The Iraq Dossier in full

W

Will

Guest
Wow, did we just engage in intelligent debate in the General forum? Better get the warning changed on the way in.
 
P

PR.

Guest
You really think that we would go to war with Sadam, damage relations with many countries like Russia/China/France go against the UN all because Tony doesn't want to talk about the NHS & Crime?
 
W

Will

Guest
I was more referring to George W Bush, with all the corporate America accounting scandals. With a slight mental leap, going to war in the current "U-S-A, U-S-A" climate would place more of the US electorate against the more liberal Democrats, and lose them the abilty to draw attention to issues such as Bushs horrific enviromental policies and tax breaks for Oil/Power companies.
 
T

Testin da Cable

Guest
Originally posted by Itcheh
Wow, did we just engage in intelligent debate in the General forum? Better get the warning changed on the way in.

"Beware: glimmers of intelligence detected. Proceed at your own risk"
 
P

prime1

Guest
Relations with Russia, China and France wont be severely damaged over this, regardless of what they *say*, the only people who stand to lose out for poor relations are Russia, France and China, cause the US has more money and more resources and is able to do them more *favours*. They arnt gona jeopardise that over Iraq, they are just milking the situation for all its worth, and ensuring that the money they were expecting to get from construction contracts within Iraq is gotten back through beoing bought off by the US at a later date. Or by being seen by the Iraqis at being "anti-war" so that once its over and done with, they can then say "hey look, nothing to do with me , now about those construction contracts".

Germany is the only country that has overplayed its anti war stance, and Germany will suffer because of it.

Ultimatiely everyone knows that Saddam cannot be trusted, has comitted attrocities and viloated UN resolutions (can we leave Israel out of this - its a FAR more complicated situation there).

You cannot give the sources on information in that kind of dossier, if you do the source is then useless and can gain no more information, or the source gets killed. It simply isnt possible. Ultimately the people that actually KNOW, feel the evidence is there. There is no financial gain in a war with Iraq (itl cost the US $8billion just to pay off Russia), the US is setting up an energy deal to ensure it gets all teh oil it needs from Russia, the UK and itself, so oil isnt really a concern for him either. A war damages stock markets - if the war is solely about "hiding" the current stock market and economic problems, is a fucking stupid way of doing them, cause it just makes em worse (the FTSE just hit a 6yr low cause of it).

The question isnt about invading a country just because they have chemical weapons. Its about invading a country to remove a vile and brutal dictator, who has chemical weapons AND has used them, and is likely to use them again. Its about a regime whose regional power is based almost entirely on its neighbours fear of its chemical weapons. If Iraq is left to its own deeds, even if Iraq does nothing particularly hostile, it will result in an arms race in the region, so that Iraq cannot dominate its neighbours - and an arms race is not good for anybody.

The arguments against are either pure pacifism or an irrational mistrust or hatred of anything and everything the US supports.

The same arguments were put forward agaisnt Kosovo intervention, and back then they were wrong as well. Theres no point arguing with me as one of my good friends was special forces attached to KFOR, and he saw for himself what the Serb soldiers had been doing.
 
W

Will

Guest
And they have agreed to admit the weapons inspectors again, removing America's justification for invasion. But that is no longer the point, is it?

I wonder if this is why the dossier contained details of mobile production facilities (a very strange idea, since making chem/bio weapons is a very involved process).
 
P

prime1

Guest
Yea and they agreed to let them in in the first place as well, but that didnt work very well. Iraq has already attached certain "proviso's" and dodgy wordings to its promise to allow "unmittigated access" and based on its previous history, and that the US/UK beleive he knows now how to foil inspections based on their previous experiences. The UK and US are trying to get a resolution passed that says "IF Iraq obstructs the inspectors again, IF they prevent the previous resolution" then we can use military force.

I can see nothing wrong with this resolution, because if Iraq actually DOES offer unfettered access and hides nothing, its got nothing to worry about from the UN.

I personally beleive that Saddam needs to be removed regardless of weapons inspections, just because of what he does to his own people. The US/UK feel the same way, but they want the international community to udnerstand and accept, but the US has always maintained that for them, weapons inspectors is not really their key concern, they tried it before and it didnt work. The sanctions are hurting the Iraqi people, because Saddam chooses it to, so the best and quickest thing to do is remove the source of the problem : Saddam. Once he is gone, sanctions can be lifted and help can be given to rebuild Iraq, as well as improved stability and security in the area.

If Saddam isnt removed, his son eventually takes over, and for all intensive purposes he looks to be even more of a nutcase than "daddy".
 
S

stu

Guest
Originally posted by Wij
The whole tone of your previous posts on the subject has suggested you think that this is something made up by George Bush to improve his chances in the mid-terms in some X-Files style conspiracy.

No, it's no conspiracy. The reasons for doing it are out there for everyone to see - they're just not the same ones used to justify it. Ironically, if Bush came out and told everyone why he REALLY wanted to invade Iraq, I'd have more respect for him.

I don't see how anyone can really believe that Saddam is NOT trying to stockpile weapons and develop new ones.

