USA vs. IRAQ: part III (Official Iraq thread)

The reason the US went to the UN can be summed up in one word - trust.

Has there been an instance where the US has lied to the international community? Yet, the international community (and quite a few of its own citizens) has seen fit to publicly distrust the US, to force the US to prove that Iraq has not complied with the agreements it entered into at the end of the Kuwait war.

It is not the US's place to prove or disprove if Iraq has complied with its agreements. This responsibility is solely Iraq's. That the US took up this burden, that it sent the Secretary of State to the UN to disprove Iraq's false claims of innocence, must demonstrate the American commitment to the rule of law embodied in the UN charter.

If you can honestly question the veracity of the claims made by the Secretary of State, the international representation of the freely elected government of the citizens of the United States of America, then you are calling into question the very rule of law that makes this forum possible.

At some point, you must answer to yourself - whom do you trust? What will you do if your trust is betrayed? For those who would turn the other cheek, I offer the ancient observation, "the wolf cares not how many be the sheep." It appears to me that history also teaches that the more be the sheep, the more voracious the wolf's appetite.

A thousand years and a million inspectors would only further prove that the UN is quickly becoming not much more than a flock of sheep.

 

How are these pictures any different than the ones used in 1961? Why could those not have been faked?

A prosecutor would obtain a search warrant and break down doors to find the solid evidence. That was the purpose of Powells speech. Pacifism these days seems to be bed fellows with Nihilism.

In all likelyhood these facts will never be "verified" as the sources are probably controlled by the NSA and the CIA.

 

Until we know better, we have to take what Powell said and believe it. Since I have no reason to believe that Colin Powell would lie, and since the evidence presented ties in comfortably and very authentically with what Saddam Hussein and Iraq's current regime have attempted in the past, it has a certain ring of ... truth? Ya. Truth.

 

Now that proof has to hold up in a court of law? Give me a break. The United States has jumped over every hurdle and has made its case as deliberately and clearly as possible.

Wow are you guys good at missing the point or what? Turn your Patriot Filter off and READ MY POST AGAIN. Sheesh.

To demand more than what has lead up to this very moment is almost indistinguishable from implicitly supporting Hussein's regime

Are you accusing me of being an implicit supporter of Iraq, simply because as with every post you read one line and make your mind up? I also recommend you find a new user name, Bubba, because yours is currently a misnomer. Every time I post I get stuck having to waste my time patiently explaining to you the point I posted above because you cannot, or will not, read the entirety of my post. So, either read carefully or change your name.

As I said, I don't think the speech is the nail in the coffin you're all so adamant it is. Bubba, I know you're not a lawyer. How, outside of the obvious deficit, do I know this? Because you have no concept of evidence, or so it would seem. What you saw, with his Iraq speech, was a string of circumstantial evidence. What he has said is, "we know this to be true." What is required is that people accept that. I promise you, such a speech would not bring about a resolution in the ICJ in favour of the USA. And since the ICJ is still the highest legal authority on the world stage, that has to count for something.

Astute observers would have commented, for example, that the presence of DCI George Tenet, sitting behind Colin Powell was itself important. Why? Because Tenet and Powell have been symbolic with the more skeptical side of the Bush camp.

I also noted, albeit indirectly, you'd all get me wrong. How funny. Anyone who didn't read the entirety of my post, and thus assumed I said the US had no case, is conclusively asinine. I could quote myself, but the public's mind is made up (again, I made that point too) and no amount of facts will change that.

Colin Powell's speech suffered on one main front that I saw: It did not stick to the issue of the material breach of the Resolution, drifting into vague al-Qaeda references (what's-his-name - Zarquat or something - recieved medical treatment in Baghdad. AFTER being deported from Iran...). Had he just outlined the alleged facts of the breach, (sorry, guys, until it's proven in a court it's alleged. And I'll bet just one of you will use that point against me) his speech would have done fine. The al-Qaeda stuff just isn't taken as seriously as the US takes it. Sorry.

Furthermore, and this again supports my position that the speech, whilst well done, simply didn't live up to what it promised, look at the response given by the important nations left in the Big 5:

Britain: Agrees with USA.
France: Argues that the use of force is a last resort and inspections should continue.
Russia: Believes diplomatic solution still viable.
China: Concerned over new developements, but urges Husayn to cooperate and disarm, and stresses there is no time frame for inspections.

