How come the US haven't found any nukes in Iraq? (some more scrutiny)

Remove all ads!

An interesting bit:

If anything sounds familiar it isn't me.

 

One point about the official US sub-position on "liberating" Iraq, rescueing an oppressed people from the claws of their murderous dictator.
After getting in trouble with the iraqi WMDs even before the war started, the US gvt officials fell back on justifying the war in iraq with human rights violations by Saddam:

If you find that sounds weak, just have a look at the other foreign policy priorities of Bush Jr. To show his determination to rid the world of *all* evildoers he made a first step to take the aim on another one, president Taylor of Liberia:

In response to the atrocities in Liberia the US embassy gets an extra-squad of guards. I find that is a very straight and quite honest step by George Bush Jr. Because that's in africa. Liberi-what? To stay in Bush's words: If this isn't hypochrisy and indifference, then hypochrisy and indiffernce have no meaning.

Well, it's only half as bad in the US, while Pentagon and the State department support US troops in Liberia, only the whitehouse finds it too unrewarding. But sure Bush will have a nice trip when he's visiting africa soon, doing what he reportedly excells at, hugging babies and speaking about human right violations by relevant evildoers. And I say relevant evildoers. Bush's outrage about human rights abuse is selective. How comes? Check here for the full article.

PS: A new gem!

 

President Taylor is also stepping down after US pressure, so you can stop your little rant. The rebels get what they want. I'd like to see any other government try those things.

 

Well, the questions is if the rebels will be any better. Without peacekeepers there to ensure that a stable country is built, mind, Liberia needs "nationbuilding", the same shi* could happen again in a year.

Taylor is a UN-wanted war criminal. And Bush, international law breaker, let's him seek *asylum* in Nigeria - truly the right end for a criminal like him - a nice house in a friendly country. In a word: Punishment.

Yeah, we rid the world of the evildoers by buying them off. I mean, who would reject such an offer? I mean, no justice is done but we have a regime change now. It's about setting priorities. Probably bribing him was cheaper than sending in troops.
And they US do not like to put their troops at risk in a mob-ridden country like Liberia for something exotic like human-rights or nation building; they have made a bad experience in Somalia.

And I think that's what Prozac wanted to point out.

 

Pretty much. Giving *asylum* to people like Taylor is a perversion, an insult for all the people who suffererd under repressive regimes.

Pac-man, I fail to understand how you can see the stepping back of Taylor as a success or a solution even. And it does not contradict my statement that Bush isn't willing to really onctribute something. Bush wants to rid the world of the evildoers. But Bush allowed Taylor to get away. Without trial. Unpunished. He allowed taylor to retire in peace. I find that inconsequent, if not hypochritical.
Where is Bush's moral outrage about the crimes Taylor comitted? It can't have been that much an outrage as Bush accepted it to only drive him out of country while not even mentioning the possibility of punishment.

Just have a look at Taylor's record:

And why not ask Taylor himself? He made the drop the UN indictment against him for committing warcrimes and crimes against humanity a condition for peace.
Better, he added the concern that, when the politically motivated UN today gets him, it tomorrow could go for the rest of the african ditators, referring to his homeys Museveni, Kagame, Mugabe and Gbagbo*.

Outrageous! The UN plotting the fall of notorious human right violators?! Is nothing holy anymore?! Well, bringing human rights violators to justice is a political goal I can well live with.

But no, asylum for this sweetheart ... Bush rid's the world of the evildoers ...

* For further illustration I recommend a search on google with the names given and the string "<name> + human rights + violation"

[ July 07, 2003, 15:21: Message edited by: Prozac ]

 

I get your point guys, but maybe the civil war comes to an end now, and isn't that the first priority here ? Putting a stop to the killings ?

Somehow i'm pretty sure Taylor will get what he deserves sooner or later. He might find refuge in Nigeria, but that doesn't get him off the hook.

And if the UN wants him so badly, then why don't THEY send in troops ? Why are they always looking to the US when militairy actions are required ? Can't they act on their own for a change ?

