147 replies to this topic

[Jack Weber]

we do not acknowledge your sham political system...

We do not accept your sham lucidity....

[Moonlight Graham]

From Michael Ignatieff's Year of Living Dangerously:

The discovery that Hussein didn't have weapons after all surprises me, but it doesn't change my view of the essential issue. I never thought the key question was what weapons he actually possessed but rather what intentions he had. Having been to Halabja in 1992, and having talked to survivors of the chemical attack that killed 5,000 Iraqi Kurds in March 1988, I believed that while there could be doubt about Hussein's capabilities, there could be none about the malignancy of his intentions. True, there are a lot of malignant intentions loose in our world, but Hussein had actually used chemical weapons. Looking to the future, once sanctions collapsed, inspectors had been bamboozled and oil revenues began to pick up, he was certain, sooner or later, to match intentions with capabilities. [/indent][/i]

This is a foolish perspective. Exerting political power, including violent aggression, needs both the will and the capability to do so, as Ignatieff alludes to. Saddam has always had the will. There are many third-world dictators who have the will, as do terrorist and everyday individuals. What it comes down to then is capability. Saddam did not have the capability. It doesn't make logical, strategic sense to start a war on "well he might gain the capability in the future". Based on this logic, we should start attacking various countries across the globe and invading most of the middle east to destroy all Islamists who may attack us in the future. But that would be a complete waste of resources and lives. With the trillion dollars or so the US has spent on the Iraq War they could have bought 10,000 F-35 aircraft (or whatever combo or war toys) and had an almost unstoppable war machine.

Saddam should only have been attacked if he was a clear threat with capability to harm. If that had happened in the future, then wait for it to occur when the threat was actually becoming real, not imaginary. Glad Iggy wasn't Liberal leader in 2003.

If Bush wanted regime change, they should have expanded on the Clinton strategy and waited patiently until they had guaranteed intel of the location of Saddam and his boys and then dropped a few missiles on their head. New leadership would have come in, then wait and see what kind of regime that turned out to be. All that would cost is the price of a dozen missiles and some jet fuel.

[bloodyminded]

It doesn't make logical, strategic sense to start a war on "well he might gain the capability in the future". Based on this logic, we should start attacking various countries across the globe and invading most of the middle east to destroy all Islamists who may attack us in the future.

Yes, "preventive" war is a damnfool idea, whether we wish to misname it "pre-emptive" or not.

Even aside from the clear and obvious problems that you highlight, there's also the little problem that such a doctrine demands absolute trust in the veracity of leadership's unsubstantiated claims.

Which is unwise, to put it gently.

Edited by bloodyminded, 27 February 2011 - 12:27 PM.

[Moonlight Graham]

There are some that feel there are no such things as righteous or unrighteous wars, only well-executed and poorly executed wars.

What about strategically smart vs strategically stupid wars? My opinion is that the Iraq War was unrighteous, poorly executed, and strategically stupid. Batting O for 3!

[bush_cheney2004]

This is a foolish perspective. Exerting political power, including violent aggression, needs both the will and the capability to do so, as Ignatieff alludes to. Saddam has always had the will. There are many third-world dictators who have the will, as do terrorist and everyday individuals. What it comes down to then is capability. Saddam did not have the capability.

Ignatieff has already answered this line of reasoning. Sans continuous inspections, nobody was sure of any such thing. That's what drove the issue and ultimately led to the invasion. Hindsight is 20/20.

It doesn't make logical, strategic sense to start a war on "well he might gain the capability in the future". Based on this logic, we should start attacking various countries across the globe and invading most of the middle east to destroy all Islamists who may attack us in the future.

Afghanistan was attacked before Iraq was invaded. Iraq was attacked repeatedly over the course of 12 years. However, Saddam was not attacked for being an Islamist. Saddam attacked "Islamists" himself, several times.

But that would be a complete waste of resources and lives. With the trillion dollars or so the US has spent on the Iraq War they could have bought 10,000 F-35 aircraft (or whatever combo or war toys) and had an almost unstoppable war machine.

I hope the irony of this claim is not lost on others.

Saddam should only have been attacked if he was a clear threat with capability to harm. If that had happened in the future, then wait for it to occur when the threat was actually becoming real, not imaginary. Glad Iggy wasn't Liberal leader in 2003.

Well, the Kurds and so called Marsh Arabs would disagree with your assessment of Saddam's capabilities and intentions. As would the Israelis, Saudis, Jordanians, and even his old enemies in Iran.

