Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Over in Great Britain, Tony Blair is taking a lot of heat because those weapons were the primary reason for our unpopular invasion. Over here in "love it or leave it" America, you don't hear a lot about it. Colin Powell cites plagiarized intelligence reports (which Britain later admitted) and forged documents (that no one claims to know the origin of) and yet no seems to care.

    So we're going after Saddam for the weapons but we couldn't find them. Eh, maybe we were going after him for his role in 9/11.

    • The justification to invade Iraq was that Iraq didn't live up to their commitment to 'fully, proactively and immediately' disarm as required by Resolution 1441. Everyone who signed on to Resolution 1441, the entire UN Security council, was clear on the fact that Iraq did possess such weapons.

      It was clear that they were playing games with the UN Inspectors. It's also clear from what we are finding that they had an active program to develop or research WMDs.

      The fact that they may have been busy destroying

      • It was clear that they were playing games with the UN Inspectors.

        You don't invade a country because they're playing parliamentary games.

        Certainly, if Iraq had no WMD, they could have fully cooperated with the UN Inspectors and made a mockery of the US and probably gotten the sanctions lifted in no time.

        I'd love to see how the US would react to UN weapons inspectors and what sort of reception they'd get (and, of course, our subcequent invasion of ourself based on their shoddy treatment). Just th

          • I'd love to see how the US would react to UN weapons inspectors and what sort of reception they'd get (and, of course, our subcequent invasion of ourself based on their shoddy treatment).

          The US didn't lose a war where one of the conditions of Armistice was full accounting and destruction of their Weapons of Mass Destruction. Iraq signed on to conditions of inspections in 1992, thus no sovereignty was being violated. We were just enforcing the terms of that Armistice.

          No matter how hard you try to spin

          • I'd love to see how the US would react to UN weapons inspectors and what sort of reception they'd get (and, of course, our subcequent invasion of ourself based on their shoddy treatment).

            The US didn't lose a war where one of the conditions of Armistice was full accounting and destruction of their Weapons of Mass Destruction.

            You miss the point. You put forth Iraq playing games with UN inspectors as an admission of guilt. Consider the hypothectical situation of UN weapon inspectors in the US. Yo

              • You miss the point. You put forth Iraq playing games with UN inspectors as an admission of guilt.

              When Resolution 1441 required 'full, immediate and proactive disarmament' and a full accounting for weapons that previous UN inspectors had identified and they play games, that is not an admission of guilt, that is, in itself, a violation.

              I think you miss the point our insisting on the language of Resolution 1441 requiring "full, immediate and proactive disarmament". You see, inspections have never worked. They didn't work after WWI in Germany, they didn't work in Korea, they didn't work in Iraq in the 1990s (the inspectors found little or nothing until defectors told them where things were, including one facility that was 'inspected' no less than 3 times before Kamel Hussein defected to Jordan and identified it as a Bio-weapon facility) and more recently they didn't work in Iran. We knew that inspections don't work, especially in the long run. The International Community always loses its will, as they did in Germany in the 20s and 30s or the country inspected plays games with the inspectors and eventually arranges for the inspectors to leave. That's why Resolution 1441 required FULL and IMMEDIATE disarmament.

              Even Hans Blix admitted that Iraq had fallen short of this standard. That should have been that, and required 'Serious Consequences'. But no, there were those on the Security Council who seemed to have another aggenda.

              • See, here's the problem with that: That Armistice was signed with the UN, not the US and Britian. We can't charge in under the pretext of enforcing an argreement signed with a different political body.

              The US and the UK have had to take the lead role in enforcing those terms. The US is blamed by the Arab World for being at war with Iraq for a decade. On Al Jazheera they called the last 10 years the "US War on Iraq".

              When the UN Security Council has been so compromised as to include those who have an interest in maintaining Saddam Hussein in power, we have to take action. Ultimately, it's about insisting on International agreements. The UN clearly did not, we did. We had the power and I feel we had the right.

              • We went into Iraq to help the Iraqi people about the same as we went into Kwauit to fight for democracy.

              I would concede that we didn't go into Iraq only to correct human rights abuses. So what?

              The US Civil War wasn't only about freeing the slaves, but that was the result and I think that's a good thing and enough justification if you're looking for it.

