The Evidence Against Iraq

1. so we're gonna let france, russia and china dictate our policy, huh? despite the fact we have many other nations that support us, we're gonna remain inactive because france, russia and china just happen to be the countries on the security council. sounds like it's letting bureaucracy getting in the way of policy.


Well, that was sort of the idea of presenting evidence to help get them on-board...

We CAN act without their support, but we would be far more effective and legitimate in the eyes of the world if we did have world support, so why not make SOME effort to get it, instead of calling them "old Europe" and not presenting the evidence that they reasonably want to see (and that we promised to offer).

 

It really is about oil? Well, to an extent...

The French oil company Fina recently signed a deal with the Baghdad government to develop what is likely Iraq's largest oilfields - something on the order of 30 billion barrels is believed to be there. If the Baath party is toppled there, such deal may be voided.

The Russian energy giant Lukoil also has a $4 billion deal to develop Iraq's oil industry. Such a deal also may not survive a change in government. They are also desperate to resume massive arms sales to the Iraqi regime.

The Germans have been trying to work a deal to rebuild Iraq's nuclear reactors for several years. They won't build any in their own country, but they've no problem with giving them to Saddam... No oil here for the Germans, just cash for them and fissible material for Saddam.

France and Russia would do well to join us unless they want to completely lose these extremely lucrative deals. I suspect that they might (at least Russia will - they are easily bought off). The Germans can take a hike.

 

It has been pretty well established that Germany has sold Iraq centrifuges with which they could convert uranium into weapons grade uranium.

 

i don't see the US going it alone...I do see a handful of nations standing in the way of making the UN something more than a clever debating society, though.

And I see an opportunity to change that which we're not taking advantage of.

Meanwhile, I see a world where popular opinion is now against us - especially in the countries where its most important - regardless of whose governments support or oppose us. It didn't have to be that way either.

Unfortunately, since the battle for public opinion has been something less than a major priority for this administration, that is exactly how it stands now.

 

The UN will continue to be only a debate society as long as the people appointed to the UN are not appointed from a freely elected government in their own countries.

Once that happens, the UN would truly be more representative of the people of the planet.

You can not honestly think that any totalitarian government that is participating in the UN has anything other then an agenda that keeps them in power.

The UN is a nice idea, but until it is a true one world government, it is only a nice debate society.

DD

 

Who really wants a true one world government? France and Germany are as democratic as we are, and they've put up a hell of a debate. The UN can be better in many ways, but it's still the best thing we have.

 

fair points...we just see this really differently...i am less concerned with public opinion than you are, apparently. opinion changes quickly...on 9/10, i'm betting not many people would have prioritized a war on terrorism or national defense...(remember the collective yawn Clinton got when he said he was changing the rules and "taking the fight to the terrorists"?) ...by noon on 9/11, that changed.

I more-or-less agree as far as the U.S. is concerned. I see three major issues regarding public opinion:

(1) U.S. opinion - I think you have to have internal public support for a war you start. Always.

(2) World opinion - Governments are almost always ultimately driven by local politics. Had we, 6 months ago, started to build the case against Iraq, perhaps French and German citizens wouldn't have been so opposed. In that case, perhaps their governments would have supported this.

(3) World opinion - 3rd world. Here's the most dangerous long-term problems. After 9/11, it should have become crystal clear to us that world opinion matters. If the people in these countries hate us -- regardless of if we're allied with their goverments -- that's a breeding ground for terrorism. If Al-Queda is trying to recruit someone in Saudi Arabia, that person hears three things:

(1) Al Queda tells them the U.S. is attacking Iraq because they are imperialist and are after oil, and the Saudi government is with them. You should hate the U.S. and the west because they are using you and your government.

(2) The Saudi government says we support the U.S.

(3) The U.S. says we're attacking to get rid of WMD. We have evidence, but we can't share it - just trust us.

The Saudi citizen already is distrustful of the U.S. -- who do you think they'll believe? Unless we present an alternative argument, we're creating more and more enemies throughout the world.

*That* is why the battle for world opinion should take absolute priority. Bush I had it right in the gulf war. We had all the justification we needed to attack Iraq, but he asked for support, input, and participation from the entire world in the process. Instead of making this a U.S. attacking Iraq thing, he made it a World attacking Iraq thing. That took away the Al Queda argument that the U.S. is taking advantage of people. That's what we should be doing now, and it's really not that difficult. Unfortunately (to me), Bush has seemingly shown no interest whatsoever in world opinion. I'm sure he will at some point win over a bunch of governments, but is that enough?