If Bush wanted regime change, they should have expanded on the Clinton strategy and waited patiently until they had guaranteed intel of the location of Saddam and his boys and then dropped a few missiles on their head. New leadership would have come in, then wait and see what kind of regime that turned out to be. All that would cost is the price of a dozen missiles and some jet fuel.

It wasn't that Bush wanted regime change...it was the policy of the United States as directed in Public Law. Clinton and Blair attempted but failed to decapitate Saddam and his regime. Bush and Blair succeeded, with a little help from their friends.

Edited by bush_cheney2004, 27 February 2011 - 01:07 PM.

[Moonlight Graham]

Ignatieff has already answered this line of reasoning. Sans continuous inspections, nobody was sure of any such thing. That's what drove the issue and ultimately led to the invasion. Hindsight is 20/20.

You don't start a freaking war based on a hunch. If "Curveball" and bogus Niger yellowcake is some of the best you've got, reevaluate.

I hope the irony of this claim is not lost on others.

I said "could have", not "should have".

Well, the Kurds and so called Marsh Arabs would disagree with your assessment of Saddam's capabilities and intentions. As would the Israelis, Saudis, Jordanians, and even his old enemies in Iran.

Why? Do they know where the WMD's are?

It wasn't that Bush wanted regime change...it was the policy of the United States as directed in Public Law. Clinton and Blair attempted but failed to decapitate Saddam and his regime. Bush and Blair succeeded, with a little help from their friends.

It was US policy, re: Iraq Liberation Act, to support regime change (ie: Iraqi pro-democracy opposition groups), not to use military action themselves to do so.

The Clinton admin claimed (at least to the UNSC) that the 1998 Desert Fox strikes were legitimate because Saddam broke previous UN resolutions. Which one these resolutions affirmed the right of the US/UK to launch attacks if Saddam didn't comply to end-of-war terms etc.? (seriously, i'm asking). There seemed to have been controversy over launching such attacks without UNSC approval, and without US Congress approval. What was the Clinton admins' claimed reason for legitimacy to Congress? It certainly couldn't have been the Iraq Liberation Act. The US had launched attacks previously to this (ie: 1996). Seriously, i'm curious if you or anyone knows.

Edited by Moonlight Graham, 27 February 2011 - 10:15 PM.

[bush_cheney2004]

You don't start a freaking war based on a hunch. If "Curveball" and bogus Niger yellowcake is some of the best you've got, reevaluate.

Why not? This hunch had a lot more context than you are admitting. It was not a "bolt out of the blue".

I said "could have", not "should have".

Doesn't matter...it's ironical either way.

Why? Do they know where the WMD's are?

WMD's were a secondary concern....dying conventionally was more of a pressing concern for those already experienced with Saddam. What you are proposing is that the US/UK shoulder the brunt of Saddam's "containment"...indefinitely. Easy to do from Canada.

It was US policy, re: Iraq Liberation Act, to support regime change (ie: Iraqi pro-democracy opposition groups), not to use military action themselves to do so.

Wrong...there was direct US military support and operations in country that you are not aware of.

The Clinton admin claimed (at least to the UNSC) that the 1998 Desert Fox strikes were legitimate because Saddam broke previous UN resolutions. Which one these resolutions affirmed the right of the US/UK to launch attacks if Saddam didn't comply to end-of-war terms etc.? (seriously, i'm asking).

UNSC Resolution 687, which Saddam was confirmed to have been in "material breach" of by UNSCOM. Confirmed in UNSCR 1441.

There seemed to have been controversy over launching such attacks without UNSC approval, and without US Congress approval. What was the Clinton admins' claimed reason for legitimacy to Congress? It certainly couldn't have been the Iraq Liberation Act. The US had launched attacks previously to this (ie: 1996). Seriously, i'm curious if you or anyone knows.

Read Clinton's speech and decide for yourself:

http://articles.cnn.com/1998-12-16/politics/1998_12_16_transcripts_clinton_1_saddam-hussein-unscom-iraq-strike/3?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

[Sir Bandelot]

Why? Do they know where the WMD's are?

Yes. The Kurds were gassed by Hussein, and died in large quantities.

"The provision of chemical precursors from United States companies to Iraq was enabled by a Ronald Reagan administration policy that removed Iraq from the State Department's list of State Sponsors of Terrorism.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42293000/jpg/_42293264_saddam_getty.jpg

[bush_cheney2004]

....The civilian casualties of the 1991 war are not even comparable, a few thousand are estimated. Never good, but the war was at least legitimate in that Iraq had invaded another country. The 2003 war was a preventive war (not "preemptive"), which is illegal under international law, as if that means anything anyways.

