of the indiginous population. I mean, we encouraged uprisings across the country and promised we'd support them. Then left them to get massacred. There were reports of "allied" choppers flying over areas where the Iraqi army were butchering rebels but were ordered not to interfere.

I was against the invasion of Iraq this time around. Went on two of the big anti-war demonstrations through London. My reasonings for this were:

1) Afghanistan was (and in the large percentage of areas, still is) left in the hands of Northern Alliance warlords whose only redeeming feature was that they were "against the Taliban". In all other aspects they had the same fluffy attitudes to women, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The US turned it's attention onto Iraq with huge amounts of work still left to do in Afghanistan. Here's a hint, if you're going to bring democracy to a country do it properly. It was like giving a gunshot victim first aid then running off without calling an ambulance.

2) Iraq was never a credible threat to world security. Not after 10+ years of sanctions and bombing raids.

3) Invasion would mean occupation. Which, to a whole lot of countries in the middle east, was going to look like US empire building. Which, in turn was going to crank up the level of hatred against the West.

Arguments about Hussein's brutality are irrelevant, as both the UK and the US still support many governments around the world with atrocious human rights records.

The only relevence is what threat he presented to the West and the answer is none.

However. Now we're there I believe we absolutely should stay until the country has been stabilised. We have a moral obligation. Pulling troops out just because we're getting the occasional bloody nose cannot be allowed.

How do they put it? Ah yes. Building a better tomorrow. One atrocity at a time. ::wink

Ah, well. How do our American Eon-ites feel about this National Service Bill I hear they've suggested over there? Ready to do your bit for the War on Abstract Concepts?

Final thought (for the Brits amongst us). Did anyone realise Fallujah's only the size of Brighton?

[ezekiel]

However. Now we're there I believe we absolutely should stay until the country has been stabilised. We have a moral obligation. Pulling troops out just because we're getting the occasional bloody nose cannot be allowed.

I agree, can't remember if I said so myself or not yet...I wanted to anyway. You can't just destroy a country's infrastructure and leave just like that.

[Bahamut810]

Ah, well. How do our American Eon-ites feel about this National Service Bill I hear they've suggested over there? Ready to do your bit for the War on Abstract Concepts?

I havent heard anything about it. As far as I know there is none.

[Sphere]

I wouldn't worry about it then. I heard a rumour about it on the internet, and we all know how unreliable that can be ::rolleyes .

[Obsidian Shade]

(Response to Alex Green posting on Nov 8)

But the Job in Germany was done by more than America. The Kapitalism needed a safe border to the USSR. I think we had only luck to have Stalin before our doors. It was another time and America was not lead by the interests of the PNAC (Project for the New American Century).

Look at the Iraq. They didn't wanted a functional state. Only the oil counts.

[Bahamut810]

I wouldn't worry about it then. I heard a rumour about it on the internet, and we all know how unreliable that can be  ::rolleyes .

In Bush's defence on that one, he looked into the camera and said there would be no draft.

If he lied...then I'm moving to Canada.

[Alex Green]

Look at Iraq. They didn't wanted a functional state. Only the oil counts.

Really? Then why *not* leave Saddam there? He would have been willing to pump more oil. Without the sanctions he would have been able to expand oil production and boost output. ::soapbox

"Only the oil counts" was French thinking. They were perfectly willing to supply Saddam with weapons to kill his own people, perhaps even after the first war and during the sactions. They were even willing to supply him with nuclear technology. Iraq has a ton of debt, way past the point where it would cripple it's economy. Who has pressed for debt relief? The US. Who has resisted? The French. Which one do you think wants Iraq to be functional?

Keep in mind that the war was a big risk and almost cost Bush his re-election. The safe move would have been to try to continue the sanctions. He didn't fire up the war for himself. Something else to keep in mind; increasing the supply of oil decreases it's price, and thus the profits that flow into the pockets of Bush's oil company friends. He didn't do it for them either.