 

Refman, I don't feel funny when I have to explain my jokes to you.

 

...and now it's our job to prove he HAS weapons of mass destruction. do you have any idea how difficult it is to prove that? don't you think france and germany know how difficult it is to prove that from the outside looking in?

I don't know how difficult it is to prove. However, we've already said he have proof and would present it (many months ago), so that's really irrelevent unless we were lying.

so do the orders mean something or not? laws are worthless without police officer willing to enforce them. the same is true here...

Of course they mean something - you very clearly stated part of the case against Iraq. The other part of the case is why this is suddenly so urgent - and that's where the proof comes in. The part you stated could mean more sanctions or tougher inspections or whatever (which is the direction France & Germany are pushing). The reason why military invasion is necessary is the danger of Saddam acquiring and/or using WMD in the near future.

The thing is that you just laid out the case much better than Bush ever has when trying to convince the public (especially the world public) -- that's my concern. There's an excellent case to be made, and it can certainly convince people to support this effort. Our government just isn't clearly making it.

Police officers can become worthless if the people they are protecting don't support them.

 

Major:

Have you ever actually listened to Bush 2 make a speech on Iraq? Mad Max didn't just post *anything* that Bush hasn't said a hundred times already.

Perhaps the problem here is that many have already made up their minds on the subject, and have ceased listening to Bush's arguments altogether?

Utter nonsense. The police can still kick the bad guy's ass and throw him in jail - where he will hurt no one again. Who cares if the people they protect don't support what the cop did? They're safe - and that's what matters.

And just as that cop wouldn't listen to anyone who told him to leave a known perp alone, neither will we bow to the (largely economically- and politically driven) cries for inaction by the so-called international community. (the 'international community' is hardly unified on the issue). We are going to look after our - and our allies' - security interests, regardless of who b****es about it. Whether they thank us or not.

 

Have you ever actually listened to Bush 2 make a speech on Iraq? Mad Max didn't just post *anything* that Bush hasn't said a hundred times already.

Perhaps the problem here is that many have already made up their minds on the subject, and have ceased listening to Bush's arguments altogether?


He's never made the comprehensive argument, as far as I've seen. Sure, he's said random pieces here and there, but he's never stood up and made the absolute case.

Random, minor speeches aren't going to be relayed to the world anyhow.

Utter nonsense. The police can still kick the bad guy's ass and throw him in jail - where he will hurt no one again. Who cares if the people they protect don't support what the cop did? They're safe - and that's what matters.


If the people don't believe in the authority that governs them, it simply won't work in the long-run.

We are going to look after our - and our allies' - security interests, regardless of who b****es about it. Whether they thank us or not.

That's nice and all, but if you create more enemies in the process, what exactly are you accomplishing? The simple fact is that this could all be accomplished without creating a vast new group of people who dislike and distrust us by following the Bush I strategy, but we're not making the tiny amount of effort to make that happen.

We see this every day in Israel. For every terrorist they kill, they create two more because they are perceived as this ruthless government by others. They can keep doing that ad infinatum if they want, but it isn't going to accomplish anything in the long-run.

 

No effort? Why in the hell do you think we've waited *an entire year* to go? Bush has not spent the past year huddled in some dark room, plotting war strategy, and mumbling "F* the UN" to himself. Over the course of the past year we've gone from totally alone, to having Brit support, then Aussie, then Italian and Eastern European, then some middle eastern / Islamic support. It has, I guarantee you, been a pain in the ass to get anyone beyond the Brits to sign on. It did not arise without effort.

Not everyone in the world is going to back us, most of them for their own less-than idealistic reasons. That's fine; they don't have to share in the victory of freedom that we are going to bring to the Iraqis (and others later). And they can take their oil deals with Baghdad and stick them where the sun doesn't shine.

Yes, and for every terrorist that they don't kill, a busload full of babies and old ladies gets friggen blown to tic tacs. You have a better solution?

(And don't say "Free the Palestinians" - they've already tried that with the Oslo process for 9 years straight, and it got them nowhere. Appeasement seldom works when you're dealing with unprincipled thugs and terrorists. Much like sanctions with Saddam...)

Sometimes, force is the only option that works. And you just have to ignore it when people scream at you for defending yourself. It's surprisingly easy to do when your cause is just... But if you refuse to act just because someone else tells you not to, you're likely to end up getting the wrong end of the stick later.

 

Originally posted by Major
He's never made the comprehensive argument, as far as I've seen. Sure, he's said random pieces here and there, but he's never stood up and made the absolute case.

