TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- WMD Search in Iraq Winding Down

WMD Search in Iraq Winding Down

quote:

After eight months of fruitless search, George Bush has in effect washed his hands of the hunt for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, in whose name the United States and Britain went to war last March. David Kay, the CIA adviser who headed the US-led search for WMD, is to quit, before submitting his assessment to the US President in February. The departure of Mr Kay, a strong believer in the case for toppling Saddam Hussein because of his alleged weapons, comes as a particular embarrassment to Tony Blair. This week he maintained that Mr Kay had uncovered "massive evidence" of a network of WMD laboratories. [...] The ISG, set up in June, has a nominal staff of 1,400 specialists, analysts and translators, all theoretically dedicated to the search for WMD. But the numbers in the field have been less: two teams of 20 at most. In October, the group's strength dwindled further when Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, ordered many personnel to be transferred to the regular forces to help counter the growing rebellion. Despite the capture and interrogation of many senior Iraqi officials, there has been no breakthrough. Saddam is said to have told investigators what Iraq told the UN before the invasion: that it no longer had banned weapons.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world...sp?story=474598

So, when do the impeachment proceedings begin?

And what crime praytell, would you impeach him for?

Simply, for leading his country into an illegal war?

What legal basis is there for this war (taking into account the international treaties to which the US is a signatory) if there was never any WMD-based threat?

Define "illegal war."

If I remember correctly the vast majority of Americans approved the war on the basis of terrorist ties to Al Qadea and the potential for aggression from Iraq in the future. If you want "illegal," look at the way Iraq and Saddam treated UN resolutions and sancations against them prior to the onset of war. If you want the UN to mean anything, you need to enforce what it says. In my opinion, Iraq had ample (ten plus years) to comply with the sanctions the UN had imposed upon it, but did not. The US simply took advantage of a hostile world situation after 9/11 to enforce the mandates the world had set upon Iraq. I think the only people upset that there is no "smoking gun" is the left. We went in there to remove a viable threat to peace. That was the basis of our attack, and WMD or not, we did just that.

Do we also impeach congress for authorizing the use of force? Since a major premise to going to Iraq in the first place was simply their failure to uphold and obey UN resolution 1441, do we also indict the entire UN?

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Define "illegal war." If I remember correctly the vast majority of Americans approved the war on the basis of terrorist ties to Al Qadea and the potential for aggression from Iraq in the future. If you want "illegal," look at the way Iraq and Saddam treated UN resolutions and sancations against them prior to the onset of war. If you want the UN to mean anything, you need to enforce what it says. In my opinion, Iraq had ample (ten plus years) to comply with the sanctions the UN had imposed upon it, but did not. The US simply took advantage of a hostile world situation after 9/11 to enforce the mandates the world had set upon Iraq. I think the only people upset that there is no "smoking gun" is the left. We went in there to remove a viable threat to peace. That was the basis of our attack, and WMD or not, we did just that.

The reason for the war were the WMD's. No Al Quaeda connections have been established. Iraq has complied with UN demands. The US and UK declared the reason for war is the "immediate WMD threat". The reason was, obviously, a false one.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Do we also impeach congress for authorizing the use of force? Since a major premise to going to Iraq in the first place was simply their failure to uphold and obey UN resolution 1441, do we also indict the entire UN?

Iraq complied with the resolution. Hans Blix said Iraq is cooperating. Besides, if we're going to talk about UN resolutions, let us not forget how many of those Israel broke.

quote:

Define "illegal war."

Gladly.

il�le�gal (-lgl)
adj.
1. Prohibited by law.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=illegal

war (w�r)
n.

1. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on

between nations, states, or parties.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=war

quote:

If I remember correctly the vast majority of Americans approved the war on the basis of terrorist ties to Al Qadea

Ah yes, the completely unsubstantiated claims of ties to Al Qaeda, based on the premises that a man named Zarqawi received medical attention in Baghdad and some as yet unproven claims of clandestine meetings in Sudan in the mid 90s.

In opposition to these "claims" we have reality:

1) The ideologies of Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden are poles apart. The fact that they are both enemies of the US did not, in any way, make them friends.
2) Even those experts brought in to hype up the threat of Saddam's WMD stash dismissed the likelihood of Saddam's intimate involvement with groups such as Al Qaeda in front of a UN Senate Committee Hearing:

"But I have seen no evidence of Iraq providing WMD, as such, to non-Iraqi terrorist groups. I suspect that especially given his psychology and aspirations, Saddam would be reluctant to share with others what he believes to be an indelible source of his own power."

(See here.)

3) The UN Terrorism Committee announced in June that the taskforce investigating the activities of Al Qaeda found that "there was nothing to indicate a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda" (see here).

