When the Chief US weapons inspector...

[CaramonLS]

...Says you are wrong... what the hell kind of intellegence are you relying on?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor.../a9790_2004oct5

[Looger]

what kills me is that it's the american government's fault that weapons inspectors were kicked out of iraq in the first place:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/ja...iraq-j07.shtml

and even a pretty american-favoured timeline shows CIA / UNSCOM dirty play:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...m/etc/cron.html

what i cannot understand is how the world lets america do these things, like get weapons inspectors kicked out for legitimate reasons, and then claim that iraq must have a program when in fact it did not.

lack of evidence (by their own doing) is not reason enough.

the united states, in 1998, and this canot be emphasized enough:

GAVE THE MORAL HIGH GROUND TO IRAQ AND SADDAM HUSSEIN

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by CaramonLS@Oct 6 2004, 02:12 PM
...Says you are wrong... what the hell kind of intellegence are you relying on?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor.../a9790_2004oct5

It looks like there is something in there for both sides of the debate but the bottom line is nothing was there and that leaves the President and his team looking like morons and idiots.

One has to wonder what Saddam Hussein was doing playing chicken with the most powerful and paranoid nation on earth. If he had nothing, why not co-operate with UN weapons inspectors and demonstrate that? The report obviously concludes he wasn't co-operating with UN inspectors and was continually trying to circumvent sanctions.

However . . . . . the "gathering threat" argument is over. The phrase "persistant threat" will soon surface.

what kills me is that it's the american government's fault that weapons inspectors were kicked out of iraq in the first place:

You mean it was Bill Clinton's fault.

I believe it was under the watch of George Bush that UN weapons inspections in Iraq resumed after a long absence.

Cowperson

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Looger@Oct 6 2004, 02:21 PM
what i cannot understand is how the world lets america do these things, like get weapons inspectors kicked out for legitimate reasons, and then claim that iraq must have a program when in fact it did not.

The thing is, most countries were against America's action in Iraq, and even those that politically supported it for personal reasons (Spain, Italy, Poland, Ukraine), had massive protests because the actual people of those nations were actually against it.

What surpises me is how lightly supporters of the war take it. It's no big deal to them. They just try to change in their heads what the reason was for the war. Personally, I would be mad as hell if I were duped.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Oct 6 2004, 02:40 PM
One has to wonder what Saddam Hussein was doing playing chicken with the most powerful and paranoid nation on earth. If he had nothing, why not co-operate with UN weapons inspectors and demonstrate that? The report obviously concludes he wasn't co-operating with UN inspectors and was continually trying to circumvent sanctions.

The problem is that when you are a country in the middle east, espcecially one with a lot of oil, you want to appear strong or ally yourself with powerful nations.

Iraq, at one time, was allied with and supported by the U.S. and Britain. For obvious reasons, this was not going to happen again. If Iraq completely exposed itself as a weak nation, it would have only been a matter of time until Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria started annexing parts of the country.

The trick was to change the diplomatic approach. The fact that UN inspectors were begging for more time in Iraq and claimed things were moving along, if slowly, shows that diplomacy could have worked. Too bad every statement and action Bush took made it practically impossible for Iraq to comply. There came a point when well before the war, everyone knew it was going to happen and there was nothing IRaq could have done to avoid it. Obviously at that point, why would they comply other than to buy time?

[Looger]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Oct 6 2004, 02:40 PM
You mean it was Bill Clinton's fault.

I believe it was under the watch of George Bush that UN weapons inspections in Iraq resumed after a long absence.

Cowperson

the intricacies of american politics mean little to a region gripped by fear and paralyzed by what america might do next.

yes, it was bill clinton that authorized the TERRORIST ACT (undeclared act of war on a civilian population), the regionally infamous sudan aspirin debacle.

yes, UN weapons inspections, courtesy on hans blix (sp?), probably could not have resumed if not for america's tough stance.

but it remains to be said that america, regardless of who was the head honcho, had long before lost any diplomatic clout in the situation.

absolutely despicable, allowing the CIA to sneak in on UNSCOM's equipment, and then claiming moral superiority after the fact.

that act, right there, is the declaration of pax americana.

it's on.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Looger+Oct 6 2004, 03:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Looger @ Oct 6 2004, 03:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Oct 6 2004, 02:40 PM
You mean it was Bill Clinton's fault.

