A thread (about Bush) that doesn't have to be kidnapped

Remove all ads!

To continue the interrupted, frustrating and fruitless dispute with Darkwolf from http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=000098;p=2 here:

So you miss questions? For you I'll rearrange them so you can read them in a row without other stuff whirling up your hot feelings of patriotism - in a word - distracting and enraging you.

Let's start:

• I wrote that "Iraq with or without a remainder of WMDs was more or less "contained" and no longer dangerous for its neighbours.".
  Why do you not agree? For what specific reason except that Saddam is evil and a liar I mean, it'll need a little more to start a war than that I fear. Any recent iraqi war plans we missed?
  .
• As I pointed out that there are two enemies of the US, Saddam and Bin Laden, that doesn't mean they are united. Even less as they are ideologically so different. The US still lack solid evidence for a Saddam-Al Quaida connection. Why? Maybe because there is none?
  That brings us right to the next point:
  .
• "When the US have good proof and withhold it - then the US, as much as Saddam, only obstruct the work of the inspectors and for what can that be good?".
  Yes, for what?
  .
• That's why I claimed that seemingly ... "the US don't care about the results of the inspections (....) Whatever the results are - seemingly the war will happen. The US demands are designed not to be met. It would be interesting to know why.".
  Interesting indeed. Do the US really take interest in the inspecions or is it just a mere formality on the way to an unavoidable war that will take place whatever Iraq will or can do?
  .
• As for the US claim that Iraq has hidden chemical weapons: If there won't be any found - then they will likely claim that Iraq is still hiding some of them. What if Iraq no longer has the stuff the US ask for, maybe because the inspectors have destroyed it before they left? Then you have a problem. You cannot find something that's not in existence. And you seriously ask this
  That's what I meant with that the US demands are designed not to be met since the US will only accept a *positive* result without taking into consideration that there might be none. And this, sheer doubt, shall justify a war with a potential death of a few tens of thousand Iraqis?
  .
• "You still have to find a satisfying answer to the question why a war, the last tool, is necessary.".
  And I'm still watiting.
  .
• "The US are as bound to international law as Iraq is. Or aren't they?" - which brings me to the next point, let me quote you
  In the essence that's exactly what the UN are. The UN security council is an international, or, a little exaggerated, overnational government. And it isn't even difficult to understand why. It is the very reason the UN were founded eventually at the end of WW-II - as an alternative to war and to once and for all take away the right of a single country to do war. The UN are a system of collective security, not unlike NATO. That's why they have sanctions in chapter VII of the UN charta ... *hint* *hint*
  You may be surprised but the US do not have a right to go to war whereever they want and when they want! No country has. Have a look at this for some info and now answer the question I asked you right after.
  .
• "Who else? The US? Alone? Why?" - And, do you now get it? If not, read the charta again and again and again.

.
To clarify: I'm not defending Saddam, he's indeed a liar and a war criminal - no doubt, but the UN, with support of all permanent members of the security council can handle him and the disarmament of his arsenal. Actually that is the UN's primary purpose.
No reason to distrust the UN because you don't understand it (though that's pretty natural. As the saying goes "The farmer doesn't eat what he doesn't know"). And no reason for a US solo against international law and against the UN, which would then be ... a military agression.
.
Any replies (preferrably from Darkwolf)?

[ February 08, 2003, 12:26: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Sorry, I'm not Darkwolf

A leaked UK intelligence report says that there are no current links between the Iraqi government and Al-Qaida ( BBC News). That's not surprising, since the secular Iraqi regime represents the antithesis of what Al-Quaida is fighting for. Note that in their communiques they never refer to the countries of Saudia Arabia or Iraq, since these are secular state that they as Islamic fundamentalists do not recognise. Both their regimes are high on the list of targets for Al-Qaida. Personally, I believe that the risk of WMDs getting into Al-Qaida's hands would be significantly higher in the event of a war breaking down central control in Iraq.

Myself, I am agnostic on the morality for a war. Legality is a different matter - if the US, UK or anyone else invaded Iraq without the Security Council's blessing, it would be an illegal act. Breaking previous resolutions does not in itself give permission for that country to be invaded; if it did, then the invasion of many countries, for example Israel, would be already legally sanctioned.