We used to hear talk of "impeachment because Bush lied". We don't anymore, largely because Congress looked into the matter and found that what Bush said came from the various intelligence agencies. Bush was wrong, and he exaggerated the case he had, but it also appears that he believed Iraq was (or was going to be) a threat.

What I think happened is although the WMD case was thought legitimate, it wasn't the primary reason behind the calculation for war. For decades the US and the West treated terrorism as a matter for law enforcement, and largely let the Arab states do anything they wanted to their own people as long as they pumped oil. The end result was 9-11.

After that, the law enforcement paradigm was largely dropped and terrorism was dealt with in a more proactive way. For all the civil rights abuses, in the three years since 9-11 there hasn't been another incident on US soil (this is what won Bush the election).

But that doesn't deal with the Gulf states. If Iraq could be turned into a democracy, it would have the same effect on the Gulf states that Japan had on the far east. I.e. everyone would have to get their act together or be left behind.

It was a very attractive idea (and still is). It's a pity the implementation of this has been, for lack of a better word, incompetent. I can only hope that 10 years down the line Iraq will be a functioning democracy, and thirty years down the line we will look back at this as one of the best things that ever happened to the Gulf. ::praying

And yes, I know. It doesn't look like a reasonable hope right now. But that's how we got into this mess. ::crazy

[Nullifier]

I've been restraining myself from joining this discussion, but a point keeps getting made, or implied, that I really disagree with, and it's one that Bush and his administration have repeatedly made, even though it's quite false.

Saddam Hussein didn't support, harbor, or even like the vast majority of the terrorists. He was a secular leader, and the terrorists, almost without exception are and have been fundamenalist Islamics. He hated the fundamentalists, and they weren't particularly fond of him either. Going after him as part of the 'War on Terror' made no sense at all, as he had no connection with any of the terrorist factions. It's extremely unlikely that if he did get his hands on WMDs, like the CIA gave him back in the 70s, he would even consider selling them to fundamentalist Islamic terrorists. It's not like they haven't asked for his help before. He's always turned them down, because they opposed his secular regime. Don't get me wrong, Saddam wasn't a good person or anything. He was a despicable, oppressive dictator. He also happened to be just about the last person in the world who would sell any kind of weapon to a bunch of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists.

Everyone who knows the history of the situation knows this, but the Bush admin has constantly ignored it because it totally undermines their case for war.

Just my 2 cents. Hope y'all have fun with your little argument. ::biggrin

[Alex Green]

Saddam Hussein didn't support, harbor, or even like the vast majority of the terrorists.

??? Does that exclude the 25,000$ he publicly gave to the families of suicide bombers? How about the attempted assassination of former President Bush? Granted, he was secular and liked the secular terrorists better than Bin Laudin's crew, but ...

"Saddam Hussein knew plenty about terrorism. In essence, he owned and operated a full-service general store for global terrorists, complete with cash, diplomatic aid, safe haven, training and even medical attention. Such assistance violated United Nations Security Council Resolution 687. The results not only broke international law, but also were deadly... The public evidence of Saddam Hussein's cooperation with and support for global terrorists is abundant and clear...  Link

WhiteHouse Summary

More Specific Listing.

[Nullifier]

Got any unbiased info on that stuff? The White House and a conservative think-tank do not compelling references make. Still, let me address the specific bits from the White House site, just to show I'm willing to play on your turf.

In 1993, the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) directed and pursued an attempt to assassinate, through the use of a powerful car bomb, former U.S. President George Bush and the Emir of Kuwait. Kuwaiti authorities thwarted the terrorist plot and arrested 16 suspects, led by two Iraqi nationals.

George Bush did have the CIA try to assasinate Saddam during the Gulf War, and turnabout is usually considered fair play. It should also be noted that the CIA did much, much worse back in the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s.

Iraq shelters terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO), which has used terrorist violence against Iran and in the 1970s was responsible for killing several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians.