 

The UN has no troops; the UN has to ask if someone is willing to put his troops at risk for the sake of peace. And the UN also cannot pay for the costs, they have also be paid for by the aiding country itself.
So the UN can want him as badly as they want, when no one helps that's it. Some neighbour countries have even allowed him to pass their country even though there is an international warrant for him and according to the letter of law they would have been obliged to get him.

That's the dilemma of the UN. It can only be as effective as it's members want and enable it to be. And as Bush has decided not to sign the ICC treaty he's unlikely willing to see Taylor sentenced by another international court. God forbid, perhaps we get used to it!

And so the UN does the only thing it can do without support: Sentencing Taylor in absence, hoping that some day someone will have the guts needed to take action.
But that's it for Bush's principles when it comes to "fighting evil". Saddam's atrocities are relevant - as they help to move the public opinion to justify US action in iraq while Taylor's atrocities do not serve any purpose for washinton.

And justice is irrelevant either, unfortunately exiled butchers live too long in peace. Look at Idi Amin, since 1979 he's enjoying a comfortable time in Saudi-Arabia after butchering hundrets of thousands - so did he get what he deserves?

Trialling bastards like him is important, because otherwise people will forget.

[ July 07, 2003, 15:14: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Nice to see that others join our choire, that is: Measuring the Bush clique and his neocon advisors on what they say.

The war on iraq was the "liberation of the iraqi people" and the removal of a brutal, cruel tyrrant? If that drives Bush Jr and his advisors Liberia is tailormade for them, the perfect case for intervention, for the reasons pointed out above and behind that link.

When in the Whitehouse Taylor's atrocities cause less outrage than Saddam's the really interesting question is why. Maybe because Liberia, unlike Iraq, is not a fraction as important for US geostrategical interest as seen by the neocon masterminds?

 

I wouldn't say that. The expectation is that within now and 10 years, the US imports 25% of their oil from a few African nations. So i'd say they've pretty much everything to gain if the region is quiet and peaceful, though i doubt it ever will in those countries.

 

I am pretty convinced that the reasons to invade iraq have solid reasons, and not something as esotheric as "human rights violations", cooperation with Al-Quaida or a threat from Saddam's WMD. Eventually all US arguments for the latter two has been crushed and the first argument has been recently weakened by Bush himself. So what other reasons might be important enough to start a war?

Well, frequently it's heared that it's about the oil. That's right and wrong. There are multiple reasons - it's *also* about the oil.

The US want to ensure a free oilflow from the middle east without monopolies like they'd give to Saudi Arabia by isolating Saddam. With Saddam in the game, prices will sink what's good for business. As only a strong economy can assure the US will in future be able to afford a huge defence budged with a potent economy.
The iraqi oil can be transported via landbound pipelines via Kurdistan/ Turkey, Syria/ Lebanon or Jordan and Israel even. All these rourtes have the advantage of avoiding the troublesome sealanes around Saudi-Arabia. Anyone old enough to remember the tanker war in the gulf, or the more recent attacks on the Cole and the Limburg? Terrorism and piracy are both problems in these sealanes.
The transport to the mediterranean would allow to transport the oil through totally NATO controlled waters. That is much safer and convenient in times of crisis.

The terror attacks from 9/11 have been sponsored by the Saudis, the people who supplied the bulk of the gulf oil - also to the US which draw some 18% of their oil consumption from the gulf. Of course, you could reduce that dependency by telling the people that driving uneconomic SUVs or suburban tanks wastes fuel and that by driving more efficient cars they would contribute for homeland defence by reducing US dependency on the gulf But is it more comfortable to go on oblivious.
Saving fuel? Are you nuts? An SUV and an electric garage opener are the american way of life! In cluding the right to waste ... ... err ... Anyway, if we drop that they win! Yeah, that's uncomfortabe and SUVs just sell too well - and that's good for business. In the essence the US adress their problem of wasting oil the way every addict does: Go get some more, I don't care how. You might call it "addiction-related-crime".
Well, just as bombing a country is good to strengthen the industrial base of the defence contractors for the future - also an essential condition of the strategic vision in the Whitehouse and that's maybe the idea behind the perpetual war for perpetual peace. Continuous contracts and orders.
With the increasing productivity in the defence sector the argument that defence contracts result in jobs is a misconclusion - Boeing's infameous JDAM kits are produced in a factory ... by some 40 people, some 1.000+ kits a day.