However, the lack of legal sanction does not mean that an invasion would be morally wrong. It's entirely possible that Iraq does have WMDs and intends to use them. I'd like to see more evidence than we have got, however. Also war isn't necessarily the best way of getting rid of these; the inspections regime of the 90s eliminated many more WMDs than the Gulf War, without casualties. But conquest of Iraq would give the possibility of an extremely thorough search.
Saddam Hussein is a vicious tyrant who should not be in power; removing him would be a great service to the Iraqi people - providing that their needs were genuinely supported afterwards. The amount of aid promised to Afghanistan during the war there has not materialised. Would a future Iraqi administration be a genuine democrat, rather than a friendly dictator? Would the country be held together, or tear itself apart in a three-way civil war? Iraq would need a lot of resources to support its society after any war, and I'm sceptical about the west's patience in providing those resources. And we must not forget the very large numbers of casualties likely in any war.
Also, if Iraq, why not North Korea? They appear to have a more developed weapons program, and to behave more badly towards their own people. There is a suspicion that the emphasis on Iraq is more because Iraq does not actually yet have WMDs, or because of the oil that Iraq owns, rather than a genuine assessment of its threat to other nations. Of course, that suspicion does not mean that invasion would be wrong.

As I said, I am agnostic about the morals of invasion. But can we go against the legal position? If we make an exception in this case, why should there not be exceptions in others? The doctrine "might is right" may be comforting when might is on our side, but it may not be later. So let us put our case and get the resolution.

 

Much as I understand your frustrations Ragusa, putting each other down in public is perhaps not the most useful solution? [Although I'm sure, the most gratifying ]

Also read my post in Whatnots for some light relief on this subject.

 

I am tired of this debate, so this is it. You can have the last word, because to be honest, in a few weeks it won't matter any more.

First. Are Colin Powell and President Bush lying? If you choose to take the word of Saddam Hussein, a man who has lied, cheated and committed mass atrocities, over the word of two unimpeachable individuals, then don't even bother reading any further. If your answer to this question is yes, then you are hopelessly lost.

Your Quotes followed by my answers:

One WMD is enough to kill anywhere from 1,000 to 1,000,000,000+ people. Even one WMD is too many. If you still believe that he doesn't have them, you have chosen to shut yourself off from the facts. Saddam has for 12 years defied the UN through the course of 141 resolutions being issued. He is not going to comply.

If you have been watching the news lately it has been reported that there have been at least 8 high level meeting between Iraq and Al Qaeda. A high level operative for Al Qaeda is in Baghdad receiving medical care as I type this. Al Qaeda operatives have been training in northern Iraq for years. Your right, no connection there!

The problems with information gathered by intelligence agencies is that when you release the information, generally you burn your operative, he dies, and you get no more info. The fact is that if the UN inspectors stumbled (and with their ineptitude, it would be quite a stumble) on a megaton bomb in Baghdad today, the Germans and French would say that there was no need for war, it was only one bomb, it is contained, and that there was no delivery method anyway.

Why is it that every time the UN draws a line, Iraq crosses it and the UN just draws another line. This is making the UN irrelevant in this era. Resolution 141 stated that there would be severe consequences if Iraq didn't fully comply. Hans Blix has stated numerous times that Iraq has not complied.

It is well documented that literally tons of bio and chem weapons were in existence in 1998 when the inspectors were kicked out. The US has shown Iraq moving, and then bulldozing the sites where these weapons were maintained. Iraq cannot provide any proof that they destroyed them. They can't even produce the scientists who supposedly did this work. You can't just burn this stuff or pour it on the ground and let it evaporate. It is a very involved process to make it inert.

What is it going to take for you to think that war is necessary? Iraq has had 12 years to comply with 141 UN resolutions. We can use the strategy of "just give them one more chance" until Saddam develops his first nuke. And yes it is well documented that Iraq has been actively trying to acquire technology and equipment to build nuclear weapons.

See statement directly above this one.

Perhaps the majority of the military force will be US, but then it always is in UN sanctions, so what else is new. Politically, there are only 4 nations of any import that are against, to varying degrees, the removal of Hussein. Russia, who is only interested in the 8 billion Iraq owes them. China really doesn't care, so they will abstain. Germany, who is afraid of losing its dominant position in the EU. It is a bankrupt country with few glimmers of hope. The opposition to the war is a result of Germany not wanting to be seen a weak for not being able to send a proper sized contingent. It is about saving face. France just wants to believe that it is still a world power. France has become a laughing stock to the rest of the world, and is trying to prove its relevance. It is a country that is historically based in being conquered, and has not had a successful major military campaign since Napoleon. France also despises the US, and would vote to be dipped in boiling oil if the US was against it.

Don't worry though we have plenty of support. Italy, Portugal, Hungary, Poland, Denmark and the Czech Republic have all signed a letter of support for the US's actions against Iraq. Throw in England and Turkey, it seems that we have at least 4 EU member and 4 EU Candidate countries on our side. I also believe that Spain issued a statement of support, but I can't substantiate that at the moment. We all know that Australia and Canada will jump on board when the US goes, so I guess we really aren't all that alone are we?

No, per the UN Charter, their stated purpose is to avoid strife and war. Unfortunately, the UN seems to believe that it is its job to avoid war, even if it means allowing regimes such as Saddam's to defy it, literally hundreds of times.