I can't even begin to talk about how skewed this little bit is. Suffice it to say the CIA, with George Bush in charge, no less, put Saddam in power to counter the growing power of the fundamentalists in Iran. Do I even need to get into the Iran-Contra thing?

Iraq shelters several prominent Palestinian terrorist organizations in Baghdad, including the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), which is known for aerial attacks against Israel and is headed by Abu Abbas, who carried out the 1985 hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro and murdered U.S. citizen Leon Klinghoffer.

Iraq shelters the Abu Nidal Organization, an international terrorist organization that has carried out terrorist attacks in twenty countries, killing or injuring almost 900 people. Targets have included the United States and several other Western nations. Each of these groups have offices in Baghdad and receive training, logistical assistance, and financial aid from the government of Iraq.

In April 2002, Saddam Hussein increased from $10,000 to $25,000 the money offered to families of Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers. The rules for rewarding suicide/homicide bombers are strict and insist that only someone who blows himself up with a belt of explosives gets the full payment. Payments are made on a strict scale, with different amounts for wounds, disablement, death as a "martyr" and $25,000 for a suicide bomber. Mahmoud Besharat, a representative on the West Bank who is handing out to families the money from Saddam, said, "You would have to ask President Saddam why he is being so generous. But he is a revolutionary and he wants this distinguished struggle, the intifada, to continue."

The fight for Palestinian statehood has been called terrorist in nature by the West, but its very effectiveness evident in the status now granted the PLA and other concessions Israel has made over the years speak to its legitimacy as a guerilla warfare effort, fought the only way possible against such a powerful and well-supported enemy. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Former Iraqi military officers have described a highly secret terrorist training facility in Iraq known as Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations.

U.S. special forces and covert ops training is even more extensive, and has been extended at various times to numerous militant groups around the world.

So, um, you were saying?

I won't honor that little think-tank article with a response. Conservative and Liberal think-tanks alike lie, skew, and misrepresent fluently. ::tongue

[ezekiel]

"Only the oil counts" was French thinking. They were perfectly willing to supply Saddam with weapons to kill his own people, perhaps even after the first war and during the sactions. They were even willing to supply him with nuclear technology. Iraq has a ton of debt, way past the point where it would cripple it's economy. Who has pressed for debt relief? The US. Who has resisted? The French. Which one do you think wants Iraq to be functional?

Keep in mind that the war was a big risk and almost cost Bush his re-election. The safe move would have been to try to continue the sanctions. He didn't fire up the war for himself. Something else to keep in mind; increasing the supply of oil decreases it's price, and thus the profits that flow into the pockets of Bush's oil company friends. He didn't do it for them either.

Hah! More Liberty Fries propaganda? Why just the French? Yes, the French, Russians, Chinese and even Canada had companies pumping oil in Iraq. So? Because of this and the fact they didn't want to destroy the Iraqi regime for the heck of it, they're the enemy? See, the problem stems from the fact that american and british companies didn't have direct access to Iraqi oil. A new regime could just ignore previous contracts and issue new ones. The US made thinly veiled threats that firms such as the French TotalFinaElf would be excluded from any future concessions if Beijing, Paris and Moscow didn't support the Bush policy of a regime change. So they conceded some points and this led to resolution 1441. Oil is the reason the war happened, period.

By invading and removing Saddam the new regime can ignore contracts made with the previous government. Do you think it's a coincidence that Cheney was president of Halliburton? That the Bush family has links in the oil industry?

The Iraqi oil industry is a mere shadow of its former self, run down by years of sanctions. But once the facilities are rehabilitated (a lucrative job for the oil service industry, including Vice President Cheney’s former company, Halliburton) the spigots could be opened wide. Controlling Iraqi oil would allow the United States to reduce Saudi influence over oil policy: since September 11, 2001, rifts between Washington and Riyadh have appeared and may well widen given that Saudi Arabia’s population, reeling from economic crisis, is increasingly restive.