I don't think that. I also am neither pro-war, nor anti-war. If it is proven that Iraq has been stockpiling NBC weaponry contrary to the restrictions put in place at the end of the Gulf War, then I would support an action. If Iraq resists attempts to prove whether or not it has been stockpiling NBC weaponry, then I would support an action. What I *dont* support is an action based on absolutely NO proof.

I'm certain he has some weapons and that he is in violation of UN resolutions. It's a non-issue.

Legal burdens of proof are irrelevant. This is not a court.

Maybe it's a non-issue to you, but some of us need reasons to do things. And you're wrong, legal burdens are very relevant. Global society is built around fundamental principles of law and order. The doctrine of presumed innocence goes to the very basics of natural law - that is, law that exists *because it is necessary for a civilised society*, not Law created by Lawmakers. Notice lower-case n, lower-case l. If you do not have natural law as a foundation of society, then you have anarchy. Or, to put it another way - natural law is society's 'instinct'.

The fact that it's a non-issue, though, goes to the very heart of the problem. For all of the supposed "reasons to attack Iraq" that have been raised over the past few months (Iraq involved with Al Qaeda/state sponsored terrorism, Iraq behind the Anthrax attacks, Iraq in possession of weaponry, etc), I can give you reams of EVIDENCE to the contrary. And yet you (along with UK and US intelligence, if that dossier is anything to go by) can't actually provide any supporting evidence at all, apart from the fact that you believe it to be so. How exactly can you be certain of anything when you have NO supporting evidence to back it up? Are you that willing/gullible to just blindly accept what someone else tells you?

Show me the proof, and I'll arm the warheads myself. But don't piss on my back and tell me it's raining.

Originally posted by prime
The UK and US are trying to get a resolution passed that says "IF Iraq obstructs the inspectors again, IF they prevent the previous resolution" then we can use military force.

I can see nothing wrong with this resolution, because if Iraq actually DOES offer unfettered access and hides nothing, its got nothing to worry about from the UN.

Totally agree with you, in spirit. The perfect resolution would be the readmission of UN weapon inspectors, with no restrictions or hidden agenda (applied from either side of the fence). And I have no problem with a new resolution being drafted that imposes tougher sanctions (whether they be military, economic, etc) on non-compliance. The problem I have is that the US has already publically gone a *long* way down the "invasion at all costs" path that it's difficult to believe that NBC weaponry is really what this is all about now, rather than just using it as an excuse. Bush has said countless times that he believes a regime change is needed, and that has nothing to do with weaponry. *If* they can get a resolution drafted that isn't subsequently abused through some non-compliance technicality to 'justify' an action, then I'm all for it. I guess when the US has already ramped up it's war machine to the point that there's around 600,000 troops around Iraq, it's difficult to believe that they'll simply go home should the inspectors go in and (potentially) find nothing there.
 
W

Wij

Guest
I said I was certain that Saddam was stockpiling weapons, not that he had anything to do with Sept 11th. I find that very doubtful indeed.

To put this in more of a legal framework if you prefer then, the US will not name many of it's sources that it claims show that Saddam has weapons. This may not be enough for a conviction then but it would surely be enough for a search warrant :) If you then refuse to allow the authorities in, with the appropriate documentation, then you have committed an offence no ?

No sensible country would expect all the details of how the info was gained before even contemplating having a closer look at Saddam anyway. That's just toss :)
 
P

prime1

Guest
the problem is the soruces for teh evidence against, well.. who are they? where did THEY get their evidence? You also have to rememebr that those sources dont have to worry about providing the same information in the future, or continued monitoring for future details. They also dont have to worry about their lives and their families. The dossier is based on field agent reports as well as eye witness details. The problem is that these field agents and eye wtinesses, if revelealed, run a very real risk of getting assisanted/executed. Its not a fair comparrison.

The arguments agaisnt are also based on the same conjecture, except they can be more vocal, and sound more credible, because they have less to lose by doing so.

For teh reasons ive mentioend before I genuinely beleive that the US and UK psotion is based on a desire to make things better for everyone, including the Iraqi people, a war is an incredibly expensive thing (ever wonder why Britain isnt a super power anymore?). Every piece of ordanance fired costs money to manufacture, costs resources etc, and once its used, its gone, for good. They arent selling the explosion to the enemy, if war was pofitable it would happen far more often than it does now.

Can you honestly defend Saddam ? Can you honestly defend his regime? Do you honestly beleive that nothing bad will happen (not necassarily to us) if Saddam has the restrictions on him lifted and his leash removed? I certainly cant/dont, i see nothign wrong with implementing a regime change in Iraq, simply because the regime there genuinely needs changing and sorting out. I dont beleive the US will put a puppet in place, becuase the US will want a democracy in place there. Any puppet would have to go through an election at some point within the first few years, and if the people dont want them, theyl get rid of them.

If you can genunely say yes, with absolute certainty to the above, then I would love to hear the arguments, because so far most of the arguments against, seem to be about accusing the US of wanting to gain something financial or pollitical through a war with Iraq, and that simply dosnt cut it.
 
P

prime1

Guest
oh, and the US dosnt have 600,000 personel in the area! that would be most of their army - and a hel lof a lot more than the entire coalition that took part in the 1st Gulf War.