I predicted on Version 2.0 of this topic, that Powell's speech would have turned the otherwise "nay-saying" nations onto the American POV. I did this because the Powell speech was supposed to be more than it really was. Now, and this really sucks, Iraq can work on getting France, Russia and China to oppose force and give them more time. Had the speech not gotten sidetracked into vague al-Qaeda ties (There is more to terrorism than al-Qaeda...) and an Americanised POV on the inherent threat of Chemical weapons, it may have reached a larger audience.

Again, I reiterate, and perhaps for nothing, that the speech simply wasn't as good as the hype had us believe. Powell, himself a charismatic speaker with a good deal of allies, could have socked it to the Iraqis and swayed opinion. Instead, he allowed one of the worst things possible into his speech - patriotic subjectivity. Something you gu

 

"Turn off the Patriotic filter" Please saying things like this Ender will only weaken your weak argument.

It doesn't take someone as you would classify as being patriotic to see what is going on here, and that the table is stacked high with facts on Iraq.

At this point I could care less of what Russia, France and China think. Why? They are simply playing devil's advocate and in the end all three of these nations with the possible exception of China who always wants to be the thorn in the U.S. and others sides will agree for action.

France judging from it's comments that it said today was " Lets keep putting in more inspectors and keep running around like a headless chicken in Iraq."

Until Iraq does the following the inspections are useless.

1. No Iraqi officials standing over the inspectors shoulder.

2. UNRESTRICTED allowance into any house, facility, WORSHIP TEMPLE, etc..... No warnings or anything. We point to a building and enter without telling them hours in advance or days.

3. Spy planes flying 24-7 watching all movements.

4. Interviewing ANYONE we want and taking them out of Iraq with no Iraqi scum bag involved.


Until this happens the inspections will not work.

 

Ender please lets keep issues like this out of the courts. There are too many lawyers as it is right now around the world. Lets not add issues like this to the realm of courts.

Uh, riiiiight. UN Resolutions are international legal acts. And thus, if it really wanted to, the US could take Iraq to the ICJ. Hence the court reference. Read ICJ judgements and transcripts and tell me that Colin Powell's speech would work as an indictment there.

I will not label you and put you into the anti-war folk,

Congrats! You're one of the few...

but if you agree that SH had nukes in 98 then why not get rid of him? SH has failed to comply with what the U.N. said he must do back in 91. This is the equivalant of giving a someone a test and giving them 12 years to complete it only to find out they still failed the exam big time. What do you do? Let them take the exam again and fool around for another 12 years or do you get rid of them?

Oh, man, not again... I challenge you, any of you, to find the point where I said America had no case as a result of Powell's speech, or that I did not support the legal use of force under the UN.

<silence...the odd tumbleweed...>

There. That should satiate your irrational lust for blood. I will keep saying it - I'm pro-UN resolution and the speech wasn't that good. Sorry if you disagree.
E_S

 

Colin Powell's speech suffered on one main front that I saw: It did not stick to the issue of the material breach of the Resolution, drifting into vague al-Qaeda references (what's-his-name - Zarquat or something - recieved medical treatment in Baghdad. AFTER being deported from Iran...).

"Drifting" into "vague al-Qaeda references"? Powell made a bold connection between a known genocidal dictator with a penchant for creating and hiding weapons of mass destruction and a terrorist organization which would have no qualms about using them. Seems more than relevant to me.


sorry, guys, until it's proven in a court it's alleged. And I'll bet just one of you will use that point against me

Until it's proven in a court, it is alleged in a court. Finish your sentences.


The al-Qaeda stuff just isn't taken as seriously as the US takes it.

Don't mean it don't make no sense, pardner


Furthermore, and this again supports my position that the speech, whilst well done, simply didn't live up to what it promised, look at the response given by the important nations left in the Big 5

They had so made up their minds before they heard the speech, and you know that as well as I do.


Let me ask you this; if the exact speech was delivered by, say, Iran against the USA, you'd deride it totally - why is this different? Patriotic subjectivity...

I would probably deride it, if the facts were as they are today, because Iran would have no basis for its evidence. We do


That said, everybody who supports the war in this thread is being uncharacteristically silent in regards to the validity and effectiveness of continued weapons inspections, even while touting it as a preferred option. I say, I say, I say, boy--what's up with that?