Who places much stock in the speeches anyway? Spin doctors are at work in any politician's speech.

To me, it's almost 2 separate issues:
1) Is there cause for War?
2) What are the President's motivations?


We see this every day in Israel. For every terrorist they kill, they create two more because they are perceived as this ruthless government by others. They can keep doing that ad infinatum if they want, but it isn't going to accomplish anything in the long-run.

I think the key will be what happens after. The Israeli government never goes back in afterwards to rebuild the innocent civilians' homes or businesses. If the US leaves Iraq ASAP (after the dust has settled), the Iraqis have democracy and complete autonomy over their country, including the oil, your analogy will not apply. In fact, in may do much to improve the image of the US.

If we do not help the Iraqi people after this or try to unduly influence the new government, you will be right on the money.

 

<a HREF="http://www.irna.com/en/world/030201162332.ewo.shtml"><b>German secret service</b> points to Iraqi chemical, biological arms</A>

<i>Berlin, Feb 1, IRNA -- German foreign intelligence service BND has evidence that Iraq has mobile laboratories to develop and produce biological and chemical weapons, the website of the weekly Focus reported Saturday.
The laboratories are camouflaged as normal trucks, according to BND. Some of the laboratories' components were purchased in Germany, BND chief August Hanning said in a recent meeting with the German parliament's foreign affairs committee.
Hanning also added that Iraq attempted to buy material for the
construction of missiles in Germany.</i>

Here is the article in German:
<A HREF="http://focus.msn.de/G/GP/GPA/gpa.htm?snr=116201">Mitschnitte sollen Saddam entlarven</A>

......<b>BND: Kampfstoffe in Lkw hergestellt</B>
<i>
Der Irak setzt nach Erkenntnissen des Bundesnachrichtendienstes (BND) rollende Labors zur Entwicklung und Herstellung von Kampfstoffen ein. Wie FOCUS berichtet, sind die Labors als normale Lastwagen getarnt. Der BND habe schon im November dem Auswärtigen Ausschuss des Bundestages Details über die rollenden Labors mitgeteilt.

BND-Chef August Hanning berichtete den Bundestagsabgeordneten weiter, die irakische Regierung habe auch in Deutschland Bauteile gekauft, die für solche transportablen Labors verwendet werden können. Hanning zufolge hat Irak zudem versucht, in Deutschland Material für den Bau von Raketen zu erwerben. Die Parlamentarier mussten dem BND-Mann Geheimhaltung zusichern. Oppositionsabgeordnete dringen laut FOCUS jetzt darauf, dass die Bundesregierung die Erkenntnisse des Nachrichtendienstes veröffentlicht oder zumindest dem UN-Sicherheitsrat zugänglich macht.........</i>

Here is the same article ran through the babelfish translation site.

<i>
In English:

Federal Intelligence Service: Agents in truck manufactured The Iraq uses rolling laboratories after realizations of the Federal Information Service (Federal Intelligence Service) for the development and production of agents. As FOCUS reports, the laboratories are camouflaged as normal trucks. The Federal Intelligence Service already communicated details to the foreign committee of the federal daily in November about the rolling laboratories. Federal Intelligence Service boss August Hanning continued to report the Member of the Bundestag, who Iraqi government had also in Germany construction units bought, which can be used for such transportable laboratories. According to Hanning Iraq besides tried to acquire in Germany material for the building from rockets to. The parliamentarians had to assure secrecy to the Federal Intelligence Service man. Opposition delegates penetrate according to FOCUS now on the fact that the Federal Government publishes or at least for the uncertainty advice makes the realizations of the intelligence service accessible.
</i>

 

I agree with you regarding defending oneself. I don't unerstand why Israel has taken heat on some of its responses to terrorist attacks.

On the other hand, you seem like a fighter...won't let anyone screw with your country. Have you ever considered what you'd be doing right now if you were born a Palestinian?

 

I'm quite sure that I'd be fighting Israelis were I a Palestinian. I would likely have been thoroughly brainwashed by the Palestinian leadership as to the causes of the conflict, and think nothing was unusual about wanting to destroy the state of Israel and throw the jews into the sea. But I'm not, am I? It is irrelevant what I would do were I a Palestinian, and the hypothetical does nothing to justify their actions.

As it is, I'm a Westerner, and my support tends towards westernized societies, because their desired state of affairs is peace. It is also far easier to support the side that doesn't purposefully try to kill noncombatants in a systematic fashion.

 

I sure hope they present NEW evidence. If all they have is the left over gulf war intel, it will be hard on Bush to make a case against the ouster of an entire government.

DD