When international law denies a country the right to defend itself from a rogue regime that is bent on developing and using WMD, and will support a dictator who tortures, rapes, and uses bio and chem weapons on his own people, the body that creates and enforces that law becomes illegitimate. It is time for the UN to prove its legitimacy by enforcing the resolutions that it has placed on Iraq. You talk of the tens of thousands of Iraqis who will die in a war. What about the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have died at the hands of Saddam Hussein? What about the ones who cannot get medical supplies because Saddam diverts them money that is supposed to go to medical supplies to purchase missiles from North Korea. What about the malnourished who don't get sufficient food because Saddam gives the best food to his military? All that was caused by the embargoes that have been enforced, with out need, by the UN. The UN, through this policy, is responsible for more misery and deaths than would have occurred if Saddam would have been removed 10 years ago. How many more will continue to suffer and die under the UN's current stance? The UN no longer cares about its mandate. It is more interested in enforcing its will, and proving its power by standing up to the US, than it is in improving the lives of the people of the world. Time for a new organization to be developed and to flush this one down the looo as you like to call it.

If the US attacks Iraq without UN approval, you are welcome treat us as a military aggressor. But the facts are there, and I don't think that France and Germany are going to find enough world support to try to do anything about our "agression".

Now, your turn to answer 2 questions.

Has Blix stated that Iraq is in material breach of UN resolution 141? Yes or no?

How many more chances? After 12 years of open Iraqi defiance, how many more lines in the sand are you willing to see drawn and then crossed with impunity? I am looking for a number here. 1, 5, 50, 100, 500, 5000, infinite?

 

You're seemingly a strong believer. And I know I'm unable to defeat dogmatism. So you seem to even believe in everything your gvt tells you. And you just *have to* beat the national drum, have you? I am talking about facts and how they can be interpreted. My criticism has nothing to do with me beeing german. I mean, you *are* able of independent thought, right? It should be worth consideration to think about what you're told in the media and by your government.

As for solid evidence: The british prime minister Balir has presented a record, made for him only, stellar intelligence of top secrecy of course, that claimed to proove that Al Quaida and Saddam cooperate. Powell praised this convincing evidence. Until recently one professor recognised parts, 10 of the 19 pages, of it - they were part of an essay written by a student of him. This student named Al-Marashi even recognised his own typos in the document.
Other authors were from famous Janes publishing and recognised further 6 pages as excerpts from articles from 1997 to 2002. This indicates that the actual gain of own intelligence by her majestiies gvt is very limited, not to say lacking. One gets the impression the sensational presentation of *evidence* is a mere show.

And also Powells spectacular display at the UN wasn't totally convincing. A lot of things are still open to interpretation. Notably he sais the the UN will face "irrelevance" when they allow Iraq to ignore the UN resolutions. That is very true. And it is two edged: He also says by saying so that the US will not care about the UN any longer when they disagree - which is a little reminder for the UN that, in case it doesn't play with the US, it cannot sentence the US for violating international law (that would in the essence mean the US would become a rogue state themselves, on large scale of course, and best - with impunity). The US play a very cynical and destructive game atm. Like: Who needs international law when he has 11 supercarriers?

I vividly remember an episode from the kosovo war against serbia. This was at the time when germany was still a good boy and, with out moronic chancellor, was standing at the US side firmly. Our then secretary of defence was praised by the US as a trusty companion and the NATO secretary praised his successful efforts to gain public support for the war.
Scharping, that was his name, presented evidence, aerial photography, taken "yesterday" by a german drone, from a kosovo village that as he said was devastaded by serbs. He went in further detail, describing how the serbs destroyed the houses.
Soon after a journalist, who was able to interprete the dateline on the photographs, explained the secretary of defence that the pics were in fact more than 2 years old. He went further that the picture was actually taken in Bosnia. Oops. He also asked why. He got no reply. In later PR work the picture still appeared - without dateline. Guess why. Pictures are widely open for interpretation, that makes them so effective and attractive for disinformation.

Or do you remember the story of Saddam's troops taking children out of breeding boxes when they invaded kuwait? They were, as came up after war, invented by a New York PR agency hired by the kuwaiti gvt after they made a poll what the western society despised most - crimes against kids.

Have you ever considered that your top operative is perhaps a liar who wants to impress someone? Or is paid for what he sais? No, you're a good boy. You never doubt.
How could your president be a liar? You're in the land of the free and the brave and you're president can't fail. History shows the US gvt is always right. They never lie. Like in Watergate.

You know the saying that first victim in war is the truth?

[ February 08, 2003, 13:35: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Let this be a lesson to all of you on what happens when you debate with a leftist. If you ask them to answer a question that they know that they cannot answer without either destroying their stance by answering truthfully, or their credibility by lying, they will simply change the subject!