 

Obviously, I think Colin Powell hit a grand slam homerun, just like the President did last week in the State of the Union. Barbara Streisand is probably crying right now along with Susan Sarandon.

I see several possible scenarios coming of which...

1) It is possible, that when the Invasion begins, that Saddamn's army, at least the non-Republican Gaurd divisions, will lay down for the Allies litterally, possibly even help in an invasion. It is even possible as the Americans come, that widespread revolts will take place, which could have Saddamn accepting exile and fleeing the country before US troops pass the 33rd Parallel.

2) It is possible if this happens, that Saddamn will target his WMD's against defecting troop's, and may even throw what he has against Israel and Iran, simply as his dying breathe effort to actually go down in history in some twisted fashion.

There are other scenarios' I suppose, but I am busy right now.

 

Ender, your judgment the impact this speech will have is probably a bit rushed.

All the countries read from prepared remarks made prior to the speech. All of the remarks made today were incredibly fuzzy and in keeping with these countries previous assertions.

I predict that the "official" reaction to this speech will bring these countries in line with the American point of view. Why? Because all of those freely elected heads of state will be following the same logic I outlined above. This will force them to conclude, if nothing else, that it is in their interests to keep the US in the UN.

If you can find me an instance where the US has lied, not changed policy or rescinded policy, but out and out lied to the international community as has Iraq, than I will withdraw that comment.

 

Let's be clear once more about France. Elf is in bed with Iraq. France is benifiting from Iraq oil. Insteading of stating this openly, they hide behind thin vail of pacifism. All they while sending troops to quell rebels in the Ivory Coast. In addition, France has arms ties with Iraq.

I'm certainly no lawer, but in our mythical court room, shouldn't France be thrown off the defense council, since it can be shown they have close personal ties with the accused. The same goes for mother Russia, who has extensive weapons deals with Iraq. 90% of Iraq weapons are Eastern Block soviet made hardware.

In court you normally don't "prove" anything. Rare is the case that is undeniable. It is the job of the prosocuter to make a "legalistic" argument. To make a case for to the jury to side with them over the defense. Where is Iraq's defense?

Prosocuter: Mr. Hussein, what have you done with the thousands of litres of weaponized anthrax found by inspectors in 1998?
Hussein: (shrugs)
Prosocuter: Mr. Hussein, what have you done with the 500 tons of VX nerve agent?
Hussein: (shrugs)
Prosocuter: Mr. Hussein, why won't you let any of your scientists be interviewed outside of Iraq?
Husseinshrugs)
Defense: I object! America is badgering the witness! They are trying to prove my client is lying so that they can put him in jail. I ask for a recess of 12 years so that the investigation can continue.

Now if you were on the jury in this case, who would you say the evidence supported?

 

It doesn't take someone as you would classify as being patriotic to see what is going on here, and that the table is stacked high with facts on Iraq.

No, stacked with allegations. We, and by that I mean all of us here, have no idea of the reality. We can, as if it were a torts case, believe on the basis of probability, that one regime is telling the truth, another lying, but as you well know states act in their own self-interest. It is because of that fact, and my accepting it, that I stipulate allegations. I believe Iraq is in material breach. Could I prove it? Could you? No.

At this point I could care less of what Russia, France and China think. Why? They are simply playing devil's advocate and in the end all three of these nations with the possible exception of China who always wants to be the thorn in the U.S. and others sides will agree for action.

You sound just as incorrect as Bill O'Reilly on this. Firstly, last time i checked, it was not considered on par with reneging a national friendship to disagree with an ally, nor is it wrong to act in one's own self-interest. America has been the pioneer of national self-interest, and thus holds no special right to complain when other nation states act in a manner not consistent with their national interest.

France and Russia are protecting their own interests and expressing their own will. Could it be that the people in France and Russia, and through them their elected representatives, simply do not see the urgency that you guys do? You guys have felt very vulnerable and insecure since 9/11. Other nations cannot be expected to be in a similar position.

China, OTOH, is not an internationalist power. It has enough trouble trying to manage the 1.3bn people within it's borders. So why would it try to thwart the US effort? Of all the responses, theirs was the most promising. The Chinese just do not want to play by the US' standards. That's all. No ill will, no Clancy-esque insidious evil plots, just a good, old-fashioned difference of opinion.