4) The CIA had expressed doubts for months prior to the Iraqi war about the alleged links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, yet these were never heeded by the Bush administration: "it suggests that officials ignored intelligence that did not fit with their plans for Iraq" (see here). Daniel Benjamin, "former terrorism adviser to the U.S. National Security Council" declared: "While there are contacts, have been contacts, there is no co-operation. There is no substantial, noteworthy relationship". George Tennet - the man who took the fall for Bush over that 16 word inclusion in the State of the Union Address - suggested that claims to such ties were based on "sources of varying reliability". Despite pressure placed on the CIA by the Bush administration "to produce evidence about the Iraq al-Qaeda link that it doesn't have", Vincent Cannistraro, "a former CIA chief of counter-terrrorism" declared: ""They are not getting it from the CIA because the CIA, to its credit, is telling it the way they see it, which is what they should be doing, describing the world as it is, not as policy-makers wish it to be, or hope it to be, but as it is." (all quotes, see here).

There were never any substantiated claims about Iraq's ties to Al Qaeda. Most "impartial" organisations have dismissed such a link. If Bush was able to legitimise a war - in the eyes of the American public - on such a premise, then this only strengthens the case against him.

quote:

and the potential for aggression from Iraq in the future.

And what were they going to attack the US with? If there are no WMDs, this "potential threat" doesn't exist - ergo, this is not a legitimate basis upon which to wage war.

Even if the worry is that Saddam may have developed weapons in the future, this concern would have been more legitimately eased by a more stringent weapons inspection process: a process that was not - I am quite happy to admit - adhered to properly following the conlcusion of the first Gulf War, but that was not given an opportunity to succeed following its resurrection in September 2002 (in the form of Resolution 1441).

quote:

If you want "illegal," look at the way Iraq and Saddam treated UN resolutions and sancations against them prior to the onset of war.

I agree. Prior to the recommencement of hostilities in Sep 02, Saddam Hussein was allowed to get away with far more than he should have been allowed to. In the four yours of apathy directed against his regime by the west and by the UN between the conclusion of Desert Fox and commencement of the scope of Resolution 1441 - had he not been so restricted by said sanctions - he probably could have reconstituted weapons programs had he so desired. The fault here, though, lies as much with the late Clinton/early Bush administrations and the UN community for failing to in any way enforce the resolutions during this four year period as it does with Saddam failing to adhere to them.

I agree that the resolutions should have been adhered to and I agree that the enforcement of these resolutions should have been backed up with the credible threat of force. I do not believe, however, that this in any way gives the US the right to decide - unilaterally - that military force is the most preferable option (it should only be used as an absolute last resort in the event that every peaceful method has been summarily tried and failed) or that it gives the US the right to derail any attempts at a global solution that may preclude the use of force.

France opposed the war on the basis that the peaceful method had not been fully explored and it offered a compromise solution on the basis that, if in 30 days Iraq had not adhered precisely to a series of more specific demands than those made in the extremely vague Resolution 1441, then it - along with the rest of the Security Council - would support military intervention as a part of a true global coalition. The US did not oppose this new resolution because they thought it may fail (as, if it failed, they'd get their war anyway, only with a much greater degree of support) they opposed it, I suspect, because it may have actually succeeded and given rise to a peaceful solution, quite contrary to the more militant solution the US had been seeking for the past 6 months.

quote:

If you want the UN to mean anything, you need to enforce what it says.

Once again, I agree.

The war waged, by the US, however, was not waged on behalf of the UN, it was waged on the basis of its own culturally specific, hegemonic ideals. Have a read of Resolution 1441 and tell me which part authorizes the use of unilateral, military force in the "enforcement" of this resolution:

http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huri...34?Opendocument

Even if it was established, beyond doubt, that Iraq was in violation of this resolution, the resolution still states, explicitly, that the UNSC are to:

"convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security."

Firstly this convention would require the said "receipt of a report" provided by UNMOVIC or the IAEA indicating that provisions 4 or 11 had not been met by Iraq. Admittedly Blix's reports were somewhat ambivelent towards the degree of Iraqi co-operation during the process (substantial improvement in access to major sites - including the once unbreachable Presidential palaces - while lacking desired unrestricted access to Iraqi scientists, among other things) but there was never an intimation towards the possibility that the inspections were becoming unworkable, or that the conditions for inspectors were not continually improving. Similarly, there was no evidence found in the three-four months of renewed inspections that Iraq was in material (as opposed, possibly, to procedural) breach of Resolution 1441 (apart from permitted weapons that travelled too far and some empty warheads - in either case, their destruction was pro-actively instigated by the Iraqi government). The damning report necessary for this stipulated reconvention, however, never came.