In general, Washington would gain enormous leverage over the world oil market, fatally weaken OPEC, and limit the influence of other suppliers such as Russia, Mexico, and Venezuela.

From here. Read the whole article. Written a few months before the war by the WorldWatch Institute. The reason that oil isn't flowing into American coffers as we speak is that dissidents are targeting the oil industry by bombing pipelines, etc.

We used to hear talk of "impeachment because Bush lied". We don't anymore, largely because Congress looked into the matter and found that what Bush said came from the various intelligence agencies. Bush was wrong, and he exaggerated the case he had, but it also appears that he believed Iraq was (or was going to be) a threat.

Let me get this straight...

"I did not have sex with this woman..." (t'was but a blowjob)

Is grounds for impeachment.

"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."

• President Bush, 10/7/02

(Iraq has no WMDs, evidence refutes their presence but we've excluded it in favor of only evidence that, slim as it may be, supports our claim. We also know Saddam probably doesn't have links with fundamentalist terrorists...but he could have!)

Isn't.

Call me crazy but I think that's outrageous and I can't believe you accept this.

What I think happened is although the WMD case was thought legitimate, it wasn't the primary reason behind the calculation for war. For decades the US and the West treated terrorism as a matter for law enforcement, and largely let the Arab states do anything they wanted to their own people as long as they pumped oil. The end result was 9-11.

Have you read the links? They didn't think the WMD case was legitimate. You...were...lied...to. They didn't think Saddam had links with terrorism that could threaten the west. You...were...lied...to. Really, I don't know how I can make this any clearer. Why would 9/11 change their stance on Iraq if Saddam had no links with fundamentalist terrorists? What 9/11 changed is that the administration could use fear to convince the population that action must be taken...or else.

After that, the law enforcement paradigm was largely dropped and terrorism was dealt with in a more proactive way. For all the civil rights abuses, in the three years since 9-11 there hasn't been another incident on US soil (this is what won Bush the election).

Wow...

If all that Americans want is security they can go to prison. They'll have enough to eat, a bed and a roof over their heads. But if an American wants to preserve his dignity and his equality as a human being, he must not bow his neck to any dictatorial government.

-- Dwight Eisenhower

The way I see it, the terrorists have won with 9/11.

Edit: changed to full Eisenhower quote instead of abriged version.

[Prince of Boredom]

Ok, I am purposefully staying as FAR away from this disussion as is humanly possible. That being said, I have a couple of comments relating to some of the less controversial topics mentioned.

Ah, well. How do our American Eon-ites feel about this National Service Bill I hear they've suggested over there? Ready to do your bit for the War on Abstract Concepts?

I have full confidence that this will never happen. Secretary Rumsfeld stated recently to Congress that it is not necessary to maintain the current ops tempo, and that military recruitment is currently on target.

As a member of the all-volunteer US military, I believe that the fact that we are all volunteers is what makes it so good. Conscripts tend to lower the effectiveness of any military.

The fight for Palestinian statehood has been called terrorist in nature by the West, but its very effectiveness evident in the status now granted the PLA and other concessions Israel has made over the years speak to its legitimacy as a guerilla warfare effort, fought the only way possible against such a powerful and well-supported enemy. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Ok, I agree that we (the West) tend to overuse the term 'terrorism' to attempt to make it fit anything we don't like. Here is the definition of terrorism from Title 22 of the US Code:

The Intelligence Community is guided by the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d):

—The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

Now, I believe this definition very succinctly captures what is truly 'terrorism'. Specifically the targeting on non-combatants for purposes of causing terror. That being said, I believe the west has in the past overstepped this definition.

For example, the bombing of the USS Cole was not a terrorist attack. It was an attack against a legitimate military target. Now, it may violate the Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC) or the Geneva Convention (the bombers were not wearing uniforms and their boat was not marked as a military vehicle) but, in my mind, it was not terrorism.

Also, the bombing the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia (military dorms on Prince Sultan Airbase) was not terrorism for the same reason.