But you need them, cause this could go against America very easily if the UN's not involved.

France judging from it's comments that it said today was " Lets keep putting in more inspectors and keep running around like a headless chicken in Iraq."

An unfair generalisation. France does not agree with your crusade so they are wrong?!?

Until Iraq does the following the inspections are useless.

I'll remind you of that statement when US soldiers are dying from unknown chem or bio agents...

1. No Iraqi officials standing over the inspectors shoulder.

Hang on, I seem to recall that the US won't permit ANY inspections of it's facilities for any reason without US officials present. You understand and probably support this. If you can understand this, understand why Iraq wants people present. Try a little empathy now and then, even if you find Iraq to be in the wrong.

2. UNRESTRICTED allowance into any house, facility, WORSHIP TEMPLE, etc..... No warnings or anything. We point to a building and enter without telling them hours in advance or days.

But how will they get a chance to hide their weapons?

3. Spy planes flying 24-7 watching all movements.

A costly exercise, not only in dollars but in manpower. Perhaps you meant over certain areas or something?

4. Interviewing ANYONE we want and taking them out of Iraq with no Iraqi scum bag involved.

Those scumbags are just following orders. Give them a break, they're damned if they do and they're damed if they don't. I'd rather have an Inspector's ire than Saddams. Saddam tends to bathe you in acid, if you p1$$ him off.

"Drifting" into "vague al-Qaeda references"? Powell made a bold connection between a known genocidal dictator with a penchant for creating and hiding weapons of mass destruction and a terrorist organization which would have no qualms about using them. Seems more than relevant to me.


Bold but

 

Rik, firstly, all parties involved lack objectivity. The US can be shown to have close personal involvement on several levels. Firstly, the US could produce evidence to show Iraq intended to asassinate President George Herbert Walker Bush in 1993 - which therefore introduces the possibilty of vengeance on behalf of the current US administration. I could keep going, but it'd be a tough case. For example, what if the US called upon Richard Butler to present evidence - and Iraq called Scott Butler? What if the US simply ignored the ICJ like in 1999, when a German national on death row, who had been denied Consultate representation, was executed despite and ICJ ruling on the contrary? What if the US manages to bag Iraq on a techincality, like it did to win United States Vs. Nicaragua, 1986? As I've shown here, just considering a few legal aspects, it's hardly an open and shut case. After all, OJ got free didn't he?

E_S

 

You want to know how France will go along with getting rid of Iraq?


USA: "Support us in getting rid of SH"

France: "mmmmm I don't know, maybe we should give them some more time."

USA: "How much is Iraq charging you for X ammount of Oil a year?"

France: "X+ dollars"

USA: "Well if you go along with us getting rid of SH, we will lower that by X- dollars"

France: "Okay, lets do it"

 

Just one thing,
I didn't think there was such a thing as "Making a case for war" ... the sound of it is as ridiculous as the people trying to make it. Anyway, it doesn't seem that in the near future other countries (apart from GB) will join us. So I guess we are going alone for it. I don't think Busch will risk a retreat just now when he has moved 200,000 soldiers to the front. That would mean a sure lose for the upcomming elections, as he didn't handle well almost anything and he didn't capture Bin Laden. He was smart enough to switch the attention of us fools to Irak just in time... bah

 

First of all, why the hell are you people arguing about this like it is some court of law? This is real world life and death stuff here, not some mock court philosophical law school debate.

Iraq has nasty weapons. Iraq doesn't want us to find nasty weapons. Iraq hides them from us. We shame the rest of the world into forcing inspectors back in (that's right, all those who say give the inspectors a chance wouldn't be able to say that without the US forcing the rest of the countries to agree to do at least that much). Iraq plays games with the inspectors and their mandate. Iraq has thus broken the rule given to them by the UN. They must pay the price.

It's really quite simple.

Now then, all of those who bring up France, China, Russia and Germany as models of peace-loving, good-hearted nations raise your hands. Not so fast!!!!

