Where are the WMD? Were there any?

Politics International Politics
41

I no longer feel the need to wait. After checking through several reports on both sides of the fence back to 12 years ago, the vast majority come to the same conclusion:

Iraq was trying to develop chemical and bio weapons and had used such weapons in the past.

Regardless of whether found, I believe that the US was within its rights to view such systems as a threat. I also believe the US invaded for a variety of reasons also stemming from the need to fight global terrorism, clean up the Middle East and send a message to other corrupt governments in the region.

There was a great headline article in the Atlantic this month which talks about the decision to go to war. In it, it was pointed out that Paul Wolfowitz, the big NEOCON, was the one who tipped the scales during the Reagan administration NOT to support Marcos anymore. This was viewed as also sending a warning shot across the bow of dictatorial regimes in Taiwan, South Korea and China that such governments would no longer receive US support. Hence from that period 1986… it is miraculous how much democracy spread in not only Taiwan and South Korea, but also in China (Tiananmen) and Russia and Eastern Europe.

Now does this go to prove the US was the bad guy all along holding back democracy or does it show that when the time came, the US was the one that made such a quantum leap possible? Anyone?

42

[quote=“fred smith”]

[quote]I no longer feel the need to wait. After checking through several reports on both sides of the fence back to 12 years ago, the vast majority come to the same conclusion
Iraq was trying to develop chemical and bio weapons and had used such weapons in the past.[/quote]
I won’t dispute that Iraq HAD WMD back in gulf I, but aren’t we talking about NOW? Do they have now or in the last few years have 1)WMD and as Bush says 2)deployment capabilities to reach the US? Bueller?

Rights. What rights are we talking about? You mean the Premption Doctrine?

Are we talking about the same US who went trotting around the globe destablizing governments, supporting far right rebel groups? i do agree that was mostly in the 70s and 80s, and since then the US record does seem to have improved dramatically. But you have to admit that US isn’t quite the champion of democracy. It has made several alliances of convenience eg Saudi Arabia, not exactly the home of freedom and human rights itself. Granted, there are many in the US government who would truly like to promote democracy for a safer world and not for personal gain. But US foreign policy as a whole isn’t exactly sunshine and apple pie.

I don’t want to come across as anti-American, because I’m not. This is distinctive from vehemently disagreeing with US government actions and policies. Hell, I love america as long as I am in CA, WA, OR, NYC, or LV :wink:

43

JB:

I guess I look at it this way, where the US has acted, progress takes place, more stability, etc. etc. more respect for human rights, women’s rights, the economy is better, freer, standard of living higher. Everyone can whine, wail, maybe even gnash their teeth but had Vietnam lost the war, then maybe Indochina would be Taiwan, South Korea or Thailand today and well you know. Chile was “destabilized” perhaps if you ignore the three years of Allende’s disastrous rule. It seems that Allende is less popular in Chile than in liberal universities in the US. Ironic. Then again, most of the students in Chile hate Pinochet but their parents would all vote for him.

Yes, US had right to go after Saddam. The right was that Saddam’s ceasefire agreement in 1991 was based on no weapons of mass destruction. He did not live up to his end of the bargain so wham. Sorry he’s gone really I am.

Then the other side of the coin is that those most interested in criticizing the US for its wrongful or questionable acts never look at the situation in total. The USSR was a busy little beaver that time. Does anyone think that Czechoslavakia et al. really voted to become communist in 1947-48? East Germany? Poland? Hungary? Romania? Bulgaria?

But I forgot that is the US fault because of Yalta OR because they did not want to put their troops into Eastern Europe. Damned if they do (Iraq/Vietnam), damned if they don’t (Congo/E. Europe/Cambodia Pol Pot era).

What’s a U.S. President to do? Smoke more dope I guess, develop a fondness for tie dyed t-shirts and free love? Oh yeah, I forgot Clinton was president wasn’t he? haha

Just joking around so please do not take the tone too seriously, but as to the positions, I am serious.

44

Now, now Fred. Those were free elections and you’re must be a
[color=red]fascist[/color]
to say otherwise. My goodness, the Red Army was even there to make sure everything was on the up and up. :laughing:

45

First, Fred is correct. Iraq was in violation of the UN cease-fire and of the 17 UN resolutions… for 12 years. It was obvious that the only way to verify whether or not Saddam’s regime had complied with the cease fire agreement and the 17 resolutions (and that is precisely what the cease fire and resolutions called for… they did not require a showing of actual WMD, but rather an accounting of what was known to exist and or what was believed to exist) was to go in with force and remove Saddam.