As a member of the military, I accpet the risk that I am a target for any enemy of the US and that I am viewed as a combatant at all times. The fact that I live on a military installation overseas only heightens my awareness of that fact.

All that being said, the PLA has definately used 'terrorist' actions in the past to target Israel (bus bombings, mall bombings,etc). Now, there are legitimate freedom fighters throughout the world who do get improperly labeled as terrorists because they use unconventional tactics to fight superior enemies, but the PLA has clearly used terrorist acts.

[Nullifier]

The Intelligence Community is guided by the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d):

—The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

By that definition the U.S. is just as much a terrorist state as those it purports to oppose. Having used both clandestine agents and subnational groups to assasinate leaders contrary to American business interests, and to install, often through bloody oppression of the population, horrible dictators who promise to protect those interests. Given that, I'd say that that particular definition of terrorism is generally only applied to such actions that Western governments label terrorist for their own purposes. Which makes it fairly worthless as a standard.

[Prince of Boredom]

By that definition the U.S. is just as much a terrorist state as those it purports to oppose. Having used both clandestine agents and subnational groups to assasinate leaders contrary to American business interests, and to install, often through bloody oppression of the population, horrible dictators who promise to protect those interests.

Ok, other than conspiracy books and, as you put it,

any unbiased info on that stuff

what sources are you talking about?

As far as CIA assassinations, if the target is a head of state, or member of the ruling government, then by definition they are 'legitimate' targets, just as is the 'current' president of the United States.

[Nullifier]

As far as CIA assassinations, if the target is a head of state, or member of the ruling government, then by definition they are 'legitimate' targets, just as is the 'current' president of the United States.

If you're saying that heads of state and members of governments aren't considered non-combatants, you're much mistaken. Besides which, the point of the matter is the the U.S. government, and specifically the CIA has supported and encouraged 'terrorist' actions by the puppet regimes it's put in place.

Ok, other than conspiracy books and, as you put it,

what sources are you talking about?

Huh? I didn't talk about any 'sources.' Wtf are you talking about?

[Prince of Boredom]

Huh? I didn't talk about any 'sources.' Wtf are you talking about?

Well, either you have sources, or you're talking out of your a$$. I was giving you a little credit, I apologize.

[Nullifier]

I do have sources, but I didn't talk about them. I was wondering why you were asking about me talking about them, since that never happened. You didn't have to be snippy all 'bout it. ::tongue

Just in case you were wondering though, my sources are people who were in the CIA at the time they were doing all these nasty things, and afterwards. I'd introduce you, but you're a bit far off. ::rolleyes

[ezekiel]

That's crap sources Nulli.

I think Palestine terrorists are terrorists. Every time I start routing for them they do something gawdawful...every time I start routing for Israel they do something awful...that's a conflict which positively sucks..

I'm sticking by everything I've said so far though.

[Alex Green]

The reason that oil isn't flowing into American coffers as we speak is that dissidents are targeting the oil industry by bombing pipelines, etc.

And, because the plan failed, this has resulted in massive profits for the oil companies.

...Controlling Iraqi oil would allow the United States to reduce Saudi influence...

And how the heck were we supposed to do that? Stay camped out there forever? If we had wanted to do something like that then we would have brought enough troops to occupy the country. We didn't. We brought enough troops to over throw Saddam and that was it. The plan was to push him out, set up a new government, and then leave. We have done this before to other counties with mixed success. Panama and Haiti are the most recent examples, but Japan is an example of the best case.

Public opinion from the world, the United States, and Iraq never would have tolerated a simple take over and squatting on the oil rigs.

The Bush administration felt that we would be 'greeted by people throwing flowers' and such. If they had really intended to just take over, they would have planned for some kind of resistance. There is an irony to this. Had they had the master plan you accuse them of, Iraq would be in better shape now. They would have imposed security, maybe kept the Bathists in power, and then World and American opinion would have forced them to hold elections and get out.