For all your talk about how the US is in it for the oil and the money, please remember that each of those 4 countries is also in it for the money. France sells technology to Iraq and has lucrative oil contracts waiting to cash in. Germany and Russia have the same. China builds bunkers and other military installations for Iraq. Their interest in this not going to war is purely economic. Anyone thinking they are in it out of the goodness of their will for peace is delusional. I'm sure you think the French backed the rebels in the colonies in the 1700's because of their love for liberty too.

Sometimes, I wonder why some of you can't see what's going on. Sometimes, I think your blind hatred of America, Bush or some New Yorker that stole your girlfriend while on vacation makes you temporarily blind with stupidity. The terror attacks changed everything. The US can, should, no longer sit idly by waiting for an attack to avenge. It must be proactive. Because sure as we're all sitting here today, typing our little mash notes to villainous dictators, they will be out there giving destructive weapons to those who will, under cover of night, kill you and everyone you know if they have the chance.

Here's to America, who will at least have the balls to stand up for your lives, even though you won't.

 

i just would like to point out that it is funny that no one has answered my and a few others' question, asking what you anti-war people suggest as an a better alternative to war.

A few of you have come into argue since I and a few others posed that question, but still no answers.

I think you HAVE no answers, if you wanna know the truth.

 

Ender Sai said

Which indicates to me you have no idea about the feelings on the ground in Iraq.

I was in Operation Desert SHIELD/STORM back in 1990-1991. I got to see the ground up close and personal, and I can tell you that in Southern Iraq, people do not have any love for Saddamn Hussien. They were surrendering wholesale to us when we invaded and they will do so again.

 

I have a few points to make as I have read over these last couple of pages.

First of all, for all those who want more inspections and sanctions until he complies (Cheveyo and Ender_Sai most notably), we have to remember that sanctions + Saddam still in power = thousands of children and other Iraqis suffering and dying. This is a bad situation and it will only get worse if we prolong it.

Secondly, for those who say you can?t force democracy on the Iraqi people: this is all together laughable. I take it that you think forcing a dictatorship on the Iraqi people is better? Whatever. We need to give the Iraqi people the chance to govern themselves and that can only be done in a ?Japan post WWII? style.

Thirdly, I now believe the members of the security council (in particularly France, as their position has never been against war entirely) will reconsider their position and support (or at least not veto) UN military action against Iraq.

 

France and Russia are protecting their own interests and expressing their own will.

As I said, I have no problem with this. Just be open about it. Don't hide behind humanitarian ideals when your just in it to protect your oil and weapons interests. I'm all for national soverignty, I wouldn't be on the side of the US if I wasn't. Problem is, some of you seem (got to choose my words carefully) to be suggeting that we need a 100% backing from every country in the UN. Why not just a majority.

I'll remind you of that statement when US soldiers are dying from unknown chem or bio agents.

Now why would US troops be dying of "uknown" bio and chemical agents if Saddam wasn't actively persuing these things..hmmmm?

Hang on, I seem to recall that the US won't permit ANY inspections of it's facilities for any reason without US officials present. You understand and probably support this. If you can understand this, understand why Iraq wants people present.

The US hasn't signed onto UN resolutions stateing it will grant unfettered access to it's sites either. Iraq is on probation, and they are breaking probation every chance they get. Some people don't think their should be any consequensces for that.

Saddam tends to bathe you in acid, if you p1$$ him off.

And still i have trouble understanding your reluctance..

Meaning, it's the be all and end all of terrorism to the US, but not everywhere else. Most of these coutries have suffered terrorism for years - esp France.

Or Bulgaria who suffered greatly under Russian occupation and is firmly on our side.

 

Wow are you guys good at missing the point or what? Turn your Patriot Filter off and READ MY POST AGAIN. Sheesh.

...

Are you accusing me of being an implicit supporter of Iraq, simply because as with every post you read one line and make your mind up? I also recommend you find a new user name, Bubba, because yours is currently a misnomer. Every time I post I get stuck having to waste my time patiently explaining to you the point I posted above because you cannot, or will not, read the entirety of my post. So, either read carefully or change your name.

Ender, I have read your post carefully, and -- even in context -- your first paragraph was troubling, to say the least:

Guys, you're not going to like this but... if this evidence were taken before the International Court of Jusitce, the facts alone would not carry a verdict in the United States favour. Sorry. Whilst Powell has certainly outlined facts, the validity of them has yet to be estabished - except, of course, in some peoples minds. Whilst we're all gung-ho about this, let me say the following - facts, like this, must be verified. They must be debated and their validity ascertained.