Secondly, even if the US want to argue that Iraq was declared to be in incontrovertible violation by UNMOVIC and the IAEA (a possible - on the grounds of Blix's ambiguity - yet ultimately fallicious argument that I'll consider anyway) there would still need to be a reconvention of the UNSC at this point to decide on a unanimous agreement on the definition of the "serious consequences" (which in no way necessitates military force) to be meted out to Iraq. The US, at this point, wanted the immediate implementation of miltary force, the French wanted to introduce a resolution that would necessitate military force (as opposed the ambigious pseudo-implictation of military force contained within 1441) if the demands of 1441 were not said to have been explicitly met by Iraq within 30 days by UNMOVIC or the IAEA. The US immediately precluded any possibility of the passing of the compromised resolution proposed by the French and instead declared their intentions to push through a motion for war. In order to get this motion passed by the UN, the US would have required 9 votes in favour and no vetoes - by the time the US had finished pretending it cared about the diplomatic route, and withdrew any possibility of submitting this motion at the UNSC it had only four confirmed votes for (itself, the UK, Spain and Bulgaria) and two "likely" votes (Mexico and Chile - no economic reasons for supporting the motion there!) with four confirmed against the resolution (France, Russia, Germany and Syria) and one "likely" to vote against the resolution (China).

The ultimate reason why this motion was not put to the UNSC is precisely because it would have failed on both counts: it would have failed to receive the nine votes (if it thought it could have received nine votes, it would have put the bill to vote just for the chance to show France, Russia and Germany up) and three of the veto wielding powers (France, Russia, China) were likely to vote against it (or, in the case of the latter, possibly abstain). Thus, the condition within 1441 requiring the reconvention of the UNSC was never fulfilled, because the US resolution wasn't going to be passed, and they weren't willing to negotiate on any terms that didn't immediately necessitate their war. On these grounds, Resolution 1441 does not - in any way - make this war more legal: it was the US who precluded the possibility of this Resolution reaching a satisfactory conclusion, not Iraq.

quote:

In my opinion, Iraq had ample (ten plus years) to comply with the sanctions the UN had imposed upon it, but did not.

Once again, I agree. The UN should have certainly done more to enforce the resolution prior to Sept 2002.

For reasons provided above, that stil doesn't in anyway legitimise this war.

quote:

The US simply took advantage of a hostile world situation after 9/11 to enforce the mandates the world had set upon Iraq.

"Took advantage of" would be correct.

That's merely a demonstration of the methods used to lead the world into war, however, not a legitimate justification of these methods.

quote:

I think the only people upset that there is no "smoking gun" is the left. We went in there to remove a viable threat to peace. That was the basis of our attack, and WMD or not, we did just that.

That's what I'm saying though: there was no viable threat to peace. If there were large supplies of WMDs in Iraq and - as the Blair government declared - they were ready to fire upon western nations within 45 minutes, then - I'd agree - there may be a basis for a "pre-emptive" strike under Section VII of the UN Charter.

There are problems with this however:

1) These weapons don't exist. The whittling of weapons teams in Iraq seems to hint at the fact that the US are almost ready to admit this to themselves.
2) If the weapons don't exist, then there is no basis whatsoever for a pre-emptive strike and this war becomes - simply - an act of agression.
3) If this is the case then the US have blatently acted outside of International Law, therefore the war is illegal under Section VII of the UN Charter, in violation of several pertinent articles (see here).
4) If these assertions are correct, then several members of the Bush (and Blair and Howard) governments are technically in violation of Nuremberg tribunal, specifically Principle XI)a)i) (see here) and could be tried under Principle III of the same Tribunal.

If you can point to any piece of International Law (or even post Sept-11 US domestic law) that change the facts of this case and that would permit an aggressive act in the absense of any threat then I'd be happy to listen. As it is, however, in full knowledge of the fact that western leaders are never tried by the same laws they were instrumental in creating, I stand by my assertion that this was an illegal war.

(Edited to note that: Spelling and grammitcal errors may be attributed to my lack of sleep and that if I don't reply for several days it's because I've got a busy Christmas coming up, so if you respond you're just gonna have to wait a few days for my reply.)

Links between Iraq and Al Qaeda

Here

You may think the source is funny, but they give connections in a list form, rather than having me list seperate sources for each one.

quote:

And what were they going to attack the US with? If there are no WMDs, this "potential threat" doesn't exist - ergo, this is not a legitimate basis upon which to wage war.

So now it takes WMD to pose a threat? Since when were airliners considered WMD? It doesn't take WMD to be a threat.

quote:

France opposed the war on the basis that the peaceful method had not been fully explored and it offered a compromise solution on the basis that, if in 30 days Iraq had not adhered precisely to a series of more specific demands than those made in the extremely vague Resolution 1441, then it - along with the rest of the Security Council - would support military intervention as a part of a true global coalition.

Wonderful in theory, but after 10 years of empty threats and no action by the UN, 30 more days would have done nothing. Saddam had mastered evading the UN, and more so, the UN refused to ratify any declerations in those 10 years promising definitive action within any set time frame. More politics by both sides, no action.

quote:

That's what I'm saying though: there was no viable threat to peace. If there were large supplies of WMDs in Iraq and - as the Blair government declared - they were ready to fire upon western nations within 45 minutes, then - I'd agree - there may be a basis for a "pre-emptive" strike under Section VII of the UN Charter

Again, it does not take WMD to be a threat to peace. I've listed in the article above several ways in which Iraq was helping Al Qaeda and other terrorist cells. Although WMD were at the forefront of the debate, this has always been a "war on terrorism" and Iraq posed a very real threat.