The entire UK army is only 110,000, the entire Iraq army is 375,000 and they out number the US, its somethign like 100000 troops in the area, as convenient as it sounds a lot of those are there for a regualr yearly training exercise. A lot of equipment and personal have been moved teh region in prepartion for war, but thats just common sense, no point declaring war, then having to wait a few weeks, or risk Iraq attacking Kuwait b4 the US is ready, where theres an understrength US force there.
 
S

stu

Guest
Hmmm, this is gonna be a long one...

Originally posted by prime1
the problem is the soruces for teh evidence against, well.. who are they? where did THEY get their evidence? You also have to rememebr that those sources dont have to worry about providing the same information in the future, or continued monitoring for future details. They also dont have to worry about their lives and their families. The dossier is based on field agent reports as well as eye witness details. The problem is that these field agents and eye wtinesses, if revelealed, run a very real risk of getting assisanted/executed. Its not a fair comparrison.
Actually, that's not true at all. The vast majority of the "intelligence" within the JIC dossier has come directly from the political "opposition" to Saddam, who are currently in exile. The name of the party/group escapes me, I'll look it up though. Regardless, it can hardly be considered 'unbiased' intel - who stands to benefit the most from Saddam being removed, after all?

If there *was* proper intel backing up these claims, then the dossier would hold considerably more weight. As it is, this has been a *major* problem for the US, both w/r to Sept 11th/'war on terror', and Iraq. They've repeatedly tried to turn up information on Iraq, as obviously legitimate intel data would be the only excuse needed. But they've come up short again and again. The anthrax attacks turned out to be domestic. The links between Mohammed Atta and Iraqi intelligence were completely false. ALL surveillance of Iraq has discovered absolutely nothing in terms of qualified evidence of NBC weaponry/launchers. The CIA even grudgingly reported in May of this year that they have 'no' evidence of Iraqi sponsorship of terrorism, or weapons building, since 1993.

As for the evidence against... well that's all in the public domain. And that's why it's compelling. It's not a case of "here are the facts, but we can't tell you where they came from". It's based on UNSCOM reports, Red Cross reports, independent investigative journalists (and when I say that I don't mean headline-chasers, I mean internationally respected, experienced and extremely knowledgable people like Robert Fisk, Amelia Peltz, Bruce Jackson, etc). It's even coming from the US Government, both past and present - Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Madelaine Allbright are just three who have publically admitted that the "NBC buildup" excuse is just that - an excuse.

The arguments agaisnt are also based on the same conjecture, except they can be more vocal, and sound more credible, because they have less to lose by doing so.
I'd venture to say that reports from INSIDE the country, from independent bodies (such as those above) are considerably less based on conjecture than the opinions of those OUTSIDE the country who have a clear and obvious agenda.

For teh reasons ive mentioend before I genuinely beleive that the US and UK psotion is based on a desire to make things better for everyone, including the Iraqi people, a war is an incredibly expensive thing (ever wonder why Britain isnt a super power anymore?). Every piece of ordanance fired costs money to manufacture, costs resources etc, and once its used, its gone, for good. They arent selling the explosion to the enemy, if war was pofitable it would happen far more often than it does now.
Actually war is incredibly profitable for the US. Defence is the biggest industry in the country, and generates billions of dollars of revenue a year. And because the US doesn't have the same restrictions on political donations that we have in this country, lots of that goes into political campaign chests. The defence industry is the second biggest contributor to the Republican party in the world (the first is the oil industry, btw). Companies like Mcdonnell Douglas and Boeing did not get that big by war being a loss-making industry.

In fact, it's part of the reason we're in this mess at the moment - in 1982 Reagan removed the existing trade sanctions with Iraq, and legalised and encouraged military sales to the region. Congress AND the Senate tried to block the move, but were quashed by the White House on several occasions. More than 1 *billion* dollars worth of military hardware were sold to Iraq over the next 18 months, including the chemical weaponry Saddam used on the Iranians and the Kurds (despite the fact that selling the items was illegal), and the helicopters used to deploy them. After the Gulf War, the UN found in Iraq US military spectrometers, oscilloscopes, neutron initiators, high-speed nuclear fuses, detonation switches, and other tools used for the manufacture and deployment of nuclear weaponry. Al Atheer, one of the nuclear processing plants in Iraq that was destroyed in 1992, was created almost entirely out of US made and exported components and equipment.

Can you honestly defend Saddam ? Can you honestly defend his regime? Do you honestly beleive that nothing bad will happen (not necassarily to us) if Saddam has the restrictions on him lifted and his leash removed? I certainly cant/dont, i see nothign wrong with implementing a regime change in Iraq, simply because the regime there genuinely needs changing and sorting out.
No, I can't particularly defend Saddam on ethical, moral or civil grounds. He's a vicious bully, who has no problem exploiting people to get what he wants. But there's a lot worse out there - Ariel Sharon, for starters. So don't tell me that we're going to go get Saddam because he's a 'bad man'.

I dont beleive the US will put a puppet in place, becuase the US will want a democracy in place there. Any puppet would have to go through an election at some point within the first few years, and if the people dont want them, theyl get rid of them.
The USA has absolutely NO interest in establishing democracy or helping countries once it has achieved its objectives. Guatemala. Venezuela. Afghanistan (the first AND second time round). The Phillipines. Indonesia. Iraq (after the first Gulf war). They're just the few I can think of right now. I rest my case.