But to get away from the oil to other fundamental benefits of attacking iraq. Iraq offers an alternative basing for US troops. Yes, it is frequently said the US troops removed from Saudi-Arabia go to Qatar iirc. Yes, true. But an entire division from germany was moved to Iraq. In the end there are more US troops in the region than ever before - and they will likely continue to stay there.
Iraq offers a splendid base to threaten Syria and Iran into obediance - something that could be well observed the last months. Iraq offers a much more credible base to threaten both countries as the US are not dependent on allied support to attack and have airbases there and can invade by land and aren't dependent on risky amphibious landings. The advantages of the oil transport from iraq apply to the resupply to iraq in reverse: No need for passing the dangerous alleys anymore.
So it's not that Iraq was the alternative base compared to Saudi-Arabia and that the US wanted to simply move their troops from there to Iraq. Iraq is the superior base in any respect.

You only have to look at the price in the light of these advantages: One US soldier a day as the price of the occupation, international relations cold (but warming up again). That was a good investment.

The point is just that no one asked the US electorate if they wanted the US to be an empire and if they are willing to pay a soldier plus a couple of hundred millions per day for this. But, with Strauss, some are to be led and other are there to lead. As long as people swallow bull like the WMD, Al-Quaida and humanity fairytales they will be led, and if they like it, well, then they can re-elect Bush Jr. But don't wonder about the Bin Laden's of the world taking offence in that course.
If you want to know what Bush's crew is up to, they are straight and open, have a look at PNAC. This is no conspiracy theory. Their stuff is on the web for years now, accessible to everyone willing to read it - and to take it serious: The new american century.

And now as the last line of Bush's argument, the quest to liberate opressed iraq has crumbled either, this thread may as well be closed. Bush *is* a liar.

[ July 09, 2003, 10:48: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Pac-man, the US, especially with their current administration, will probably adress the promblem in Nigeria, that is the primary producer in the region, by installing a nice, pro-US corrupt regime as a replacement for the current only-corrupt regime. Stability is more important that human rights.

A stable dictatorship is probably favourable compared to a less stable democracy with changing gvt's as a result of elections. With only one dictator you at least know who to deal with. I don't expect a Wolfowitz or Perle really care about something like human rights.
Look at how the US traditionally handle it in the allied arab countries. The US supported dictatorships have an abysmal human rights record. On this eye the US gvt is looking away.

 

The primary advantage of a proxy-dictator is that, when his people rebell against him, you can sell their acts of violence as terror, justifying you to conduct counter-terror operations, that means in dictatorships, counterterror - and who the heck knows the difference.

Look at Saddam, beeing a loyal proxy dictator waging a proxy war against the shiite ayatollas, he went a step too far when he expected the US to extend their support to him attacking other neighbour countries. This was a historical miscalculation as he didn't take the brits into account. So he got first contained and then removed from power in the 2nd gulf war.
Saddam's crackdown on the shiites wasn't much of a problem (they were considered pro-iran anyway) , Saddam's crackdown on the kurds even less - the US gave major military aid to Turkey to do exactly that: A crackdown on the kurds. So what? I fail to see the particular difference between Saddam and other ex- or still pro-US a**holes.

And anyway, the best of all is, in any case you can still ... err ... preemptively ... liberate the country ... err ... and ... secure the oilfields ... err ... for the benefit and freedom of the nigerian people - and the free oilflow - if all else fails

So where's the deal with oil in africa? As long as it works everything's fine. Who gives a shi* about human rights or ecological disaster in nigeria as a result of the oil?
As soon as Nigeria gets in serious trouble with its growing muslim half of the population it's the continuation of the war against islamist terror Al Quaida ... remember? They are everywhere, wether it's true or not ... you don't know as they are elusive terrorists, quite handy if you ask me ...

 

We in germany still owe a degree of thank for the US to deter the russians from overrunning us. Sure, the US had a substantial interest in the russians not controlling central europe, so it clearly wasn't all love that made them help us rebuilding our country and building up a working democracy. But the US had an honest interest in upholding democracy in germany. That, and their determination and effort to achive that is something we will continue to be grateful for.