The problem with the UN and its resolutions is in its language. Instead of 1441 outlining responses for non-cooperation by Iraq it simply threatened "severe consequences." Along with that was the unclear interpretation of "material breeches" also found in 1441. While the US and UK found that after Iraq's submitted report was in fact lacking many weapons in question and was therefore in breech, Mohammed ElBaradei stated there had to be a pattern, not just one episode to be considered in breech of the resolution. That in my opinion is rediculous. considering the pattern Iraq had shown for the past 10 years.

As far as inspections go, UNSCOM, the original Iraq inspection organization was unable to completely remove Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs before it was kicked out of Iraq in 1998. UNMOVIC was also severely limited in their ability to search by both the Iraqi government as well as the UN, who allowed "presidential sites" to be ommitted from inspection.

In September of 2002, the US and UK submitted a plan that would set undeniable consequences for Iraq's continued failure to permit inspections. This resolution circulated for 8 weeks, and there was no progress. In fact it was during these 8 weeks that France said they would veto this resolution regardless of the compromises. These 8 weeks in my opinion were plenty of extra time (besides the 10 years following the gulf war) for Iraq to comply. It is rediculous that after that, France wanted to submit their own bill giving 30 additional days...a wonderful bit of politics.

The UN is weak in that it is filled with definitions that can be interpreted differently by many and no real backing to its resolutions, not to mention the exteme politics that occur within its walls. The UN tried in vain for 10 years to make Iraq follow its wishes using diplomacy backed with no might. After these ten years, in the volatile situation surrounding 9/11, the UN continued to stumble, trying to use more politics then reason to deal with the Iraq situation. The US had just been the victim of a terrorist attack, and the removal of a clear ally to those terrorists, after ample time had been given to do so diplomatically, was warranted in my opinion.

IMPEACH!!! = "End of Discussion"

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX IMPEACH!!! = "End of Discussion"

Translation = Remove Dubya from office BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. I'll do just about anything to get this looney out of power. God damn him for being proactive and actually being successful, we HAVE GOT to get him out of office ASAP. Democrats are losing ground on every passing day, we must do something drastic and we must do it now!

yap they were a major threat to the world, i couldnt sleep at night. Now i can

"They might attack us in the future"

Using that anyone could attack anyone else. Why can't North Korea attack us becuase you know, we might attack them in the future. That's just a stupid argument for war.

Oh and WMDs have been found, he's just waiting for October 2004 to tell us all

quote:

Originally posted by surferfb Oh and WMDs have been found, he's just waiting for October 2004 to tell us all

more like they are in the process of being planted, then being discovered out of no where in oct 2004, am i rite?

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Links between Iraq and Al Qaeda Here You may think the source is funny, but they give connections in a list form, rather than having me list seperate sources for each one.

I've read a similar list somewhere else, but suffice to say, none of those "links" provide the definitive proof necessary to sugest that Al Qaeda and the state of Iraq have had any sort of formal, long-lasting relationship. It's basically a long series of meetings between people "affiliated" with the Iraqi administration and people "affiliated" with Al Qaeda or one of its splinter networks. This doesn't prove that there were high-level ties between the Iraq administration and Al Qaeda, all it proves is that some individuals met (met for what reason? Do these meetings necessarily imply there was a discussion of terrorist activity, terrorist financing or terrorist training?) in spite of the mutual hatred the two parties they are affiliated with feel for each other.

The article also fails to point out that many of the alleged "ties" were declared by sole informants/eyewitnesses, not by intelligence agencies (part of the reason why, as I mentioned before, the US and British intelligence agencies dismissed the "evidence" linking Al Qaeda to Iraq). The "evidence", in many cases, wouldn't hold up in a court of law, yet apparently it was good enough to launch a war over? Also, I'm still amazed that people such as this Richard Miniter (the title of his book, given at the end of the article, betrays his political bias) would continue to cite the "terrorist training camps" in Northern Iraq as evidence of ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda. These camps lay beyond Saddam's reach in a part of the country that was:

a) Under semi-autonomous Kurdish control.

and

b) Under the auspices of the UN, the US and the UK.

If there are terrorist training camps in northern Iraq, it would make more sense to blame the Kurds, the UN or the other two nations than it would Saddam Hussein. If he even knew about these camps, there would have been little he could have done to stop them. Any Iraqi plane found flying over that area would have been shot-down within minutes.