Listing all the "disgusts" i have would take far too long.

Clearly you are very misinformed on the entire continuum of actions against and by Iraq during and after the Gulf War, but also choose to ignore Canada's role in those actions. Hence your "disgust" is relegated to personal rantings established far after the fact, and are of no consequence.

Now run along and continue being another tiny bolt that keeps the machine turning.

I would have anyway....your personal disgust isn't much of a deterrence! I mean...really?

Edited by bush_cheney2004, 27 February 2011 - 11:25 PM.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes. The Kurds were gassed by Hussein, and died in large quantities.

"The provision of chemical precursors from United States companies to Iraq was enabled by a Ronald Reagan administration policy that removed Iraq from the State Department's list of State Sponsors of Terrorism.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42293000/jpg/_42293264_saddam_getty.jpg

Actually, such pre-cursors, binary munitions, delivery systems and other weapons came from many nations, including Canada. As DoP has reported many times, the bulk of the weapons came from Russia, France, and China (>80%)


Imported weapons to Iraq (IRQ) in 1973-2002 (Source: SIPRI)

Imported weapons to Iraq (IRQ) in 1973-2002

Country $MM USD 1990 % Total 
USSR 25145 57.26 
France 5595 12.74 
China 5192 11.82 
Czechoslovakia 2880 6.56 
Poland 1681 3.83 
Brazil 724 1.65 
Egypt 568 1.29 
Romania 524 1.19 
Denmark 226 0.51 
Libya 200 0.46 
USA 200 0.46 
South Africa 192 0.44 
Austria 190 0.43 
Switzerland 151 0.34 
Yugoslavia 107 0.24 
Germany (FRG) 84 0.19 
Italy 84 0.19 
UK 79 0.18 
Hungary 30 0.07 
Spain 29 0.07 
East Germany (GDR) 25 0.06 
Canada 7 0.02 
Jordan 2 0.005 
Total 43915 100.0 

Edited by bush_cheney2004, 27 February 2011 - 11:52 PM.

[DogOnPorch]

Actually, such pre-cursors, binary munitions, delivery systems and other weapons came from many nations, including Canada. As DoP has reported many times, the bulk of the weapons came from Russia, France, and China (>80%)


Imported weapons to Iraq (IRQ) in 1973-2002 (Source: SIPRI)

Imported weapons to Iraq (IRQ) in 1973-2002

Country $MM USD 1990 % Total 
USSR 25145 57.26 
France 5595 12.74 
China 5192 11.82 
Czechoslovakia 2880 6.56 
Poland 1681 3.83 
Brazil 724 1.65 
Egypt 568 1.29 
Romania 524 1.19 
Denmark 226 0.51 
Libya 200 0.46 
USA 200 0.46 
South Africa 192 0.44 
Austria 190 0.43 
Switzerland 151 0.34 
Yugoslavia 107 0.24 
Germany (FRG) 84 0.19 
Italy 84 0.19 
UK 79 0.18 
Hungary 30 0.07 
Spain 29 0.07 
East Germany (GDR) 25 0.06 
Canada 7 0.02 
Jordan 2 0.005 
Total 43915 100.0 

As well, the majority of Saddam's VX nerve agent precursors came from an United Arab Emirates owned company in Singapore of all places: the Kim Al-Khaleej company. Never did find that pile o' stuff...est 5,000 tons. As I've also said countless times here on MLW, it's probably buried in Iraq or long since shipped to Syria.

[eyeball]

Actually, such pre-cursors, binary munitions, delivery systems and other weapons came from many nations, including Canada. As DoP has reported many times, the bulk of the weapons came from Russia, France, and China (>80%)

Great, fellow super-rogues from the U.N.'s insecurity council.

We should be deeply ashamed of our association with any of them.

Edited by eyeball, 28 February 2011 - 08:40 AM.

[bush_cheney2004]

Great, fellow super-rogues from the U.N.'s insecurity council.

We should be deeply ashamed of our association with any of them.

Yes, but only if it's important for you to have such shame, even as you enjoy the economic and political "association".

[DogOnPorch]

Great, fellow super-rogues from the U.N.'s insecurity council.

We should be deeply ashamed of our association with any of them.

Hardly. Saddam used American insecticide/herbicide products supposedly meant to be used in agriculture...feeding Iraqis...and instead experimented with them in his chemical weapons program. But sure...America is evil blah, blah, blah.

[eyeball]

Yes, but only if it's important for you to have such shame, even as you enjoy the economic and political "association".

No, I'm quite certain I'm suffering the economic and political association. It's not been particularly enjoyable at all really.