As the red thread crumbled away some people had the idea that the US should take the chance and fill out the vaccum left after the russian withdrawal. While George Bush Sr. opposed that suggestion by Wolfowitz and Cheney and Clinton completely ignored it they now actively work on that plan. As said, above, that's no secret.

The unmatched military power of the US gives them way more options than any other country has. The US military has over the last 10 years started to change their designated goals from superiority to supremacy or domination. A look at the US military is almost frightening - I wouldn't like to be at the receiving end of that war mashinery.

That also implies another thing: When the US foreign policy or military action fails (or, depending on perspective, works) it results in major havoc. The US intervention in southeast asia during the vietnam conflict left the whole region messed up. The US support to the right contras killed about 200.000 poeple. When the US go to work, they do so big.
Their support to the indonesian generals resulted in them occupying east-timor and to establish a rule with iron fist. Their support for the turkish generals resulted in one of the greatest ethnic cleansings of the 1980s, the turkish crackdown on the kurds. And I could continue here.

The US actually offer aid to South-Africa for fighting AIDS. $ 15 billion. Generous. Only that it's coupled with the assurance by South-Africa to agree not to extradict US citizens to international courts. A no here and no aid. Pure charity. So easy. US aid comes at a price. And anyway, the congress is blocking the funds promised already. And there are many examples for that as well.

Sadly, that is as valid today as it was then. Just have a look art the neocon agenda.
So when people don't love the US and refuse their blessings that's not perhaps because they hate them, it's maybe just because they consider the price of US aid too expensive.

 

You do realize that the U.S. supply of unharvested oil is far greater than that of Saudi Arabia.

The United States is less dependent on the Middle East than Europe and Japan (hence the reasons why we pay a lot less for gas than you do.) The United States is also one of the only customers of the Middle East for one simple reason. The oil supply of those nations is not as high as what people would have you believe. In fact, many of their oil reserves are gone and they are pulling tar out of the ground. Unless this has changed in the last year or so, there is only one nation in the world with this ability to refine tar into useable fuel, the U.S.

There is no point in us invading Iraq for oil.

As was previously pointed out, WMDs were found in Iraq.

 

Point 1:
Please explain, which WMDs were found where? Well, in advance a few cases were definitely none were found:
Biolab-vans? -, were for artillery weather ballons; Alu tubes? -, were for conventional rocket artillery; Yellowcake from Niger? -, come on ... crude forgery - and that were the highlights already ...

Point 2:
US dependence of arabian oil.
That is interesting, sure, the US still draw their main supply of oil from other sources. So the US are not that *dependent* of arabian oil as other countries. The US have considerable economican alnd financial interest in the countries that are dependent.
The neocons think very long term. They want to assure nothing less but "free oilflow" and they mean it so. I found a nice part on that in the PARAMETERS, the quarterly journal of the US Army War College with selected essays on issues of strategical interest. The aricle I refer to is about the importance of sea lanes.

And that's it. It's an insurance for the next 25+ years. So looking at the actual consuption in the Us is misleading and indeed shortsighted.

[ July 09, 2003, 16:19: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

The U.S. supply of unharvested oil (ie. Oil that we could pull out of the ground.) I made no claim that we supply more to the world. Most of the oil consumed by the United States comes from ourselves and Russia.

 

Ugh, quite a calamity. I edited my previous post in response to yours.

And as for the sea-lanes: I'd like to again underline that iraqi oil can be brought to the market via pipelines to the mediterranean and then transported through NATO waters and the NATO controlled atlantic. That's a serious strategic advantage considering the vulnerability of ships as shown in the tanker war and by the terrorist attack on the Limburg in the much less safe countries around the arabian peninsula.

 

Truly, BTA. No politican can think beyond the next election!

 

Well, you didn't really *elect* people like Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld and Cheney ... the decision was rather Dole vs. Bush. That's the point!

Richard Perle isn't elected at all, he was called by the president and sits in the, what again was the name, iirc national security council, and takes influence. You never vote for the lobbyists that influence the actual politics. As no one except the PNAC-maniacs was interested in foreign policy they practically took over that branch in the GOP. Now they take influence.

As before, just have a look at PNAC and the related neocon clubs and their vision for america's future and you see how long term they think.