If you can genunely say yes, with absolute certainty to the above, then I would love to hear the arguments, because so far most of the arguments against, seem to be about accusing the US of wanting to gain something financial or pollitical through a war with Iraq, and that simply dosnt cut it.
Are you honestly telling me that you can't see the political or financial benefits for the US in a war on Iraq? Or are you telling me that the US doesn't do things for political and financial reasons? Because both of these leave me absolutely bloody incredulous.

The entire UK army is only 110,000, the entire Iraq army is 375,000 and they out number the US, its somethign like 100000 troops in the area, as convenient as it sounds a lot of those are there for a regualr yearly training exercise
no offence prime, but when I say something it's because I've got a source to back me up. Where do you get 100,000 from? In January Mark Erikson of the Asia Times reported that there were 50,000 US and British troops around Iraq. This was before Bush signed his illegal intelligence order to the CIA to topple Saddam. In the 4 weeks following this, the number grew to 100,000 US troops in and around Iraq - note this does not count operatives within the extended theatre. In August, 15,000 Turkish troops entered northern Iraq and seized a key airbase, in Mosul. They are still there, and their numbers have doubled since. Petra (the Jordanian news agency) reports 'tens of thousands' of US troops in Jordan, ostensibly for 'joint training exercises' with the Jordanian army - however the Jordanians are barred from the US camps, and no exercises thus far have taken place. The movement was unplanned before this year. The Kuwait Ministry of the Interior has reported exactly the same activity happening within its own country. As of the end of August, total troop deployment within immediate striking range of Iraq is around 400,000. Even if you assume that there have been NO deployments in the last 4-5 weeks, that is still significantly more than 100,000. And those numbers are reported by independent agencies with no reason to lie.
 
S

stu

Guest
Originally posted by Wij
To put this in more of a legal framework if you prefer then, the US will not name many of it's sources that it claims show that Saddam has weapons. This may not be enough for a conviction then but it would surely be enough for a search warrant :) If you then refuse to allow the authorities in, with the appropriate documentation, then you have committed an offence no ?

Agree 100% Which is why I said that restoration of the UN weapons inspectors, indepedent and with no pressure or agenda imposed by either side, would be the best solution. Iraq has said that it will let inspectors back in. There's been a lot of talk recently that they immediately issued "conditions", but I personally have not seen any actual documentation or examples of these - could anyone provide any links/information regarding what conditions are imposed? Personally I have no problem if the conditions revolve around ensuring the independence and focus of the inspectorate, but I do have a problem if they restrict the access of the inspectorate.
 
W

Wij

Guest
I only know what I heard on the news which is that several types of building would be off-limits, including palaces and hospitals, which have been suspected of housing hardware and research repesctively.
 
D

Damini

Guest
Stu, I'm not saying this to be argumentative, but I'm genuinely interested... you say we can't attack Saddam on the grounds of being "a bad man", and say there are worse out there. How do you differentiate? How do you define one regime as deplorable, and let another one pass? We know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that saddam has committed genocide. We know that he has used weapons that most store up for purely the threat factor. We know that he has no qualms about invading countries. We know those that oppose or threaten his regime end up getting killed, therefore irradicating the ability for an internally manifested revolution (other than by means of assassination or military coup pretty much, hardly open routes for democracy). You said yourself he had items which are used in nuclear weaponry, and at a guess he didn't have them because they make a nice focal point for the lounge. Should we let this pass, because you say Ariel Sharon is worse? Where do we draw the line? How much should we turn a blind eye to, and when should we intervene?

I know all the animosity towards the USA, its highly trendy etc.. etc.. and you are one of the few people that argues against the USA without just reverting to blind hate in the absence of rational thought, so I'll ask you this. You've heard the cliche With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility. The US is a very powerful, very rich country. Regardless of prior events, what is the onus on this country, with regards to political and global affairs? Should it not intervene with any country, regardless of what events are occuring there? Should it only intervene in countries it has financial dealings with? Should it only intervene with countries it is closely affiliated with?

Nazi Germany is an obvious thing to compare to, as its a very good example of dictatorship and hostility towards neighbouring countries (yes, I'm aware of the many flaws and different circumstances, but its a recognisable model and so it'll do). Irregardless of what actually did happen, what should the USA have done in that situation? Intervened in the initial stages? Intervened after the first few countries were invaded? Intervened after evidence of mass genocide? Intervened once its closest ally was attacked? Or not intervened at all?

This could read bitchy, and its honestly not meant to. I just would like to see how ideally the USA should act, in your opinion. You know me, I'd like the USA to fly around in a cape, fighting oppression and giving out flowers :) I was happy as larry when the war happened with Afghanistan, not because I'm a grrr girl warmonger, but because finally somebody would be helping a population free from totalitarianism, and sexual/political/fundamental oppression and giving them the chance (sometimes all it needs is just a little space to breathe in)to instigate change - I know this wasn't the reason for the war, but the aim (a regime change) achieved the same thing regardless. I'm an idealist, I don't claim to be anything other, I pay no attention to resources or money, and see the USA as a bottomless pit of resources that *could* be used to help people. Us airy fairy types have to exist, to balance you logicmongers out. So how do you feel the USA should act? As a super power, does it have responsibilities? And what do you see these responsibilities to be?
 