Secondly, Bush never, to my knowledge, claimed that Saddam’s regime had the capability to deliver WMD to the US. The threat articulated, which you seem to have missed somehow (don’t worry, you’re not alone), was that Saddam, if he had or in the future obtained WMD, would provide the same to terrorists who do have the means to deliver WMD to the US.

Does that title belong to some other nation?

That’s right… they were/are alliances of convenience… because the alternative is worse. These are the horns of the dilemna…

46

That’s really speculative. S.Vietnam was run by a bunch of corrupt cronies. They would have probably ended up like Indonesia or Philippines. Well, speculation like you did. As for Taiwan, yah I don’t equate Martial Law with democracy. The KMT are bastards. They helped ruin China.

[quote]Chile was “destabilized” perhaps if you ignore the three years of Allende’s disastrous rule. It seems that Allende is less popular in Chile than in liberal universities in the US.[/quote] Allende was unpopular with the upper class since he threatened their power base. I guess we will never know how good a leader Allende would be since the US helped to take him out.

Never said the USSR was right, good guy or better than US. nope. and I didn’t say US didn’t do good things, make contributions. In certain cases, it’s how or why. In others, they screwed up. Still in others I applaud their efforts. I have no doubt Europe would be run by Nazis if not for the Americans and ahem Canadians :wink:

I think, with some exceptions, I’ve been trying to give a balanced view. I’ve applauded and agreed with some US policies, but certainly not with others. You are the ones that seem a bit extremist to me. I think most Americans don’t understand the impact their country has had on the world good and bad. Just because I don’t tow the line and swallow everything line and hook makes me a Communist? Give me a fargun break McCarthy!

You condemn the Cubans outright for Fidel and his associations with USSR. But the old Cuba was heavily influenced and manipulated by US commercial interests. Yes, I don’t agree with certain draconian policies, but at the same time, Cuba, despite its lower standards of living, has one of the best universal healthcare systems and medical research centers in the world. And if there weren’t embargoes against it, maybe the Cuban people would have a better life. but who cares about them. It’s all about making Fidel look bad. People’s lives don’t matter.

You condemn the N.Vietnamese for “being Communist”. Yet they were mostly freedom fighters who threw off the yoke of French imperialism, fought the Japanese, fought off the Chinese, fought off the US to regain their own national destiny. I don’t see what’s wrong with that. What was the alternative? S.Vietnam?

It’s too bad when President Wilson declared after WWI that people should have their right for self-determination, the Allies didn’t go through with it. maybe countries like Vietnam could have had an earlier chance for self-rule. The US and USSR didn’t really care about these countries. They were just proxies.

“I’m a reasonable guy who’s seen some very unreasonable things.” - JB

47

In case you’ve forgotten, er, make that “Because you’ve forgotten”, Bush the First went in with a giant coalition whose terms included that the sole goal was to drive Iraq out of Kuwait. Any attempt to depose Saddam would have been opposed by that coalition – in fact, it WAS opposed by the coalition since it was part of the terms they set for joining in the first place.

48

Yes, this is an open question. It has neither been proved nor disproved.

[quote=“fred smith”]What about the al Qaeda meeting with Iraqi agents in Prague? Fact or fiction?
[/quote]
Another open question. However, the preponderance of the evidence is that it is likely to have happened. Czech’s intelligence service has repeatedly said it happened.

49

For the same reason that the FBI spent a year ruining Richard Jewell’s life – the FBI didn’t want to admit that it had screwed up royally in the Olympic Park bombing investigation and had fingered the wrong guy.

There is a great deal of speculation that this is what they’re doing now with Richard Hatfill, the former bioweapons researcher whom the FBI has named a “person of interest” in the anthrax mailings a year and a half ago. Despite the known facts that at least one of the Sept 11th hijackers had gotten an antibiotics prescription to treat a skin infection (which could have been an anthrax infection), the FBI has insisted, publicly, on focusing solely on Hatfill as their suspect.

50

In case you’ve forgotten, er, make that “Because you’ve forgotten”, Bush the First went in with a giant coalition whose terms included that the sole goal was to drive Iraq out of Kuwait. Any attempt to depose Saddam would have been opposed by that coalition – in fact, it WAS opposed by the coalition since it was part of the terms they set for joining in the first place.[/quote]

Ironic that you speak of coalitions and respecting the wishes of this coalition in light of Bush II’s stance (we can go it alone if we have to etc). If Saddam was so clearly dangerous back then, what was stopping the US itself from ‘going it alone’ as it threatened to do this time?
Your response seems contradictory to the above actions I cited. If Bush I respected the coalition (and he did to the extent he didn’t push for Baghdad), why did he still (or those under him) tell the kurds and shiites to rebel and if they did, the US would support them in taking down Saddam. Seems inconsistent to me. or perhaps “because you’ve forgotten” they royally screwed up and just swept it under the rug.