Then again, even if we were to take all this "evidence" at face value (a series of seemingly disconnected rendezvous between low-level members of two otherwise unrelated organisations) it still in no way justifies going to war with Iraq as opposed other nations that have had proven links with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, at the highest levels of government and that have demonstrably funded and supported the activities of these organisations, sheltered members of these organisations and have had much stronger, deeper and sustained links with these organisations than Saddam's Iraq ever did. I'm talking specifically - but not exclusively - about Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. The former even had highly probable ties to the September 11 attacks (although with Bush's classification of the part of the Sept 11 report concerning Saudi Arabia, I guess we'll never no for sure), something even the US government admit that Saddam had nothing to do with. So, in spite of all this, why did we go after Iraq and not the Saudis or the Pakistanis? Oh that's right, sorry, I forgot - they're our "friends" aren't they?

In any case, you failed to address the four points I raised in my previous post that, disregarding everything I've written here, already call into question the points raised in the article you provided above. Either explain them away or provide more damning evidence, otherwise your case makes little sense.

quote:

So now it takes WMD to pose a threat? Since when were airliners considered WMD? It doesn't take WMD to be a threat.

So now, perhaps, we should go after every nation that happens to own an aeroplane - you know, just to be safe? Nice logic.

Iraq was not a threat to the US, nor any of its neighbours. It certainly posed a threat at one point (the invasions of Kuwait and Iran demonstrate this quite nicely) but without large weapons or access to modern technology, the days of Iraq as an aggressive, dangerous nation were behind it long before the US-led invasion. Sanctions, weapons inspections and 12 years of sustained, almost daily bombing operations (led, once again, primarily by the US - see here for an extensive listing of bombings undertaken between 1999 and 2003 alone) destroyed Iraq's WMDs, its WMD programs and - in most cases - any chance of regaining access to either. It possessed nothing but rudimentary weapons (many of the larger pieces of its artillery - missiles, tanks etc. - are 20+ year old reminents of the former USSR military) and a poorly trained, poorly committed infantry (as evidenced by the ease with which the US were able to take Baghdad). If Saddam had so much as looked the wrong way at another nation, he knew his entire army would be routed within weeks.

Saddam may have been a threat to his own people, but - since 1991 - had posed no threat to any other nation. He barely had the means to defend his own nation, let alone attack someone elses.

quote:

Wonderful in theory, but after 10 years of empty threats and no action by the UN, 30 more days would have done nothing. Saddam had mastered evading the UN, and more so, the UN refused to ratify any declerations in those 10 years promising definitive action within any set time frame. More politics by both sides, no action.

This argument really irked me - 30 days would have made no difference? If so, why were the US so vehemently opposed to allowing this resolution through when it would have legitimised their war within the international community? It would have been a UN led war backed by almost the entirity of the global community - surely a more preferable scenario to the unilateral action undertaken by the hastily cobbled coalition? The very point of the US refusal to air this "compromised" solution is precisely because it may have made a difference. If Iraq - as they were close to doing before the break-down in diplomacy (for which the US and the US solely is responsible) - had come completely in line with the responsibilities meted out to them by Resolution 1441 and this subsequent resolution, then the war the US wanted would have been virtually unattainable.

The fact is, though, the US weren't going to war as an absolute last resort (the only scenario in which any war may be justified) but rather as the most preferable resort. The US had made it perfectly clear that they were going to go to war with or without UN approval, with or without evidence of WMD programs or links to terrorsim, and that the Powell-led, 6 month long psuedo-diplomatic circus was only ever an incidental, obligatory pretense in the context of the looming war.

The answer is simple: if the US were truly concerned about reaching diplomatic consensus or about fleshing out a more peaceful solution, then you're quite right - 30 days may not have made any difference. The fact that this compromised alternative was never even considered, though, says more about the true intentions of the US than the impotence of adding another 30 days to the diplomatic process.

Say what you like about the French or their reasons for opposing the war, but this speech from French ambassador Dominique de Villepin in front of the UN at the onset of war expresses brilliantly why I opposed the US-instigated derailment of the diplomatic process and why it was such a dangerous path to take:

http://special.diplomatie.fr/article_gb163.html

(It was worth nothing that this speech generated significant applause from those in attendence - a great rarity in the UNSC.)

quote:

Again, it does not take WMD to be a threat to peace. I've listed in the article above several ways in which Iraq was helping Al Qaeda and other terrorist cells. Although WMD were at the forefront of the debate, this has always been a "war on terrorism" and Iraq posed a very real threat.

For reasons listed above, Iraq was no threat to global peace (quite in contrast to the US under its current government) and - due to the lack of substaintiated ties to terrorism - to suggest that the war on Iraq has in any way assisted the War on Terror (especially given the opportunities - that otherwise wouldn't exist - it has granted to terrorist groups for almost daily attacks against US citizens) is almost insulting. If, indeed, it were to be classified solely as a specific operation within the more general War on Terror, then - given what has (or, more to the point, what hasn't) been acheieved there - then it stands as an $87 billion diversion and nothing more. Think of all the ground level intelligence - the real path to winning this largely ficticious war - that could have been funded for that much money: we'd be breaking up terrorist cells all over the place. As it stands, though, far more US citizens are dying in terrorist attacks as a result of this war, than would have been saved had this war not taken place.

quote:

The problem with the UN and its resolutions is in its language. Instead of 1441 outlining responses for non-cooperation by Iraq it simply threatened "severe consequences."