S

stu

Guest
Originally posted by Damini
you say we can't attack Saddam on the grounds of being "a bad man", and say there are worse out there. How do you differentiate?
I don't. That's my point. Look at all the hideously corrupt regimes out there, lots of them far worse than Saddam's Iraq. If they don't conflict with Western interests, then we don't give a shit about them. Hell, if they support western interests, then we bloody finance them! Look at what is going on in Indonesia at the moment - state sponsored widespread rape, torture and killing. The US won't do anything about it though, because it would threaten Exxon-Mobil's bottom line.

If you are going to start "correcting" regimes (and therein lies another philosophical debate that I'm not going to even broach - namely who is anyone to dictate what is and isn't right) then you have to do it wholesale. Otherwise I'm not going to believe that's the reason the troops are there in the first place.

We know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that saddam has committed genocide. We know that he has used weapons that most store up for purely the threat factor. We know that he has no qualms about invading countries. We know those that oppose or threaten his regime end up getting killed, therefore irradicating the ability for an internally manifested revolution (other than by means of assassination or military coup pretty much, hardly open routes for democracy).
We know that Ariel Sharon was directly responsible for the deaths of over 6000 Palestinians in Sabra and Shatila - the worst case of genocide since the Holocaust. We know that Israel keeps the Gaza Strip and the West Bank under 24 hour curfew, preventing civilians from leaving their homes to get food, medical attention, schooling, etc. We know that Israel is the only country in the "civilised" world where torture is legal. We know that Israel uses a tactic of 'targeted' assassination, which is contrary to the Geneva Convention. We know that Israel has repeatedly blocked any investigation into the Jenin incident, and whilst laying siege to the city refused entry to the Red Cross. We know that Israel suppresses any Palestinian media and prevents international journalists from entering the area. We know that Israel continues to build illegal settlements on Palestinian land. We know, essentially, that Israel has committed all the crimes against the Palestinian people that Nazi Germany committed against the Jews. We went to war against the Nazis, supposedly to 'fight the good fight'. And yet not more than TWO DAYS AGO the USA once again abstained from voting (and therefore paralysed, given it has veto) a UN directive for the Israeli army to stop their occupation of Ramallah. We know that one country has used their veto in UN security council decisions more times than all the other countries in it put together - the USA. And we know that over 40% of those vetoes have been to prevent sanctions against Israel.

You said yourself he had items which are used in nuclear weaponry, and at a guess he didn't have them because they make a nice focal point for the lounge.
The USA sold Iraq NBC weaponry (contrary to UN resolutions and international law) to help them win the Iran/Iraq war. Well, that's over and done with now. So let's assume the USA even has the right to demand Saddam disarms - I concede that point. I have no problem with the UN weapons inspectors returning to Iraq - I wholeheartedly support it. UNSCOM reported that 95-98% of Iraq's NBC capability was destroyed or rendered inoperable, but we might as well double check, so send them in. Only, it would be good if the CIA didn't try and hide its stooges in the teams this time round - not too much to ask is it?

Btw, in case you hadn't guessed, the only confirmed country with NBC weaponry in the Middle East is Israel.

Should we let this pass, because you say Ariel Sharon is worse? Where do we draw the line? How much should we turn a blind eye to, and when should we intervene?
We should intervene when there are proven, internationally recognised, consistent and gross violations of international law, civil liberties and human rights issues, state-sponsored torture and assassination. Unfortunately, we don't. You can't pull out the halo when it suits you - you either wear it or you don't.

You've heard the cliche With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility. The US is a very powerful, very rich country. Regardless of prior events, what is the onus on this country, with regards to political and global affairs?
No one country is responsible for policing the world. That is what the United Nations is (partly) supposed to do. The onus on the US is to comply with the internationally recognised and sanctioned multi-national body that is designed specifically to deal with these issues. And BECAUSE they are the strongest, most affluent and most capable country in the world, the onus on them to set an example is greater than anyone else.

Nazi Germany is an obvious thing to compare to, as its a very good example of dictatorship and hostility towards neighbouring countries (yes, I'm aware of the many flaws and different circumstances, but its a recognisable model and so it'll do).
It won't do, because all the countries in the region consistently call for the US NOT to attack Iraq. Turkey, Kuwait, Iran, Syria, Saudia Arabia and Jordan all do not recognise Iraq as posing a threat to them. Note the inclusion of Kuwait - the tiny little country that borders only Iraq, and which Saddam invaded. They're not scared of him, so why the hell are we? Like I illustrated above, Israel is a far more fitting metaphor for Nazi Germany than Iraq - and what a tragic irony that is.

I was happy as larry when the war happened with Afghanistan, not because I'm a grrr girl warmonger, but because finally somebody would be helping a population free from totalitarianism, and sexual/political/fundamental oppression and giving them the chance
Afghanistan had a liberal, peaceful and stable regime, where women could walk down the street dressed sensibly, could go to school, could work. Political diversity was respected and not oppressed, media and education were encouraged. Unfortunately it was also Liberal Communist, so the USA funded Osama and his boys to overthrow it.