I believe it was under the watch of George Bush that UN weapons inspections in Iraq resumed after a long absence.

Cowperson

the intricacies of american politics mean little to a region gripped by fear and paralyzed by what america might do next.

yes, it was bill clinton that authorized the TERRORIST ACT (undeclared act of war on a civilian population), the regionally infamous sudan aspirin debacle.

yes, UN weapons inspections, courtesy on hans blix (sp?), probably could not have resumed if not for america's tough stance.

but it remains to be said that america, regardless of who was the head honcho, had long before lost any diplomatic clout in the situation.

absolutely despicable, allowing the CIA to sneak in on UNSCOM's equipment, and then claiming moral superiority after the fact.

that act, right there, is the declaration of pax americana.

it's on. [/b][/quote]
the intricacies of american politics mean little to a region gripped by fear and paralyzed by what america might do next.

That's overstating things isn't it?

America left Saudi Arabia. Are Egypt, Jordan and Iran seriously worried about a USA ground invasion? Nope.

Syria might be but not likely. Do states like Kuwait, Qatar, etc, fear a USA invasion? Nope.

If the leadership of those countries are worried about something its the threat of incitement to their own populations from American actions, causing them to drift toward a greater police state to keep things under control.

American politicians on both sides seem to feel successful democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq will eventually "grip the region in fear."

Cowperson

[Lurch]

the intricacies of american politics mean little to a region gripped by fear and paralyzed by what america might do next.

That's overstating things isn't it?

America left Saudi Arabia. Are Egypt, Jordan and Iran seriously worried about a USA ground invasion? Nope.

Syria might be but not likely. Do states like Kuwait, Qatar, etc, fear a USA invasion? Nope.

If the leadership of those countries are worried about something its the threat of incitement to their own populations from American actions, causing them to drift toward a greater police state to keep things under control.

American politicians on both sides seem to feel successful democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq will eventually "grip the region in fear."

Methinks you invalidate your own response. US invasion is far from the biggest worry for most countries, but that's a long way from saying that US actions won't instigate instability, terror, bombings, etc. in the Middle East. Sure, it won't actually be the US dropping the bombs in most cases, but you can be sure most people in the region will think US policy is playing a role by inciting terrorists and extremists.

[arsenal]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Oct 6 2004, 07:55 AM
The trick was to change the diplomatic approach. The fact that UN inspectors were begging for more time in Iraq and claimed things were moving along, if slowly, shows that diplomacy could have worked. Too bad every statement and action Bush took made it practically impossible for Iraq to comply. There came a point when well before the war, everyone knew it was going to happen and there was nothing IRaq could have done to avoid it. Obviously at that point, why would they comply other than to buy time?

The fact is that when ever the inspectors would want to visit a location, they where recieved with "No, not right now". Or if they where given access to inspect a location, on one instance at least, they saw flat bed trucks leaving the complex, with equipment for enriching uranium.

Evidence of WMD's production was found as late as 1997, 6 years after the first inspectors where given access to Iraq. That is also 6 years after Saddam was forbidden from producing WMD's. And the only reason they where able to determine this, was becuase a high ranking officer, defected to the US and told them exactly where to look.

With Saddam, diplomicy never would of worked. It didnt work for 10+ years between the 2 wars in Iraq. There was no evidence that it was ever going to work.
He was just giving enough to appease the world community. At the same time, not enough to for the inspectors to actually determine anything.