With your assertion that Powell's claims must be verified, it certainly seems that you're demanding that the United States jump through yet another series of hoops.

Is that what you're saying?

Let me quote you again: Whilst we're all gung-ho about this, let me say the following - facts, like this, must be verified.

 

Your Guatemala reference is a bit too vague - mind narrowing it down a bit?

As to Nicaragua, if you are referring to the Iran-Contra debacle, I do believe that the US convicted persons acting of their own free will and not with the official sanction of the US government. The "technicality" I believe you are referring to is that the US did not respond to Nicaragua?s case it brought before the ICJ. I do not view this as a technicality at all but good headwork as Nicaragua's complaint was not with the US but with the aforementioned US citizens.

While the US did fail to follow one of their founding father's sage words of advice to "avoid foreign entanglements," I do not see how this incident can be construed as the US lying to the international community.

 

Guys, I really don't think there is any possible way to convince some people that Iraq is evil.

Heck, today God himself could have come down from heaven and told the United Nations that Saddam indeed does have WOMD and is planning to use them against the world, and they still wouldn't be convinced.

What more do you people need?

Do you think Saddam is a great guy or something?

Anyone who claims to have love of any kind for western civilization, free society, and democracy should have ZERO trust for Saddam Hussein. Anyone, who believes one ounce that the guy says, I seriously question your views upon those three things.

 

The best thing Powell said in the whole speech was...

"Why should we give Iraq the benefit of the doubt?"

We shouldnt, end of story.

 

and Ender_Sai most notably

Do you even bother to read my posts? Thought not. I am all for the use of force to support the resolutions PROVIDED it is legal, i.e. under a UN Mandate. My god, you guys have really no concept objectivity do you? Just because I'm not 100% in agreement with you does not automatically put in your polar opposition, and it's foolish to believe this.

So, JediFlyer, I give you an ultimatum. You either
a) Prove that I support sanctions and more time by inspectors, or
b) Admit you were wrong, ill-informed and apologise, as well as retracting your statements.


This is exactly what I mean. Since this thread, conceptually , was in it's infancy (i.e. Part 1) I've been pro-UN, more than pro-US on the matter. I've stated my reservations about US-lead attacks without UN approval and what that could do to your people in the future. I've never once stated my sympathy for the Iraqi regime. Again, I AM NOT PRO-IRAQI. The world cannot be defined in terms of blacks and whites, and I'm being one of those shades of grey here.

With your assertion that Powell's claims must be verified, it certainly seems that you're demanding that the United States jump through yet another series of hoops.

No, I'm saying Powell said that the US knows A, B, and C to be true. However, he offered very little evidence to support this. Certainly, the taped conversation helps but it's hardly a damning, irrefutable indictment. I'm sorry it bugs you I support due process. However, whilst we're talking about young Americans, Australians, Brits etc facing death, I want to make sure it's 100% right. However, that does not make me anti-war in any way shape or form. I'd just prefer to be totally well informed. And I expected Powell's speech to be akin to Adlai's speech in 1961 - concise, to the point, and damning. Which it was not.

Whilst we're all gung-ho about this, let me say the following - facts, like this, must be verified.

That's right - we're all ready for war but we're not sure of the facts. We can't be, not being in a position to be informed. Really, all I am is the 12th Angry Man - I don't want to do the wrong thing by people - and Americans.

to be suggeting that we need a 100% backing from every country in the UN. Why not just a majority.

You need a majority of the 10 rotating members, and all 5 of the Permanent members to say "Yay." And IMO that's the goal to work towards. That's all. Nothing pro-Saddam - I guess I don't think the international system need be frayed to get one man.

Now why would US troops be dying of "uknown" bio and chemical agents if Saddam wasn't actively persuing these things..hmmmm?

Again - and I'm getting tired of this - I accept he has the weapons. IMO, the pro-Inspectors countries like to know WHAT he has incase he decides to use it. And thus, my point.

And still i have trouble understanding your reluctance..

What reluctance? Not to go in without the UN? Yes, how un-conservative of me to support the rule of law.

Sigh...

E_S

 

Is the use of force illegal if it's not sanctioned by the UN? Was the NATO use of force against Bosnia illegal then?