As a super power, does it have responsibilities? And what do you see these responsibilities to be?
Like I said above, of course it has responsibilities - it should comply with the wishes and intentions of the UN. Let's face it - if the USA can walk out on treaties, unilaterally cancel agreements, invade countries and overthrow regimes whenever it feels like it... why on earth should all these countries that we're trying to get to tow the line play by the rules?
 
D

Damini

Guest
Do shut up Nos.

Stu: You've kind of circumnavigated my point and used it to beat the USA round the head again. Your point of what we know about Isreal doesn't contradict my point at all. What I was asking was when should intervention occur, if the suppression of democracy, the assassination of those that speak out against the regime, mass genocide and so on isn't incentive enough? I in no way said Israel is the easter bunny, or that these things should be ignored by the USA. These facts sit parallel to my point, so I don't know why you are trying to use them to contradict me. Of course the rule for one should apply to the other, I was just asking what you think that rule should be.

And the example of Germany would suit just fine as an example of when a country should start intervening with another country. I wasn't saying that Saddam is Hitler, or plans to invade the middle east, I was saying this is an example of what has happened in the past with a dictatorship, and in this instance many countries were affected. When does it become a priority? When the trouble is internal? When the trouble is forced upon other countries? When a specific sub group is targetted? That was my question. It wasn't a case of drawing direct parallels, but applying theory to a model.

I find it frustrating that in these *debates* if you propose one argument then you must, obviously, also concur on x,y and z. I'm not saying the USA is the messiah, I am not saying fuck Israel, I'm not saying nuke Saddam, I'm asking what should be done in your opinion? You obviously see the world in a totally different light to me, and I always find that interesting. What I was trying to do was see things from your perspective.
 
W

Will

Guest
I get the feeling stu's opinions lie pretty close to mine on this issue, though he seems to come to the same point from a slightly different angle.

The main reason I don't think Iraq should be invaded is slightly more straight-forwards. I agree with what stu says, that the US chooses to oppose regimes only where that would be to the US's benefit, but I think that, in an already unstable region like the Middle East, and where every country in the region opposes (even the countries supporting the US have changed their minds after political pressure), the US will fuck things up even more.

And give Islamic extremists like Bin Laden the perfect chance to say "I told you so". It just fuels the line of people with nothing to lose lining up to become holy martyrs.
 
S

stu

Guest
Originally posted by Damini
You've kind of circumnavigated my point and used it to beat the USA round the head again. Your point of what we know about Isreal doesn't contradict my point at all. What I was asking was when should intervention occur, if the suppression of democracy, the assassination of those that speak out against the regime, mass genocide and so on isn't incentive enough? I in no way said Israel is the easter bunny, or that these things should be ignored by the USA. These facts sit parallel to my point, so I don't know why you are trying to use them to contradict me. Of course the rule for one should apply to the other, I was just asking what you think that rule should be.
OK

If I were an idealist, I'd say that the whole world would be pink and fluffy. Dictatorships wouldn't exist. Human rights infringements wouldn't happen. People wouldn't get tortured, murdered, exiled, etc.

However, I'm a pragmatist. These things *do* happen. They happen every day, and they happen in lots of countries around the world. So here's where I stand:

The suppression of democracy? Yeah, a "bad thing". Let's go invade Zimbabwe. Incidentally, Saddam actually enjoys a great deal of support within Iraq (more than can be said for Karzai in Afghanistan). He does suppress his political opponents, no doubt about that. And he does look "unfavourably" (a bit euphemistic perhaps) upon certain sectors of his population. But there's a LOT of people in Iraq for whom Saddam is just peachy. He didn't perform a coup, he didn't take the country by force.

Assassination of dissenters? Yeah, also a "bad thing". Let's invade Indonesia. China. Cuba. Israel (hate to keep bringing them up, but there's a reason for it). I can't think of others right now because my brain is currently fighting off far too many evil Stella molecules, but there's a few.

Mass genocide? *Definitely* a bad thing. China. Pakistan. The former Yugoslavian countries. Russia. Indonesia (again). Israel (naughty boy Ariel).

My point here is that you can't draw a line in the sand. You can't say "this is acceptable behaviour for a state, cross this line and we'll deal with you". Why?

1) You have no authority to police the rest of the world. What is unacceptable in your country may be acceptable in others, and vice versa. Invading countries to impose your will sounds far too much like a crusade to me.
2) Even if you agree on an internationally recognised standard of human rights (let's, for argument's sake, start with UN directives), there are issues of *sovereignty* at stake. Sovereignty is a legal term that basically says "a country has the right to make the law within its own boundaries". You can NEVER overrule the sovereignty of another country - that just smacks of arrogance. If your 'target' doesn't subscribe to your doctrine, then you have no right to impose your views upon them.
3) Overcoming BOTH of those fairly major issues (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say everyone should conform to Western ideals of civilised society), you are then presented with a huge raft of countries that breach those ideals and standards. Where do you start? Do we assign a number value to various infringements, and start hitting the real sickos who score high on the "Dictator Scale"? Or do we start blasting people at random, to try and get a nice spread. OR... do we suspiciously pick on a country that, whilst actually not that bad compared to a great deal of other countries out there, happens to be in direct conflict to our own economic and political interests.