              Of course we didn't go into Kuwait to establish Democracy. We went in to evict the Iraqis. But, now we see Democratic reforms in Kuwait making it one of the most Democratic countries in the region. A good thing I think and only made possible by our continued insistence.


              •   How do I know we didn't do this for humanitarian reasons? Because we're not in Ugunda or Sudan.

              We can't be everywhere and we don't have other powerful motivations like keeping WMD out of the hands of Islamic Terrorists in these cases. The fact that we aren't in Uganda or the Sudan proves nothing.

              But this is just a red herring. You don't want us to occupy Africa and most of the Middle East. You just want the fact that we don't eradicated all Human Rights abuses as an argument against our eradicating Saddam Hussein's abuses first. The fact that we don't run around fixing the whole world first is just an argumentive point to you. I doubt you care at all about the people of Uganda or Sudan, either.

              Should we now let the Bathists take back rule in Iraq, extracting brutal revenge over the Iraqi collaborators because we didn't do things in the "right order" (first Uganda, then...). No, we take the good with the good. When we can fix things, we do.


              • Because we walked out of Somalia after getting a bloody nose.

              Huh? If we didn't care about the misery of the Somali people, why were we there in the first place? I readily agree that we should have had reasonable rules of engagement to effectively carry out our mission and that we should have stuck to it, but clearly our motivation was noble. George HW Bush got us in there for good reasons, but Clinton lacked the stomach to finish the job.

              • Because we do nothing about East Timor or Tibet.

              We support the UN actions in East Timor. Aren't there SOME places in the world that are best handled by regional interests? Must we be responsible for every abuse?

              In the case of Iraq, I couldn't see regional interests as capable of addressing this, so we went in. Note that Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE and Oman were all supportive of our Iraqi action.

              What should we do, specifically, about Tibet? Go to war with China over this? Our economic engagement in China seems to be bringing about Democratic reforms. Should we instead attempt to isolate China? Another red herring. You don't really have a plan to address Tibet, you just use it as an argument that the US Government doesn't care about Human Rights.


              • Because the US contributes only 2% of the UN peacekeeping force.

              Please source this. Does this include our 70,000+ troops that support the Korean Armistice? Korea was a UN action, you know.

              Does this include the many troops we have in the Balkans, some of which are under NATO, not UN authority?

              Oh, Kosovo is another fine example of our noble motives and the ineffectiveness of the UN. Why did the US go into Kosovo if it wasn't to save the Islamic Kosovars from slaughter? The UN was worthless here because Russia kept balking and threatening Veto to any UN Resolution against the Serbian genocide.

              I wonder if this 2% includes the fact that the bulk of the Air Power ever brought to bear in UN actions is US.


              • Because we actively undermine the International Criminal Court.

              We don't give up our Sovereignty to a Court that, from the example of the Belgian Courts, would be used for political purposes.


              • Because there's millions of people around the world that need help that we ignore because they don't happen to be sitting on a big chunk of the world's oil supply.


                The answer is, of course, oil.


              This is absurd on it's face. If we wanted cheap oil, we'd just have lifted the sanctions on Iraq and let Saddam flood the market with all the oil we could use.

              Of course, the problem is that any reasonable person could see that Saddam would have used the money to threaten his regional neighbors.

              Look, I agree that the fact that Iraq has lots of oil has a lot to do with the dynamic there. The fact is that we can't let a mad and brutal dictator, evidenced by how he treats his own people, to have control over that wealth. So, oil is part of the equation. We want that wealth to be put to good use, like freeing and rebuilding Iraq. I'll be willing to bet that the average Iraqi will benefit a great deal from the Oil money that will start flowing soon, much more so than under Saddam.

              • We invaded Iraq alone to carve it up for ourselves and we don't even have to share any of it with the UN.

              Oh yes, we should share it with the UN, just like they carved up the lucrative Oil For Food program for to the benefit of their bureacratic cronies and Saddam [puk.org].

              • If you feel we should go to war for such trivial reasons, then you do not truly understand what war is.

              I understand that war is a 'Serious Consequence'. What, exactly, was the UN going to do? What the US did was actually save the world from the UN's lack of resolve. Saddam knew that he could buy off the Security Council and make a mockery of 'Serious Consequences' if he only had to fear UN action. This lesson wouldn't have been lost on Kim Jong-il and others.