He set up the US to look like the bad person in this. And it seems to have worked.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lurch@Oct 6 2004, 04:16 PM

Methinks you invalidate your own response. US invasion is far from the biggest worry for most countries, but that's a long way from saying that US actions won't instigate instability, terror, bombings, etc. in the Middle East. Sure, it won't actually be the US dropping the bombs in most cases, but you can be sure most people in the region will think US policy is playing a role by inciting terrorists and extremists.

Didn't you just say what I said?

Cowperson

[Looger]

israel occupies less than 1% of all the arab lands in the mideast, yet it has been a threat for over 50 years.

fact and fiction, fear and loathing are what i'm talking aboot.

it doesn't matter that the US doesn't intend to invade and occupy every arab country.

what matters is they have invaded ONE country, and regardless of their intentions (which are far from altruistic), it is perceived in the worst way by moderate arabs everywhere, for some valid reasons.

the problem as perceived by many americans was the 19 highjackers willing to lay down their lives for the struggle.

fact is there's always wackos out there willing to do the dirty work.

the REAL problem is the fear and resentment towards america present in all the arab world, and the attitude that guys like bin laden are tolerable as long as they cut america down to size.

this attitude is growing with each day iraq is occupied.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by arsenal@Oct 6 2004, 04:22 PM
The fact is that when ever the inspectors would want to visit a location, they where recieved with "No, not right now". Or if they where given access to inspect a location, on one instance at least, they saw flat bed trucks leaving the complex, with equipment for enriching uranium.

Evidence of WMD's production was found as late as 1997, 6 years after the first inspectors where given access to Iraq. That is also 6 years after Saddam was forbidden from producing WMD's. And the only reason they where able to determine this, was becuase a high ranking officer, defected to the US and told them exactly where to look.

With Saddam, diplomicy never would of worked. It didnt work for 10+ years between the 2 wars in Iraq. There was no evidence that it was ever going to work.
He was just giving enough to appease the world community. At the same time, not enough to for the inspectors to actually determine anything.

He set up the US to look like the bad person in this. And it seems to have worked.

It did work as we now see that Hussein was pretty much contained. If he wasn't, US troops would be having their photos in front of the WMD right now.

You're basically just saying what Bush has said but never proven.

[Lurch]

Didn't you just say what I said?

I thought that was the point - your own response invalidated your initial premise.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lurch@Oct 6 2004, 04:28 PM

I thought that was the point - your own response invalidated your initial premise.

I was observing cause and effect.

An outside power invading and blowing things up is a little different than the local government engaging in police state activities as a reaction, keeping a lid on things.

People die but . . . . not the same thing.

Cowperson

[Lurch]

With Saddam, diplomicy never would of worked. It didnt work for 10+ years between the 2 wars in Iraq. There was no evidence that it was ever going to work.
He was just giving enough to appease the world community. At the same time, not enough to for the inspectors to actually determine anything.

Exactly how did diplomacy not work??? It is painfully obvious that the inspections stopped Saddam from getting weapons. When you fail to catch someone red-handed, there are two reasons: 1. The inspections failed or 2. There was nothing to catch.

The logic against the weapons inspections and diplomacy is very twisted, IMO. Clearly, it was VERY effective, and the war has proven this out. Just b/c the inspections were fraught with difficulties does not invalidate the process. If this is the standard you hold things to, its clear the war is not working either.

[Lurch]

I was observing cause and effect.

An outside power invading and blowing things up is a little different than the local government engaging in police state activities as a reaction, keeping a lid on things.

People die but . . . . not the same thing.

Sorry - my read on it was quite different. The original post suggested people in the Middle East don't really care who is in charge of the US, they have come to fear US policy in the region regardless. I agree with this idea, while your post suggested that it wasn't true initially, but then in the body seemed to say maybe it is true.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lurch@Oct 6 2004, 04:33 PM

Exactly how did diplomacy not work??? It is painfully obvious that the inspections stopped Saddam from getting weapons. When you fail to catch someone red-handed, there are two reasons: 1. The inspections failed or 2. There was nothing to catch.