I liked your link to worldwatch. There is some sound thinking in there, but there is also some fluff.

By rejecting U.S. participation in the Kyoto Protocol early in his tenure, George W. Bush sought to throw a wrench into the international machinery set up to address the threat of climate change. By securing the massive flow of cheap oil, he may hope to kill Kyoto.

There is a temptation for every man to view himself as the center of the universe. To assume that other people care about what he cares about. To believe that either you are for me (and what I believe) or you are against me (and what I believe). I don't think Bush cares enough about Kyoto to give it a second thought, much less serve as a motive. I also think Bush is given far to much credit/blame for killing Kyoto. Before Bush's announcement the Senate had already warned 95-0 that it would never ratify it.

...Iraq has no WMDs, evidence refutes their presence but we've excluded it in favor of only evidence that, slim as it may be, supports our claim. ...

Considering Hussein killed tens of thousands of people with his chemical weapons, I think you mean that Bush was secretly thinking...

"Iraq claims to have NO MORE WMDs and has (finally) stopped trying to manufacture nukes. Because Hussein says that he destroyed his WMDs, and because he has (unwillingly) stopped obstructing the inspectors quite so much, we trust him on this point even though he can't prove it and even though the inspectors utterly failed to find his nuclear program until two high level defectors pointed it out. It is true that all the scientists the inspectors talk to are terrified of having their families tortured to death, but we are positive that THIS TIME the inspectors have finally gotten the truth... even though the bulk of my security analysts say he still has stuff stashed somewhere."

Why would 9/11 change their stance on Iraq if Saddam had no links with fundamentalist terrorists?

1) You don't have to be a fundamentalist to be a terrorist. With 9-11 acting as inspiration Saddam could pull a copy-cat on his own.

2) It would have been pretty easy for Saddam to acquire those links, even if he didn't have them before.

3) And most importantly, if you really want to win the war on terror then you have to dry up the supply of angry young men from failed states. Radical militant Islam is (correctly or incorrectly) viewed as a response to their own repressive governments. Turning Iraq into a democracy would presumably force the other gulf states to reform their own governments as well.

After that, the law enforcement paradigm was largely dropped and terrorism was dealt with in a more proactive way. For all the civil rights abuses, in the three years since 9-11 there hasn't been another incident on US soil (this is what won Bush the election).

Note I didn't say I approved or disapproved. I was simply stating a fact. I'll also note that you didn't disagree with those facts, you just said you didn't like it.

[Ayre el KaBeer]

Prince, Nulli play nice I don't want to see a flame war errupt. A general thread hasn't been closed on EON as far as I've seen and I have looked, I'd rather not see it have to happen.

As I said earlier if it's getting you angry bail out of the thread.

[ProfPotts]

Public opinion from the world, the United States, and Iraq never would have tolerated a simple take over and squatting on the oil rigs.

Shifting a few of those troops assigned to guard the rigs over to guarding, say, the arsenals left scattered around the country may have been a good idea though, right?

I mean, there was that one arsenal where the rebels (it is presumed) wandered in & drove off with several truck loads of bomb-making gear - an operation taking a few days at least. The US had been warned about the place by the locals, but didn't think it worth sending troops to guard. We're told that, thanks to Iraqi military supplies left unguarded by the occupying troops, world terrorists could now possibly have more explosive in their possession than ever before.

But I'm sure the policy on what to guard had nothing to do with oil... ::sly

[Alex Green]

Arsenals, Oil pipes, National Treasures, Government Offices, Banks, etc, etc, etc.

This comes back to "no plan" and/or "incompetence" and/or "not enough troops". The administration was expecting the reaction to freedom to be "France's" (i.e. from WWII). In reality the reaction was "Panama's" (mass looting after we invaded).

A sense of proportion needs to be kept, that arsenal was small beans. They missed 400+ tones of explosives, but I think the US troops recovered about 400,000 tons. Bush's minions did far more damage by dismissing Iraq's army. That created a large number of unemployed, weapons trained, angry men from the ethic minority that was being booted from power.