The amiguity of the Resolution merely further necessitates the need for a UNSC reconvention, though, rendering less legitimate the US led war as a result. I'm not saying that the inherent ambiguity of the resolution is a "good thing" merely that it weakens the case presented by the US that such a passage as "serious consequences" necessitates the need for military action.

quote:

Along with that was the unclear interpretation of "material breeches" also found in 1441.

No matter which way you look at it though, Iraq was not in "material breach" of the resolution as it possessed no illegal weapons (aside from those tidbits discovered during the inspections). Define this phrase however you like, Iraq was - quite simply - not in material breach of Resolution 1441.

(There may be a case made for "procedural breach" of 1441 - as I said - but this has more to do with Saddam's stubborn stupidity than any physical breach legitimising the need for a military invasion.)

quote:

While the US and UK found that after Iraq's submitted report was in fact lacking many weapons in question and was therefore in breech, Mohammed ElBaradei stated there had to be a pattern, not just one episode to be considered in breech of the resolution. That in my opinion is rediculous. considering the pattern Iraq had shown for the past 10 years.

Yes, but the reports presented by Blix and El Baradei - on behalf of UNMOVIC and the IAEA - were instrumental to the application of 1441, whether you like it or not. If you're in any doubt, go back and read the link I provided - a report of non-compliance was necessary for the council to reconvene and for any case for war to be made. Though the reports prevented by both agencies were ocassionally disparaging in parts, there was never any intimation that the inspections were becoming unworkable or that progress was not being made. In this sense, there was no breach of 1441 (as it was up to the inspectors - as part of the resolution - to determine whether the breach existed. It was not up to the US or any other nation to decide this).

quote:

As far as inspections go, UNSCOM, the original Iraq inspection organization was unable to completely remove Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs before it was kicked out of Iraq in 1998. UNMOVIC was also severely limited in their ability to search by both the Iraqi government as well as the UN, who allowed "presidential sites" to be ommitted from inspection.

As I have said countless times before, both on this forum and within this post, I agree unequivicolly that more should have been done to deprive Saddam of his WMDs. The UN, the US and all the other nations of the world were far too meak in their handling of Saddam's weapons programs, and the fact that Saddam was able to hinder the UN inspection teams during the seven years they were there and then to exist without inspection teams in Iraq for the next four years is obscene. I agreed with the US on their insistence of the need to return inspection teams to Iraq, the need for them to have unrestricted access to all sites of interest and the need to back this up with the threat of credible force which was to be engaged in only as a last resort, in the event of the two needs being left irreparably unfulfilled. The constant assertion that those who opposed the war were merely being complicit to Saddam's whims is as inaccurate as it is tiresome. I - like virtually every other sane person on the planet - wanted to see Saddam brought in line. I, however - again like the majority of sane thinking people on the planet - did not think that this war was the right way to go about it.

In any case, the assertion that "UNMOVIC was [...] severely limited" is, quite plainly, wrong. Yes they were, to an extent, impeded by the Iraqi government during the inspection process - and the world would have been completely right to demand that these limitations be removed - but it is still wrong to insinuate that the inspections were in any way ineffectual. Much progress was made during the inspections and that is why I welcomed their resumption in late 2002.

Rather than copy and paste what I have already written and sourced time and time again (mainly in the build-up to the war - before you were around) I'll merely direct you to what I had to say in this topic about Saddam's "WMD stash" - about what he may or may not have and about what was or wasn't destroyed. If you want more evidence about how successful the original inspections were (or about how much had been destroyed over 12 years of bombings) just ask and I'll dig it up for you.

quote:

In September of 2002, the US and UK submitted a plan that would set undeniable consequences for Iraq's continued failure to permit inspections. This resolution circulated for 8 weeks, and there was no progress. In fact it was during these 8 weeks that France said they would veto this resolution regardless of the compromises. These 8 weeks in my opinion were plenty of extra time (besides the 10 years following the gulf war) for Iraq to comply. It is rediculous that after that, France wanted to submit their own bill giving 30 additional days...a wonderful bit of politics.

If my memory hasn't failed me, France's proposed compromise didn't come until February or March 2003 at the earliest, long after Resolution 1441 (which was written up in September 2002 I believe) was voted for. In no part of any resolution provided by the US/UK resolution did it say anything about "8 weeks" and France's "30 day" resolution was brought about in opposition to the coalitions "war" resolution, not the 1441 "inspection" Resolution.

If you think I'm wrong, then I'm going to need to see some sources.

quote:

The UN is weak in that it is filled with definitions that can be interpreted differently by many and no real backing to its resolutions, not to mention the exteme politics that occur within its walls. The UN tried in vain for 10 years to make Iraq follow its wishes using diplomacy backed with no might. After these ten years, in the volatile situation surrounding 9/11, the UN continued to stumble, trying to use more politics then reason to deal with the Iraq situation. The US had just been the victim of a terrorist attack, and the removal of a clear ally to those terrorists, after ample time had been given to do so diplomatically, was warranted in my opinion.