 

I would wish you could resist thinking in blocks such as right and left. It doesn't help. I am no leftist, to the contrary. I only argument and you dislike my conclusions. You shouldn't make it so simple.

I indeed suggested that it is possible that Bush and Powell could be lying. Their best ally here on the continent, Tony Blair, actually did so to help his atlantic friends (as pointed out above if you have bothered to check the link or read my post). Considering the close angloamerican cooperation - why should Bush and Powell be so very different in their approach?

Ever wasted a thought on why france and russia regularly disagree with the US? They have their own intel sources in space and on earth - and they check the info the US give out for their credibility. When they disagree they do so for a reason. But no, it is much more likely they are evil and egoistic and only like to obstruct US foreign policy

I actually defeated the british evidence for an iraq-al quaida cooperation, and I seriously questioned the credibility of that *top operative*.

There indeed is an Al Quaida member beeing treated in Iraq, yes. And? Al Quaida has planned 9/11 in Hamburg. That does not mean that our government has aided them with anything except our liberal society. Do you see a link? In this world 1+x do not necessarily have to be 2 ....
The ideological differences between Al Quaida and Saddam have prevented any further cooperation. This opinion is also shared by the british intelligence community as well as by our own BND.

Saddam hasn't had any recent war plans. If so the US would have stressed that. He only, and very likely, has WMDs left - but as I said, the UN can handle that, given they get the support they need. Of course you will not believe me.

I questioned the credibility of satellite imagery and pointed out how they invite for abuse.

The proof Powell has brought up is not convincing. The principle that you'll burn your sources when releasing intel (that sounds so very James Bond) is also a splendid argument for bluffing, and an formidable excuse for having no intel.

Totally off topic?

[ February 08, 2003, 14:08: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Since you asked for a response...

Ok Ragusa, lets for the sake of argument say your are completely right (about as likely as Santa Claus being real, you really think that if France had proof we were lying it wouldn't be all over the news, you can't be that naive, can you?)...

YOU STILL WILL NOT ANSWER THE LAST TWO QUESTIONS OF MY POST!

The UN decided, in a unanimous vote, that Saddam was such a threat that the normal rules of proving guilt were too risky to follow, and that Saddam had to hold himself to a higher standard.

I will repeat it again. UN resolution 141 promised serious ramifications if Saddam did not comply. Hans Blix has stated that he is in violation of the resolution. Where are the ramifications? How many more chances does he get after 12 years and 141 resolutions?

[ February 08, 2003, 14:27: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

 

We'll see.

 

Shooooooooooooow me the nuuuuuuukes!!!

the withholding evidence US got is within their own nuclear silos or what?

 

Excuse me for intruding, but I got the impression that the "evidence" Powell presented was along the lines "There are trucks outside a silo, they must be used for transporting missiles"

Grasping straws, I think.

(Being a pain, like always)

 

The evidence was laughable, I actually felt sorry for poor Powell as he had to stand there and make a fool of himself just because he is one of the few in the US govt with any credibility. No wonder the US has been reluctant to show it before. The conversations and photos are wideopen for interpretation, it is just as plausible that the iraqis were worried that they had missed some stuff by accident when they cleaned out for destruction and was desperate to get rid of it before the inspectors as they were just shuffling it around to hide it.
But as Darkwolf said, in two weeks these discussions will be moot. There will be war, no matter what Saddam does, it might be stalled if he rolls over and dies but even then I am skeptical. Bush II decided already a year ago that there should be war against Iraq and nothing can change his mind. All this with inspectors and UN is just a show to try to get some international support atleast, and to justify it for his own people. Sadly it seems like he is successful, though it isnt very hard to whip up war sentiments towards an ******* like Hussein.
And as we all now so writes the victor history and as everyone knows the outcome in the upcoming war, it will be like an elephant stamping on an ant, so can everyone rest assured that after the US/UN forces has devastated Iraq all kinds of evidence will pop up that points at what a bad bad boy Saddam has been and that he have had every imaginable sort of WMD at his disposal all the time and no one can say if it is true or not.

 

In the end, the whole damn war is about oil

Not humanrights,

Genocide in Africa, who cares?? There is nothing usefull there

Genocide in Northern Iraq, not by Hussein mind you, nooooooo its your great helpfull friend Turkey. Who also still denies the fact that they murdered 1,5 million Armenians, but theyre friends right?? Let them kill as long as they keep their hands of the oil.
And people are still asking me why they should be kept out of the EU

Humanright violations in Palestina, the palestinians fight back and now they are seen as the aggressors

Taliban is marching back into Afghanistan, who cares?? They got nothing either..

But hey, if the oilsupplies ran out, the whole world economy would collapse

[ February 09, 2003, 15:37: Message edited by: Morgoth ]