[ProfPotts]

400+ tonnes of explosives is 'small beans'? ::nervous

In the hands of the very terrorists the whole shebang was, we're told, trying to put an end to? ::confused

Uh... I'm being a bit slow here - care to explain that one again? ::huh

[Alex Green]

Sure:

1) We are talking about 0.1% of everything recovered. Generally speaking, getting that last 0.1% is very hard economically speaking. The same manpower that could have recovered that 0.1% could also have recovered 1%, or done something else more important (and hopefully it did).

2) My understanding is that the road-side bombs that are causing so many problems are made from another type of explosive and the "missing" ones haven't shown up yet.

3) "Terrorists" is a big word. Al Quida wasn't really active in Iraq at that time. Ditto the insurgency. What we are probably talking about is "looters". The stuff is in someone's garage and he is waiting to sell it.

The next question is, "What happened after it ended up in someone's garage or backyard or whatever"?

Since it hasn't shown up in the road-side bombs, I hope they sold it to the Americans and it ended up with that 400,000.

[Obsidian Shade]

But it is possible that it was and is used by the Iraqi Liberti Fighters against the foreign occupants...

Don't explode ::tongue Just a view from the other side. Reminds me of the american liberty fighters long time ago.

[Sphere]

Uh Alex, just to clarify one thing. The explosive material that was stolen from the arsenal is exactly the same type of stuff that's being used in the countless car bombs which are killing scores of Iraqi civilians in cities across the country. So it's logical to conclude that it's being used for that purpose rather than being stockpiled to be sold (even if this were the case you can bet it's being sold "in-country").

In my view, conspiracy theories aside, a government that invades another country without taking into account as many possible scenarios as possible (ie that the civilians might not be too happy to be invaded by the same people who betrayed their trust last time around and have been laying siege to them for over a decade) is guilty of criminal negligence and should be taken to book for it.

This is the US military we're talking about. Don't they have whole buildings full of people whose job it is to consider this kind of eventuality?

When your actions affect the lives of an entire country "no plan/incompetence/not enough troops" are not acceptable excuses.

An estimated hundred thousand plus Iraqis have died at the hands of the liberating forces since the invasion (based on human rights group estimates, the Coalition forces say they aren't counting). The infra-structure is still in pieces.

You mentioned "draining the swamp" and drying out the stream of angry young men being recruited by terror groups in the middle east. Do you believe that the current situation in Iraq has helped to stem that flow?

[Sphere]

Weird...this started off about elections.

Next stop...the teaching of Creationism vrs Evolution (or as I like to call it "fiction vrs actual evidence" ::biggrin ).

[Obsidian Shade]

Just read in my favorit magazin (SPIEGEL): Our friends of th U.S. cannot say: "okay, Bush and his men don't stay for America. They are only a gouvernment." any longer...

[Alex Green]

Or it might be in the hands of some local warlord or tribal leader who doesn't support the revolt and is waiting for the civil war.

You mentioned "draining the swamp" and drying out the stream of angry young men being recruited by terror groups in the middle east. Do you believe that the current situation in Iraq has helped to stem that flow?

Of course not. But the current situation wasn't the plan.

It is fair to blame Bush and company for the current situation.

It is not totally fair to blame him for the war.

It is unfair to claim what we were trying to do is steal the oil.

[Sphere]

I don't personally believe the invasion happened just because of oil. Although I think it would be naive to say that Iraq's massive oil reserves weren't a factor in the decision.

Maybe Iraq will eventually become a stabilising force in the middle east. I like to think so. It would be tragic for all of this bloodshed to have happened just for the country to fall into the hands of another despot (even one friendly to Western powers).

My last word in this thread echoes that of the Chinese ambassador asked, some decades hence, whether he thought the French Revolution had been a positive thing.

"It's too soon to tell."