I don't think I can say anything in response this that I haven't already said:

1) Yes, Saddam was treated far too lightly by the UN and the globe at large.
2) Yes, the UN can sometimes be ineffectual (largely because of the egotism of the veto-wielding 5 at the UNSC - especially, over the past 25 years or so anyway, in the case of the US and it's inability to comprehend the concepts of "diplomacy" or "compromise").
3) No, Iraq had nothing to do with September 11, nor did the Iraqi invasion in any way meaningfully assist the broad goals of the "war on terror".

The Iraq war was never justified, and in the now apparent absense of WMDs or substantiated links to Al Qaeda, the Iraq war has become only more illegitimate as time has passed and new information has come to light. You, however, are still free to believe what you want to believe.

Neophono

GIVE IT UP... THERE ARE NO CREDIBLE LINKS TO ALQAEDA THAT IRAQ HAD....

If we are going to use the trivial ones that were listed in that ridiculous article you posted, then we can say that the US had more ties with Al-qaeda's then Iraq...seeing that the Bush family had business relations with the house of Saud/bin Laden family.

If Iraq was such a threat, why werent Iran and Kuwait complaining....they are right beside this "agressive" nation.

You know, its sad individuals like you that beleive all the bullshit your iliterate president spews out in order for him and his rich buddies to get richer...

I wont be surprised if you vote for this waste of cum next year.


P.S Renegade is raping your ass...stop before you cant control the shit thats already coming from your mouth.

I actually do sleep somewhat easier at night post us going into iraq.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/art...19/193910.shtml

Additionally some guy was on cnn(which still absolutly apposes this war) and said he had reports that stated the only payload these missles could deliver was serin gas.

Come on we know he had them four years ago, was there any reason to think he didn/t have them now?

quote:

Originally posted by Nadi I actually do sleep somewhat easier at night post us going into iraq. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/art...19/193910.shtml Additionally some guy was on cnn(which still absolutly apposes this war) and said he had reports that stated the only payload these missles could deliver was serin gas.

Those weapons (the empty warheads and the Al Samoud missiles) were uncovered by the inspectors and willingly handed over/surrendered by the Iraqis. An empty warhead is no use to anyone without chemical or biological agents (in which case, where are they?) and the Al Samoud missiles - as Scud B missiles - would have been legal had they not been able to travel beyond the 150km limit.

These are weapons we already knew about. It does not change the scenario we're discussing.

quote:

Come on we know he had them four years ago, was there any reason to think he didn/t have them now?

Apart from the fact that we've been there (between the UN and the coalition) for about a year now without finding a goddamn thing?

Come on, think about it rationally: we could find Saddam is a tiny hole, but we can't find even one object that could classify as a WMD? Saddam is far smaller and far more mobile than any WMD cache and his whereabouts undoubtedly far more secretive: perhaps only a few people knew where he may have been hiding, but it's far more difficult to keep the location of WMDs that secretive. Even if the Iraqi military did a particularly good job of hiding the weapons, think of all the people involved in their transport: the military, the scientists, the truck-drivers, the townpeople who must have seen large military convoys driving by - are you telling me that not one of these people would have been found by now? That they wouldn't be able to tell the coalition how these weapons were transported, in what quantity and where these weapons may be now? To transport chemical and biological weapons, you need fairly sophisticated vehicles: even if these, at the very least, were uncovered I may be more willing to believe that these weapons exist. Where are the mobile chemical labs? Where are the refrigerated trucks necessary to protect biological weapons from the heat of the Iraqi sun? Why is it that, seemingly, not one scientist, Baathist party member, Iraqi policeman or member of the Iraqi military had anything to do with the transportation or concealment of these weapons? Surely at least one of the people involved in the transportation or development of WMDs would have willing to talk by now? Or did Saddam just run around carrying these weapons on his own?

No matter what you or the US government say, if Saddam was able to hide the weapons that the US have accused him of possessing without even one falling through to the US inspection teams (which once numbered 1400, now whittled down - as mentioned in my OP - to 40, in an implicit admission that the weapons probably aren't there) then he is a far greater magician than Houdini ever was. They should forfeit the war-crime tribunals and allow him to perform at kids parties - I know I'd pay good money to see how he made those WMDs disappear.