And therein lies my point. I do not support Saddam's regime. I do not support appeasement. I do not think that we should let him develop weapons of mass destruction (and this is a pretty major leap - we have no problem with India and Pakistan having them, but then I think *no* country should have weapons of mass destruction - maybe there's a little bit of idealist in me). I do not support the gassing of the Kurds, the suppression of political opinion, etc.

BUT... I also do not like being blatantly bullshitted by the USA as to "why we should attack Iraq". I do not support abitrarily invading countries based on blatant political and economic grounds (I mean christ, even the FBI have admitted it), and then dressing the action up in some kind of holier-than-thou campaign of justice to all those whose human rights have been abused. Like I said, I'd have far more respect for Bush if he had the guts to just stand up and say why he wants Saddam out.

I'd like to see a peaceful, internationally-sanctioned solution to Iraq. Why? Not because of Saddam. I truly could not give a fuck about Saddam. But because the people of Iraq have been through too fucking much already. By demonising Saddam, and making in the public eye Saddam = Iraq, we conveniently forget about the hundreds of thousands of real victims of what we do over there. I read an interview of a survivor of the WTC attack who just couldn't understand why what happened, happened. He understood that some people might hate America. He understood that some people might want to attack America's military, its government (notice understood, not agreed with). But he couldn't understand why anyone would attack thousands of civilians to achieve this. If you truly are an idealist, have a thought for the people of Iraq, and ask yourself if they really deserve this again.
 
O

old.[MPZ]Padwah

Guest
I'm with Stu, and I would have been beforehand but if anyone can come up with as convincing an argument as that after a night on the stella's then he's got to be believed! I'm having enough trouble just typing!

Not that anyone cares what my two pennies are, but I'd just like to think that people will base there opinions on more than the 'evidence' that we have been given by our government. What I have read is so much speculation it makes it too hard to make a convincing argument, I could make a nuclear bomb if I had the right grade of plutonium (or is it uranium, I can never remember?). I'd hate to brand myself as a conspiracy whore but something convincing from the people in charge wouldn't go a miss because, as I said, everything we have been given so far is pure speculation, give us something solid and I'm all for bombing the shit out of them. Until that point I'm with the UN, lets stay out of there and give people a chance to not get killed. where's the fluffy bunny?
 
F

FatBusinessman

Guest
I'm not going to make an argument here, I'm just going to say:

pld Stu :clap:
 
D

Damini

Guest
Gah, I don't get why its "pld", when I was never disagreeing in the first place. Why does discussion and debate in this place have to turn into this testosterone riddled one-up manship? You guys can all get your "I'm with stu" printed t-shirts made up if you like, as long as you understand that questions and response doesn't equal WWF wrestling. WOOOT! PLD!!!!! HIGH FIVE!!!!!!!!
 
F

FatBusinessman

Guest
That was "pld", not as in "Well done, you beat the woman" but as in "that was a damn good post". Not "testosterone riddled one-up manship" but an acknowledgement of a well-written and convincing argument.
 
D

Damini

Guest
Ok, sorry, maybe I'm still recoiling from being commanded to suck Stu's nob (no offence meant to Stu's genetalia). It just feels like these discussions get so aggressive sometimes. I like a good discussion, it's just I'm always so wary in here that if people disagree with you, you end up being a cuntstick retard with ebola.
 
G

GDW

Guest
I still think we should nuke them, rather than sit around discussing it whilst scratching our arses;)
 
D

danger

Guest
I vote we nuke the entire planet...... humanity sux :D

*Note the opinions expressed in this article are those of Dr Jimmy's backhander morphine and not necessarily those of Danger....


Seriously though, in short... the US have no problems with regimes that commit attrocities, abuse human rights etc. as long as those regimes play ball with the US's agenda... so typical of a hypocritical state that funded the IRA for years then turn around and declare war on any nation that harbours or funds terrorism....

Besides, the states don't exactly have the best human rights records themselve (granted it's not nearly as bad as alot of countries) they entered into the Geneva treaty with reservations to several articles namely they reserved the right to execute persons under the age of 18... something they still practice.

sorry I've turned this into an anti-US rant :( basically I'd like to see sadam's regime toppled but at what cost?

I think stu put forward a pretty sound argument for that case so I won't go on! Ku Dos (sp?) to stu!

/ED still haven't got to grips with the preview button
 
P

prime1

Guest
THis was meant to be posted earlier, i havnt read the last few thread here, and i dont have time to atm.


Sorry but war is not profitable, it costs billions of dollars to finance a war, its gona cost billions of dollars to pay off Russia, France and China (in treaties and contracts), it will cost billions of dollars to maintain the peace keeping force (UN sponsored or otherwise, ultimately most of the money comes from the US).