The logic against the weapons inspections and diplomacy is very twisted, IMO. Clearly, it was VERY effective, and the war has proven this out. Just b/c the inspections were fraught with difficulties does not invalidate the process. If this is the standard you hold things to, its clear the war is not working either.

How would you know the inspections and sanctions worked?

He never complied fully. There was no open transparency. There were no independent interviews with Iraqi scientists and their families in an outside country as required by UN mandate, as one example.

Vladimir Putin told Bush directly that Saddam had WMD and would use them. The President of Egypt and the King of Jordan told General Tommy Franks Saddam had WMD and would use them. Saddam built a false image that killed him in the end.

We can see now there was no "gathering threat" but there was no corroboration there wasn't either, which appeared to be a goal of Saddam.

That doesn't excuse the end result, by the way. The end fact is there was nothing there.

Cowperson

[Looger]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Oct 6 2004, 03:39 PM
That's overstating things isn't it?

America left Saudi Arabia. Are Egypt, Jordan and Iran seriously worried about a USA ground invasion? Nope.

Syria might be but not likely. Do states like Kuwait, Qatar, etc, fear a USA invasion? Nope.

If the leadership of those countries are worried about something its the threat of incitement to their own populations from American actions, causing them to drift toward a greater police state to keep things under control.

American politicians on both sides seem to feel successful democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq will eventually "grip the region in fear."

Cowperson

you're lopping two groups of arab countries together.

the major divide in fact.

saudi arabia and kuwait represent america's pals. they hated and feared iraq because they thoroughly betrayed it in the late eighties, and ran behind their friendly uncle sam when trouble brewed.

witness kuwait, despite its small size it is very high on the list of proven reserves in the world - yet it didn't have any trouble with the moral dillemna of directional drilling under iraq. after all, what could iraq do?

in syria and iran, the fear is very real, because these countries have probably supported terror 100x or more than iraq did.

as if preventing terror were the real reason for the invasion!

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Lurch@Oct 6 2004, 04:33 PM

Exactly how did diplomacy not work??? It is painfully obvious that the inspections stopped Saddam from getting weapons. When you fail to catch someone red-handed, there are two reasons: 1. The inspections failed or 2. There was nothing to catch.

The logic against the weapons inspections and diplomacy is very twisted, IMO. Clearly, it was VERY effective, and the war has proven this out. Just b/c the inspections were fraught with difficulties does not invalidate the process. If this is the standard you hold things to, its clear the war is not working either.

misconception. the war worked pretty much fab. the after war effort has been dismal.

I don't get where people thing that there should even be a diplomatic solution with Saddam and other people of his ilk. Or that its a great thing that he's contained and all obligations are off because of this. i was one of the people in the first Gulf War that wanted the American's and thier allies to drive on Baghdad and kill that piece of trash dead. but there was no exit plan, and there was a good chance that the Arab members of the original coalition would have beem upset.

I also don't get how the weapons inspections were working. Can somebody please explain this too me. basically Saddam was dictating the terms of the inspection, and not allowing surprise inspections where he didn't want them. He also refused to allow his scienctific personal to be removed from Iraq with thier families for further investigations, this was clearly countered to the UN agreements.

Weapons inspections weren't working because Saddam was only allowing them to see what he wanted to see.

Is that linked to the fact that the American's didn't find any WMD? Not really I think the American's were pretty much surprised that they didn't find what they were looking for. Thier front line troops were all carrying Gas Suits and masks when they were approaching Baghdad, and to be honest, you don't carry those for a political statement, they weigh a lot, and in the Infantry weight is life.

[Looger]

Captain Crunch,

i agree that saddam was not cooperating with the inspections.

but why give him ammunition? why sabotage UNSCOM?

they gave him enough time to bury all the evidence.

every lengthy scott ritter interview i've ever read has the underlying premise that if america had let him do his job he would have caught saddam red-handed.

america did not let him do his job.