LOL you armchair politicians are too funny with your stances on on subjects which by the post I've been reading, you have no clue what you are talking about. Another thing I find quit humorous is the impeach statements are being made by foriegners.
For those of you who dont know me, I used to whore these boards with the best of them until last January when my reserve unit was called into action. I just got back from Iraq on the 19 of this month and let me tell you. We the soldiers are proud of what we are doing over there and we know what we are doing is making a difference because we see it everyday.
I know the reason we went to Iraq wasnt only for WMD's, this seems to be threwn around as the only the reason we went and it wasnt. Saddam had to be removed and was. He killed 10 of thousand of people for no reason. Until you have sat in the streets of Bahgdad and had civilians crying and thanking you for freeing them you have no idea what is going on. There is soooo much I could tell you guys and whether or not it changes your mind I honestly dont give a rats ass, because while most you are sitting in your homes watching TV we were there doing what needed to be done.
The war is over, so the anti war league needs to move on. Your focus now should be on being productive to the current situations and help Iraq become the country it needs to be, not sitting there complaining,crying or whining about how you think this war was wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Apart from the fact that we've been there (between the UN and the coalition) for about a year now without finding a goddamn thing? Come on, think about it rationally: we could find Saddam is a tiny hole, but we can't find even one object that could classify as a WMD? Saddam is far smaller and far more mobile than any WMD cache and his whereabouts undoubtedly far more secretive: perhaps only a few people knew where he may have been hiding, but it's far more difficult to keep the location of WMDs that secretive.

WRONG!
The size of things we are looking, atleast my unit ranged in size from 55 gallon drums to coffee can size.( very easy to hide)
You should really stop listening/reading the news, those guys are morons and are clueless as to what they are talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by juzfugen WRONG! The size of things we are looking, atleast my unit ranged in size from 55 gallon drums to coffee can size.( very easy to hide)

The size is irrelevant. It still takes people to manufacture, transport and bury these weapons, so where are they now? All it would take is one person (out of the thousands possibly privy to such an operation) to provide some semi-reliable intelligence and the US would have their smoking gun. If you can think of a good reason to believe that these weapons exist when not one has been found in 12 months, then I'd like to hear it.

quote:

You should really stop listening/reading the news, those guys are morons and are clueless as to what they are talking about.

I'll take the word of the BBC ahead of the word of anyone from the Bush administration, thanks very much. If you want an example of "morons [that] are clueless as to what they are talking about", you need only look at some of the things your government said about the reasons we went to war with Iraq (and no, it has nothing to do with humanitarian reasons):

http://billmon.org.v.sabren.com/archives/000172.html

Just admit that you were lied to about your reasons for being there. It doesn't make you any less of a soldier or any less of a patriot.

This one's for anuneventrade:

Polish heroes in Iraq

ahhhh yes snipets taken out of context. Typical political move....
were we lied to to go to war? No we sure werent and there is no proof that we were. As far as taking the word of the BBC versus the bush admin, I'd rather take my word since I was there for 11 months.
I know for a FACT what is happening over there while you can only speculate from the stories you have heard.
As I stated above, the war is over so get over the being lied, this is wrong stance. Your arguemnet is moot.

Renegade, I was in the process of writing my reply to your rebuttal on my last post, but I think the last several posts kind of sum up why we are still arguing, and that is who you believe.

I fall into the same category as juzfugen, and I tend to believe the American media/government. You on the other hand tend to believe media sources outside of the US. While I will admit that I do not believe that the American media/government is totally without bias or corruption, I would say the same thing about other news media.

In the last 30 years news has been tranformed from the Kronkite-esque straight-shooting news reporting to one in which facts have to be mined from fluff that is aimed at entertainment and increasing viewers, more than delivering any sort of "unbiased" news. Although the government is trying to put a positive spin on what they do and do not tell us, they are not fighting for advertising dollars, nor must they succumb to the wishes of a paying advertiser. Prior to 1991 I would have argued that the BBC also falls into the category of not having to bow down to advertisers, as they were funded almost soley by the television license fee. However, after 1991 they opened themselves up to advertising, and I believe they have fallen into the same boat as any other news corporation. They now fight for dollars and viewers by giving the news in the way they feel viewers want to hear it and they news they feel views want to see. To say the BBC is any more trustworthy than any other news service in the western world no longer holds any merit in my opinion. In fact, I would venture to say that one of their biggest endeavours is to "find" stories that contradict those from other news sources to bolster their viewership. It's not an all-together bad approach to news reporting, as it can give the other side of the story on occaion, but it only makes them unique, not better or any less biased.

quote:

Originally posted by juzfugen There is soooo much I could tell you guys and whether or not it changes your mind I honestly dont give a rats ass, because while most you are sitting in your homes watching TV we were there doing what needed to be done.

regardless to this debate or any political argument for that matter, i'm really interested in hearing some of your stories

quote:

Originally posted by juzfugen ahhhh yes snipets taken out of context. Typical political move.... were we lied to to go to war? No we sure werent and there is no proof that we were. As far as taking the word of the BBC versus the bush admin, I'd rather take my word since I was there for 11 months. I know for a FACT what is happening over there while you can only speculate from the stories you have heard. As I stated above, the war is over so get over the being lied, this is wrong stance. Your arguemnet is moot.

I know people who live there and have family there too... and say basically the opposite of what youve stated... and they havent beent here for 11 months....all their LIVES theyve been there.... stop thinking youre king shit....

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.