US calls off search for weapons of mass destruction

by WhyNow2000 193 Replies latest social current

  • Reborn2002
    Reborn2002

    Nice post Six. I took the time to read the posts to that discussion board, and a few comments stuck with me. I will quote them here for others to read. From Non-American points of view.

    From my non-American point of view:
    a) the invasion of Iraq was unjust - it was partly finishing Bush family business, partly the US twiching like a wounded animal after 9/11 (finally acknowledging its vulnerability, but in all the wrong ways and for all the wrong reasons). And of course: partly to get the oil. Don't for a minute try to convince me that GWB cares one iota about the lives of civilian Iraqis (any moreso than homeless American citizens or people starving in a dozen other underdeveloped countries who get no attention?). US power over Arab oil, that's what the President wants, plus some points in heaven from his God - as well as the support of the conservative religious right wing here on Earth.b) OK, Saddam is gone, but the world is now by far a more dangerous place than before, with Bush and his right wing war mongers provoking terrorist activities. The war they could handle, the peace they can not. Iraq is now a hornet's nest, with a lot of US military power poking around in it. They should leave immediately and let the UN take over. The UN might not provoke such hostility, and be more interested in the making world (as a whole!) a functioning mechanism.
    c) Why this single-minded preoccupation with "American lives", "US deaths"? As if Americans counted higher than everybody else. The graphs above won't show an accurate picture of your wars until they include the deaths of Vietnamese civilians slaugthered by the American military machine. (But of course that would make the graphs so large they couldn't fit on this page anymore.) Wars always include several fighting parties, and those we all should care first and foremost about are the civilians killed. And the only real enemy are the Hawks who want war - regardless if they are on "our" side or not.

    Contrary to another writer above, I do believe the US was attacked for a reason on 9/11, and that the terrorists do care about who (or rather what) they attac. The planes didn't arrive out of a vacuum, and had US foreign policy historically been based more on understanding, mutual respect and humility (instead of power thirst, narrowmindedness and fear of Communism-or-whatever), the towers would probably still be standing in New York City.
    America is a great country, which have given me better cultural experiences through music and movies than any other countries, but the US surely deserve better politicians - people who help the UN run the world (for the benefit of everybody), instead of making enemies everywhere as they try to do it themselves.
    A saying in my country: "Whoever is very strong, must also be very kind".

    P.S. I'm quite convinced the organized terrorism from Usama &co will end once GWB has terminated his presidency. Anybody wanna bet?

    and from the mind of an Iraqi:

    There is one thing all of you are overlooking.
    We did not take kindly to Saddam oppressing us and we will not take kindly to George Bush oppressing.
    It is one thing to be oppressed by your own people, but entirely different to be oppressed by foreign invaders.
    Invaders who force their culture and morals (or lack thereof) on our populace.
    The way the American soldiers treat our children and women is very disrespectful in our culture.
    Soldiers pointing guns at children and male soldiers physically searching our women is totally demaning to us in our culture.

    We have an honour of family in our culture and the American soldiers are violating that honour.
    We will defend it even if it means death.

    This is something you can not understand because it does not exist in American culture.

    We do not hate Americans, we just hate the foreign policy, especially when it results in our oppression.

    Keep your eyes and ears open. We will be free soon.

    The road to Iraq is paved with American blood.

    Posted by: Omar Al-Farouq at November 30, 2003 08:40 AM

    I do not necessarily entirely agree or disagree with what these people are saying, but I did find their comments to be relevant to this discussion. Any comments?
  • Yerusalyim
    Yerusalyim

    This thread is getting old and laborous...point is ...the title of the thread...and the first article posted are just flat WRONG. The US still continues to search for the WMD!

  • D8TA
    D8TA

    Yep, and I keep searching for Leprachauns...but I donĀ“t think I will find any. But there is always Mars, and maybe Bush will find some there.

  • Yerusalyim
    Yerusalyim

    D8TA,

    Funny, but fallacious...the entire world believed Saddam had WMD before the war...in fact...we know he did because he used them on his own people...he's been good at hiding them since then.

  • rem
    rem

    Six,

    ::rem, thanks for the comments. I guess it seems to me that you think people will do *this time*, what people never do.

    I think someone is finally doing *something*. Something that has a *real* chance of breaking down previous entanglements that lead to stagnation and impeded progress in the region.