The US budget is at crisis point because it cant actaully afford the additional spending on military. And 1 billion dollars in trade is nothing compared to 8 billion dollars just to get permission from Russia. If war was profitable, stock markets would look forward to wars, rather than collapsing as everyone fears the worst happening to the markets. Taxes rise to pay for the armaments, this hurts pollitical positions. The Economy is Bush's worst enemy at th emoment, he knows that, if it was a pollitical decision he woul dbe doing EVERYthing he could to control the economy and prevent tax rises.

Defence contractors do gain from it, but everything else loses out, for a number of reasons (primarily increased taxes or reduced subsidies/grants in other areas, reduced public and private investment). The only way this war would be profitable for the US was if someone else was threatening Iraq, and they wanted to buy the weapons off of the US. Also if the US was doing this for financial reasons, it would have pursued the UN route first, because if the UN sponsors it, they get the war "subsidised" by the UN, meaning some of the money they put in to the UN, comes back to them to help cover the costs of the war.

Please dont try and tell me otherwise, i work in finance and stock markets and have to look at the trends every day, how current climates affect companies finances and government spending/taxes/interest rates/inflation. War is NOT good for the economy, taxes or stock markets.

If war was profitable why was Britain pretty much bankrupt between 1945 and 1960? Why are countries like Rwanda and Sierra Leone not considerably richer than they were 20 years ago.

Most of Iraqs weaponry was sold to them by France and Russia, the US supplied some weaponry, but ny no means all (for example SCUDs are a Russian weapon, i dont see the Iraqi troops using M16s or US aircraft etc).

The Taliban was a mistake by the US, they did not know their agenda would change so rapdily, but the Taliban in power in Afghanistan, and the Taliban they sponsored were 2 very different entities. What would have happened if they hadnt helped? Without US interference Russia would stil be the Soviet Union, and would probably be dominating most of Asia (afgahanistan, onto pakistan, on to India etc). A choice had to be made, we dont know what would have happened if it wasnt made, but I thinkoverall things turned out for the better.

Clinton feels a war on Iraq is right, he came out in favour recently to support Blair. Kuwait is afraid of Iraq, that is utter bullshit that you say they arnt. Kuwait openly backs a war with Iraq because its desperate to get rid of Saddam so they dont have to worry about their long term future. The ONLY reason why the other states in teh area are not "afraid" of him now, is because they know the US is watching Iraq, if saddam makes a hostile move to any of em, its game over. Without that leash, they WOULD be scared, as they were before the Gulf War.

You said US troops, you are including UN troops and allied troops in your buildup figures. 50000 british and american troops, well thats not 50000 american troops is it. Turkey isnt america, last time i checked. Theres a breakdown on the BBC website....

9000 US personel in Kuwait
1700 in Turkey
25000 naval personel
6600 in Saudi Arabia
3300 in Qatar
500 un UAE
2000 in Oman
4000 in Bahrain
where the fuck did you get your rediculous figures from. A force of 600000 is comparable to what they sent us in WW2 ffs.

The only reason why Saddam hasnt been able to terrorise his neighbours is cause the US is watching him, well I guess the US is tired of "watching" him cause its not doing any good other than delaying the inevitable. There were 50 pages of evidende in that dossier, and it dosnt all come from pollitical opponents based outside Iraq.

It was only 1 memebr of UNSCOM who disagreed with the current US stance on Iraq, the rest all agreed with it.

Its is absurd to suggest intervention in Indonesia, the deathtoll would be obscene, Indonesia is a powerful, regional force, with an effective large army. It violates human rights, but dosnt threaten its neigbours, and dosnt use WOMD. By the same arguments you could "qualify" an attack on China. You have to look at what CAN be done, Iraq can be improved Afghanistan COULD be improved, because regime change was POSSIBLE, at a quantifyable cost.

Stu part of your argument seems to be this : If you dont do it for 1, dont do it for any. That seems a little stupid, because doing it for ANY should be a good thing.

The US is NOT using terrorism as its primary argument, terrorism is in there as a secondary point, its never been about terrorism, Iraqs violations and continued ATTACKS on US/UK (UN) forces in the area were on the agenda long before 9/11 .

The problem with the US cutting off its support for Isreal is that noone knows what will then happen to Isreal, it is surrounded by countries that were hostile before the Pallestinian "troubles". There are large miltiary groups in the area that have vowed to kill every Jew, and wipe out Isreal, you act like its a one sided argument. Isreal is in an extreme situation and it has taken extreme measures in attempt to protect itself. The difference with Isreal and Iraq is this :

Saddam CHOSE his methods and regime, the laws and oppression. Isreal was FORCED into its position, if its neighbours hadnt been hostile from day 1, none of this would have happened.

I dont condone Isreals actions, but i UNDERSTAND them. There are several bad guys in the Isreal situation, and unfortunately no real good guys. Would you have the US invade both (1 a nuclear power?). Isreal does itself no favours, but then again neither do the Pallestinians.

Damini is also correct in that you have to look at the end picture, rather than how we got there (to an extent). The end picture is this :

A peaceful regime in Iraq, its people freed from oppresion, its neigbours freed from the threat of attack and intimidation.

Ultimately i dont give a shit if the only reason the US makes that picture is cause it wants cheaper oil (which is crap anyway). The final result is a good one, the cost (at THIS time) will not be TOO high (in terms of human lives), and the end result outweighs the cost, by a long way.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom