Re: OT 'helping' Iraq?


"Ian Pace" <ian@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:sW5fg.4006$Z7.7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Frank Berger" <frank.d.berger@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:127p39dccn6bd25@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Ian Pace" <ian@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:xfHeg.4285$zv2.3565@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"William Sommerwerck" <gizzledgeezer@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uamdnfFP_skUvObZnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I guess the question is: Would Congress have approved going to war
if they had known that there were no WMDs in Iraq and that Hussein
had nothing to do with 9/11.

The believed the former, but "everyone" knew Saddam had nothing to do
with
9/11.

Rice and Powell did not believe the former, at least on the basis of
what they said as much in public pre 9/11 -
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WMDlies.html

Ian


Neither statement actually disputes that Saddam had WMD stockpiles.
So, do WMD stockpiles not constitute some 'signficant capability with
respect to weapons of mass destruction' (which Powell said Saddam had
*not* developed), or constitute some rebuilding of his military forces
(which Rice said had not occurred)? This is ridiculous sophistry, it seem
to me.

Colin Powell, February 2001: "[Saddam] has not developed any significant
capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to
project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our
policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq."
Condoleeza Rice, July 2001: "We are able to keep his arms from him. His
military forces have not been rebuilt."

Now, are you really telling me that these statements are consistent with
alleging Saddam was sufficient of a threat in terms of WMD to warrant
full-scale invasion and overthrow?

Let me add - I know that your view is that it is morally justified to
invade and overthrow a dictator, if a democracy does so. I do respect your
right to hold that view, whatever I think of the view itself. The point
that is being debated here is whether the war was 'sold' to the American
(and British) people on flagrantly false premises (the WMD justification
was, if anything, even more strongly asserted in Britain). Now, for a
major foreign war to be 'sold' in this way, based on lies, is a crime
worth of impeachment, in my view (certainly much more worthy of
impeachment that lying about whether one's intern gave head or not).

Whilst I have contempt for most of the foreign policy actions of not just
American, but also most British and European, leaders in the post-1945
world (and of course before then as well, but that's another area).
However, one doesn't have to be a Marxist, a socialist, a social democrat
or even a liberal to go with at least some what I'll suggest here.

The 2003 Iraq war set a whole new precedent. Whilst governments had
overthrown other regimes in vaguely (or not so vaguely) covert manners for
a long time (Guatemala? Chile? Iran? Or even Iraq?), to actually go in
openly to overthrow a regime and install some other system in its place is
on a new level. What Bush senior was doing was quite different - whilst I
did not support the first Gulf War (the principle of ending the occupation
of Kuwait is a reasonable one, but for the US to do it causes more
problems than it solves, not to mention their heavy-handed (to use a tame
term) military tactics), I can see how there was a finite and achievable
end in sight - simply to drive Iraqi troops back behind the pre-invasion
borders. I actually believe, if Margaret Thatcher was in power in 2003
(and trust me I detest everything she stood for and did as much as anyone
can) she might not have gone along with the American plans (she didn't go
along with the Grenada invasion, say, and was very public about that).
Everything about her politics were wrong, but she was not stupid. She knew
the immense dangers of actually taking over a country and installing a new
regime, all the long-term consequences and effects of that. Same with
numerous of Bush Senior's adminstration (maybe even Bush Senior himself in
private?). This is the sort of crazed loony stuff that these neo-con
ideologues dream up. This is not simply about preserving the status quo in
the world and the relative stability of political/business interests, this
was part of some messianic mission to drag the rest of the world kicking
and screaming into line with neo-con ideals, using military force to do
so. The ideology behind it, and the influence that its proponents have, is
a deeply dangerous thing. Gulf War 1 in some sense played a part in
provoking the events that eventually made 9/11 possible - the long-term
effects of the 2003 war are likely to be much more drastic. The region has
never been so unstable as it is now - the most crazed extreme
fundamentalists have been afforded a wholly new legitimacy, in the eyes of
many people there, by the American invasion. Can anyone really maintain
that the situation in the Middle East is more stable and peaceful now than
it was even 5 years ago or so?

Ian



From President Bush's State of the Union speech in January 2002:

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when
have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us
on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and
suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come
too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a
strategy, and it is not an option."

So he didn't claim Saddam was an immenent threat, let alone lie about that.

From Bush's September 2002 speech to the United Nations"

"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally
forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction,
long-range missiles, and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for
terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N.
Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its
civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others,
again as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf
War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any
who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses
resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with
international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security
Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit
trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration
of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and
promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people."
Here the President clearly outlines multiple reasons to invade Iraq.

I don't know what Rice or Powell thought by September 2002.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Cinco De Mayo LOS RANGERS
    ... (Gordon and Trainor, _The Generals' War, ... of Iraqi forces from Kuwait to going after Saddam. ... belatedly told his top military commanders that Iraq didn't have any ... WMD in possession and told them not to plan on ...
    (alt.sports.baseball.ny-yankees)
  • Re: Anti-War Demonstrators March on Washington
    ... > WASHINGTON -- Crowds opposed to the war in Iraq surged past the White ... > stockpiles of WMD were not found, Saddam had all the pieces in place ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: OT - Blue & Red
    ... >>> to justify a war that is killing human beings you need something more ... >>I haven't seen any compelling proof that there aren't WMD in Iraq; ... > So what if Saddam had WMD? ... > shred) to show Saddam had any plans at all to attack the US or even ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)
  • Re: OT helping Iraq?
    ... Neither statement actually disputes that Saddam had WMD stockpiles. ... Now, for a major foreign war to be 'sold' in this way, based on lies, is ... "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. ... If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)
  • Re: OT - Blue & Red
    ... > his nose and women were running around Iraq without any hoods on. ... >>> didn't have any WMD anymore) then don't you think it's a poor test to ... >>> impossible or we'll go to war how is that in effect any different from ... How could that have happened if Saddam had already ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)