    ::One point, if pushing the envelope (you can't say noncompliance, he did comply to a very large extent, just not fully. It's not a binary decision, because "A" is not a one or a zero, it's a whole host of things, the vast majority of which were in compliance) on the UN resolutions is the real reason for the war, then the administration should have informed America and congress of that, should they not? Also, if it is a UN problem, then it should have been a UN solution, should it not?

    I'm not trying to defend the administration in how they handled the situation. I'm just saying that I think this war will turn out to be a good thing for the region. It sure would have been great if it could have been a complete UN solution... It could be argued that the last resolution gave the US the authority to do what it did, but that's not my point. My point is that for 12 years we had a bad situation, not only security-wise (inspections being hindered) but also in a humanitarian sense (Oil for Food program building Saddam's palaces). Containment, as a policy, as proven to be foolish when dealing with dishonest dictators. I think we just got lucky with Saddam. Perhaps he is the exception that proves the rule? At any rate, containment that you cannot 100% verify does not pass as adequate containment in my opinion.

    ::btw, I'm aware of the story about the Iraqi scientist. It's fascinating and even humorous, but it's also a matter of degrees, ie: it's not a story about a huge conspiracy that left Saddam Insane believing he had some world threatening wmd to unleash. "come here bigglesworth, you would never lie to daddy would you?".

    I agree... that's not the way I meant it. What I mean is that Saddam thought he had banned programs producing banned weapons which meant he had to try to prevent inspections from being effective. This obviously caused suspicion from the rest of the world. I'm not trying to suggest that he was building them to use against the US (at all) or even against his neighbors anytime soon. The issue is that he was trying to build them when he was not allowed to. He lost a war and signed a cease fire agreement. He was actively trying to subvert said agreement, whether he was successful or not. I don't believe in being lenient about such things. It makes the US (and the UN) look weak and does not give other 'rogue' countries incentive to come in line.

    ::And I still can't believe you really mean this:
    ::::But in practical terms, what were the other alternatives?

    Let me try and explain what I originally meant with that sentence as I realize it didn't come out as I intended. The general thought that I was trying to convey is that by taking an action, you are consciously making a decision. By not taking any action, it may not be conscious, but you are still taking a course of action - one of status quo. Maybe that's a tautology and that's why I'm not able to explain it they way I understand it in my head.

    At any rate Status quo can be a bad course of action (or non-action). The way I view the past 12 years was the same non-action over and over again. To me, the only *real* solution was a major shakeup because several countries' policies had started using the status quo to their advantage, thus not giving Saddam any incentive to change his ways. To me it's more complicated than Saddam bad, US good. I think the complex interplay of several countries made any type of substantial improvement impossible. That's why I'm glad the pot was stirred and all of these under-the-table deals are being untangled. I'm not sure that this could have been acheived without regime change of some kind.

    Sure we could have taken other hard action to check Saddam, which we did do in the past... but it was no real solution. All it did or could do was to keep the same situation going and going indefinitely. Perhaps *in theory* some type of non-regime-change plan could have been worked out, but *in practice* there were just too many variables working against such a plan - including some of our allies. It was to their benefit to keep things going the way they were. They didn't want to mess up a good thing for them, and Saddam was happy with his palaces at the expense of the Iraqi people. What incentive would he have ever had to come in line when he knew he had leverage with some influential UN countries?

    I do think war could have been averted if the UN were really united and took a firm stand against Saddam. Then he would have been forced to stand down because the threat of "serious consequences" would have been real to him. Unfortunately, the corruption within the UN is what probably made the war inevitable, in my opinion. (I'm not trying to imply that the US shares no blame in UN corruption).

    Of course this is all just my opinion. I don't have a crystal ball or anything like that. I just have hope and confidence in the Iraqi people to come together to build their country and, in turn, improve the region. Maybe I'm wrong about them, but I think the majority of them are happy (or will be when the US gets out) and some leaders of antagonistic nations now seem to be taking positive steps.

    rem

  • sf
    sf

    http://www.google.com/search?q=bilderbergers+iraq+war+oil&hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1

    A few hits from above search, which contains at least a thousand more pages on topic:

    Ming the Mechanic: Bilderbergers
    ... or even want a stable, legitimate central government in Iraq. ... people from engaging
    in a war of national ... most comprehensive site about the Bilderbergers is this ...
    ming.tv/flemming2.php/_d10/_v10/__show_article/ _a000010-000809.htm - 21k - Cached - Similar pages