51

JB:

This is one of those old chestnuts people started spouting a long time ago and it is time to put paid to it.

Vietnam is, was and has always been communist. Freedom fighters indeed. So, let me get this right, Vietnam’s leaders like Cuba’s had to become dictatorial and quash human rights because of U.S. pressure? but so did the other allies of the United States because of U.S. involvement? So either way it is always the US’ fault?

As to the corruption, look around: THIS IS ASIA. Hate to say it but I agree with Robert Kaplan’s latest treatise on what the Americans should do in Iraq. NOT hold elections, etc until RULE OF LAW is established first. I think this is what happened in a great many of the nations involved. South Korea and Taiwan of course made the most progress but Vietnam is similarly a Confucian society. I believe that it would have made more progress on the human development scale than Thailand and certainly more than the Philippines and Indonesia. While we will never know, I think that we can compare where the American “colonies” are today and where their communist brethren North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos and even China are.

That leads to that whole argument ala Singapore’s ex-prime minister Lee Kuan Yew. Democracy does not suit Chinese people and a strong government is needed. Rule of law is better than freedom ala the West because Chinese people cannot handle it. I suppose by extenions he could be referring to a lot of East Asians. Is this a fair assessment? Personally, I do believe that in Taiwan, people are disinclined to follow the rules for the civic good unless they know they are going to get beat over the head. Though this is changing.

Final note: Find any respected academic, foreign policy wonk or whatever to tell you that Vietnam is not communist and then let me know who they are. I am taking this opportunity to head off any attempts to bring up Noam Chomsky. Hate to get on him again, but it is absolutely amazing. I have listened to fairly intelligent (fairly!) talk nonstop, spouting his drivel. Of course, when it gets down to it, very few are history or political science majors from “reputable” universities. They were English or Music majors who read one book about political science and wow, they found salvation. Challenge them to read from the beginning starting with Plato and working their way through politico-economists like Hayek and Friedman and you get blank stares. Who? Exactly. Chomsky is after all the one who denied that 2 million Cambodians were being slaughtered for years despite the evidence, then shrugged it off with a people die during transitions of power kind of argument. Ever since then, I have had zero respect for that man or his “writings.” He is wrong again and again and again yet people listen to him. Where are the 7 million who were supposed to starve to death in Afghanistan because of US bombings.

Whoops too much coffee. I will finish my rant up here. Sorry for the longwindedness.

52

Allende had three plus years in office according to my understanding, no? During that time shortages, inflation and unemployment skyrocketed. I think that by that time, a very large segment of Chilean society was against him. Oh, the upper classes supported Pinochet? Does that mean whoever the rich support must be wrong? The whole oppression argument? 3,000 activists were executed, murdered in a few months in Chile to re-establish “order.” Take that how you will. Chile then went on to become the most successful economy in Latin America.

By way of contrast, Argentina killed 30,000 though we will never know how many because few records were kept as opposed to Pinochet who tried to make it “legal.” Again, take that as you will. The murders in Argentina stretched on for nearly 10 years and were increasingly erratic and sadistic.

Then how many have died in Cuba? been imprisoned? drowned trying to flee the country on rafts? To my knowledge, the masses never tried to flee Pinochet’s Chile or the military junta in Argentina that way. Why so much attention to Pinochet and not to Castro. Ironic too is the way Nicaragua’s beloved Ortega (also a communist) lost fast enough when faced with an open election.

Anyway, enough on this point. I know Chile well and I believe that Pinochet was a necessary evil. The country is in great shape now. I believe that stems from his stewardship. Oh that Castro were to be arrested whenever he left the country…

53

[quote=“fred smith”]JB:

Not what I said at at at all. So you’re saying Vietnam is always, was always and has always been communist. ok. sure.
yes, they are freedom fighters since they fought off colonial oppression (french), foreign incursions (chinese), post-colonial invasions (US) and they are vietnamese in a historically vietnamese land. what more do you require to be “freedom fighter”. Oh right, US sanctioning. how could i have been such a moron.
The rest I didn’t say, but I will add that when another country invades you, like the superpower US against 3rd world vietnam, it tends to have an impact, most likely radicalization of government policy in reaction to such invasions/attacks. Case in point, the attacks on 911 has dramatically changed US foreign policy, no?

What we have here is a failure to communicate…

The rest of your rant really has nothing to do with what I said. If you wish to complain about Noam Chomsky, write him a letter. What’s my name biatch? JB. not NC. (offense intended on the term ‘biatch’)

54

JB:

I wrote to Noam but he never wrote back (sniff) :frowning:

Anyway, I think Vietnam was more of a Civil War that the United States got involved in rather than US aggression against a poor, helpless, defenseless nation. It was in my opinion a communist revolution that was unfortunately won by the commies. Had they lost…

That said, it recalls that guy in A Fish Called Wanda who told Otto, “They whupped your ass real good.” so I guess for a Third World country, they showed the Americans. My point is however that while the North may have been freedom fighting, the Vietnamese in the South hardly seemed thrilled with the change in leadership. Otherwise, why would so many take to the boats AFTER the evil Americans left? That’s my point.

My coffee kick has calmed down now. I swear sometimes I can almost levitate while other times I feel earthquakes.

55

Jack, what’s with the “street-punk” attitude? I think that’s really quite uncalled for.

56

Jack, what’s with the “street-punk” attitude? I think that’s really quite uncalled for.[/quote]

Like I said, no offense intended. It was just in contrast to the other “speak” Mistuh F. Smith and I were doing in another thread. :wink:
but really, I am not Noam Chomsky, so please don’t write like I am.

57

Jack, what’s with the “street-punk” attitude? I think that’s really quite uncalled for.[/quote]

Like I said, no offense intended. It was just in contrast to the other “speak” Mistuh F. Smith and I were doing in another thread. :wink:
but really, I am not Noam Chomsky, so please don’t write like I am.[/quote]

Perhaps you committed a typographic error? Your post stated “offense intended”.

58

Jack, what’s with the “street-punk” attitude? I think that’s really quite uncalled for.[/quote]

Like I said, no offense intended. It was just in contrast to the other “speak” Mistuh F. Smith and I were doing in another thread. :wink:
but really, I am not Noam Chomsky, so please don’t write like I am.[/quote]

Perhaps you committed a typographic error? Your post stated “offense intended”.[/quote]

whoops. i stand corrected.

59

In case you’ve forgotten, er, make that “Because you’ve forgotten”, Bush the First went in with a giant coalition whose terms included that the sole goal was to drive Iraq out of Kuwait. Any attempt to depose Saddam would have been opposed by that coalition – in fact, it WAS opposed by the coalition since it was part of the terms they set for joining in the first place.[/quote]

Ironic that you speak of coalitions and respecting the wishes of this coalition in light of Bush II’s stance (we can go it alone if we have to etc). If Saddam was so clearly dangerous back then, what was stopping the US itself from ‘going it alone’ as it threatened to do this time?[/quote]
In case yo – sorry, I meant to type BECAUSE you’ve forgotten – in 1991, the U.S. didn’t have any convenient bases from which to drive Iraq’s troops out of Kuwait. We didn’t base in Saudi until the Saudis joined the coalition (mostly because they knew if they didn’t, Saddam would roll over them in a few more weeks; he was already massing tanks on their border).

And because you never bothered to pay attention, I should also point out that the only reason the U.S. stayed in Saudi Arabia was to protect them from an assault by Saddamn.

Well, since I’ve blown your “point” out from under you already, I don’t see that I’d need to bother addressing this one. Bush the First royally screwed up on the aftermath of the Gulf War, in my opinion, and it was one of the smaller reasons for why he lost to Clinton (the major one being, the oil market turmoil during 1990 hit the U.S. economy pretty hard, resulting in a recession, and people punished him for economic problems that he couldn’t have contained – problems that would have been MUCH worse if he hadn’t managed to coalesce the rest of the world behind the U.S. to drive Saddam out of Kuwait).

As far as “swept it under the rug”, I don’t see how you could possibly claim that, since it was pretty bloody obvious to everyone. Except of course for Bill Clinton, who thought it was fine – except of course for the occasional times he needed to distract the press from Monica Lewinsky’s blue-dress peccadildos.

All that said, you still haven’t managed to make a single coherent, defensible point in any of the anti-American rants you’ve posted.

60

[quote=“MaPoDoFu”]

Disagreement with US GOVERNMENT foreign and domestic policies, last I heard, doesn’t make me anti-American, unAmerican, communist, fascist, Noam Chomsky, etc. like, dude, whatever McCarthy.