    The Bilderbergers; who they are and their agenda.
    ... As a key architect of the illegal Iraq war the invasion will ... are afraid of the power
    the Bilderbergers wield and ... relations and in this context Iraq, The Middle ...
    www.bilderbergers.org/_wsn/page3.html - 20k - Cached - Similar pages

    Asia Times
    ... stopped by Versailles to brief the Bilderbergers - was not ... even want a stable, legitimate
    central government in Iraq. ... people from engaging in a war of national ...
    www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EE22Ak03.html - 32k - Cached - Similar pages

    [casi] Iraq & "The masters of the universe"
    ... which replaced the crisis evolving around the Cold War. ... is that American and European
    Bilderbergers have not ... American invasion and occupation of Iraq, as well ...
    www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2003/msg02598.html - 17k - Cached - Similar pages

    Iraq, Bush, and The Corporate War :: A Call For Jihad :: Resisting ...
    ... the person initiating the war with Iraq and spearheading ... War also furthers the plans
    of globalists who ... on Foreign Relations, The Bilderbergers, The Trilateral ...
    library.oneummah.net/modules/mylinks/ visit.php?cid=22&lid=97 - 23k - Cached - Similar pages

    UK Indymedia | Analysis: The War Is Over
    ... A diminished Iraq, the no-fly zones essentially becoming ... Bush is impeached, tried
    as a war criminal, or ... The bankers, Bilderbergers, and elite will be satisfied ...
    www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/04/61140.html - 23k - Cached - Similar pages

    WAR, It's Coming!
    ... of assumed similar weapons by Iraq is inconsequential in ... population to accept a future
    war with that ... TC (Trilateral Commission) and the Bilderbergers of which ...
    www.kriegbooks.com/war_its_coming.html - 13k - Cached - Similar pages

    Conspiracy Planet - Globalism - The Stage for WWIII Is Set ...
    ... a world war over Korea, or more likely Iran and control of Middle East oil. ... US will
    find itself increasingly isolated and vilified as a result of the Iraq war. ...
    www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?ChannelID=52 - 20k - Jan 15, 2004 - Cached - Similar pages

    CanadianGrassroots.ca
    ... Stephen Harper & the Bilderbergers by Trueman Tuck on Wednesday ... Anti War Petition
    to be sent to the UN by ... The President's Real Goal In Iraq by Trueman Tuck on ...
    www.previewmysite.com/canadiangrassroots.ca/ search.php?topic=12 - 37k - Cached - Similar pages

    Masters
    ... the Bilderbergers - was not enough to persuade Sharon to even discuss the. ... Iraq. ... enough
    essential services to prevent the Iraqi people from engaging in a war. ...
    www.adelaideinstitute.org/Middle_East/masters.htm - 12k - Cached - Similar pages

    Here are some discussion on Usenet too:

    http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=bilderbergers+iraq+war+oil&sa=N&tab=wg

    Happy trails!

    sKally

  • Robdar
    Robdar
    Funny, but fallacious...the entire world believed Saddam had WMD before the war...in fact...we know he did because he used them on his own people...he's been good at hiding them since then.

    This member of the entire world knew that he didn't have them and said as much:

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/43623/1.ashx

  • dubla
    dubla

    rob-

    This member of the entire world knew that he didn't have them and said as much:

    i checked your link, and all i could find was you saying you didnt think saddam had nuclear capabilities....quite different than stating you knew he didnt have and wmd. i believe yeru was simply pointing out that everyone knows saddam had wmd at one point, becuase he used them on his own people. i dont think youre trying to dispute that fact, are you?

    aa

  • Robdar
    Robdar
    i checked your link, and all i could find was you saying you didnt think saddam had nuclear capabilities....quite different than stating you knew he didnt have and wmd.

    Dubla, this is what I said:

    To me, this is proof that Iraq does not have nuclear bomb capability.

    I said it in my first post. How did you miss it?

    At the time, when the news was speaking of WMD they were discussing warheads.

    becuase he used them on his own people. i dont think youre trying to dispute that fact, are you?

    Are you referring to the Kurds?

    If so, perhaps you will recall that we encouraged the Kurds to rebel. Then we betrayed them by leaving them to face Sadam alone--without a bit of help from us.

  • SixofNine
    SixofNine

    btw, while gas etc is nasty horrible illegal stuff (and I feel bad about America even selling it to Iraq in the first place), those type weapons don't fall into the class "wmd", any more than a "dirty bomb" would. The politics surrounding this war seems to have gotten people pretty sloppy with the term wmd however.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit