The Case For War Is Blown Apart

Independent UK ^ | 05-29-03

[Protagoras]

We should now be moving on Syria, Iran and North Korea.

And then Asia, then Europe, THEN THE WORLD!!!!

I'm so glad you are in charge Adolph.

[Trailerpark Badass]

The irony of this is that so many rational, intelligent folks here on FR bought into a propaganda campaign that was aimed at the same soccer moms that had been watching Oprah and salivating over Bill Clinton for most of the last ten years.

No. The irony here is that most have the sense to understand the real strategic reasons behind the overthrow of Hussein, while those who don't call us "naive."

[Stultis]

but all those labs show (at most) is that Iraq had at some point a biological weapons program.

Which they were forbidden to have under the terms of their surrender in '91 and under U.N. resolutions. Note they were not merely forbidden to have ready-to-use WMD, they were for forbidden to have WMD programs, and they were required to disclose full information about such programs, which we now have manifest proof (the mobile labs) they did not do.

In fact, Saddam's failure to fully disclose WMD programs provided fully adequate legal justification for military action as long ago as last December, when the U.N. inspectors affirmed that Iraq's report on WMD programs, required under resolution 1441, was innacurate and incomplete. This legal basis does not evaporate retrospectively just because Saddam decided (if he did) to dump his bio/chem agents into the Euphrates, or ship them off to Iran and Syria, or whatever, at the 9th hour.

Heck, even if Saddam never had usable WMD, but still for some nutty reason insisted on keeping ineffectual programs hidden from inspectors at the risk of his regime, that still wouldn't effect the legal basis for the war: his utter failure to comply with obligations he accepted to preserve his regime 12 years ago.

But we knew that already since we had supplied them with a bunch of biological weapons when they were fighting Iran.

Is it your usual practice as a FReeper to recycle left-wing agitprop? There is not a shred of evidence, nor are there even credible or coherent accusations that the United States ever supplied Iraq with biological weapons. IIRC, the most that has been asserted (with what actual evidence, if any, I don't know) is that the United States government looked the other way, allowing Iraq to acquire standard laboratory strains of pathogens, and/or precursor chemicals, which they then developed into bio and/or chem weapons.

[Stone Mountain]

Yes, I suppose we should have been able to surveil the entire span of Iraq's borders for 12 years as he moved and/or hid the weapons from the UN and allied forces.

Well, if we weren't able to do that, what was the basis for our claiming that Iraq had all these WMDs? If we weren't capable of tracking Iraq's weapons, then how is it that we were able to claim that they had them?

[dirtboy]

I bet there is absolutely nothing that would convince you that they the weapons had been destroyed rather than being "hidden", is there?

The point is, when the inspectors returned in 2002, Saddam immediately began playing his same old games, when it was imperative on him to completely cooperate with the process. This was not a trial in this country, where the defendent has the benefit of the doubt and the prosecutor must make the case - instead, under the terms of the 1991 cease fire and subsequent resolutions, Saddam had to destroy his chemical and bio weapons and concretely document the process. Instead, we got 12 years of games. Saddam could have destroyed the weapons - but when and how? He had to both destroy AND document instead of obstructing.

[Alberta's Child]

If you were wrong about Iraq having WMDs, then you'd SURELY have no problem accepting the mission of cleaning up the consequences of a WMD attack against the United States...

If I were wrong about Iraq having WMDs, then three successive presidents put this country at risk by assigning the role of weapons inspections to a foreign organization (the United Nations) that has no legitimate role in the defense of this country.

I'll take you up on your bet, but only if you agree to this: if it turns out that Iraq does have WMDs, then I'll take it upon myself to clean up the results of the attack if you agree to render swift, punitive justice to those three presidents.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Related links:

CIA convinced truck-trailers held bioweapons labs

Britain finds Iraq's 'smoking gun': a top-secret missile

U.S. Analysts Link Iraq Labs to Germ Arms

Forget WMDs - they're not the real reason we went to war

[Shermy]

Hence, the burden of proof is on the U.S. and the U.K.

Actually per the UN sanctions orders, the burden was on Iraq.

The subject matter of the sanctions, and why Saddam spent so much effort avoiding the requirements is a story unspoken in these type of articles. WMD wasn't created out of whle cloth, there was a context. If Saddam didn't have them why did he act so? Now that's a real investigative story.

[onedoug]

You may embrace state sponsored terrorism. I believe it should be crushed. Thanks.

[dirtboy]

If I were wrong about Iraq having WMDs, then three successive presidents put this country at risk by assigning the role of weapons inspections to a foreign organization (the United Nations) that has no legitimate role in the defense of this country.

Uh, dude, we had that little event called 9/11 that changed our entire view about containment versus pre-emptive action.

[Alberta's Child]

Ah. You are looking for an excuse to do nothing.

No, I'm looking for the U.S. do do something effective that addresses a real problem. There's no excuse for the fact that throoughout the last ten years the U.S. was far more effective in maintaining a no-fly zone over Iraq than at protecting the citizens of this country from foreign assailants.

[dirtboy]

Was that "yes" or "no"? I couldn't figure it out.

No, that was a "what's your point" statement - whether Saddam destroyed them or not, he did not give us evidence that the weapons were destroyed, nor did he cooperate with the inspections process. So your condition only becomes viable with the hindsight of being in country to inspect for ourselves - something we did not have prior to invasion - in other words, you're position becomes a catch-22.

[Alberta's Child]

There is a difference between having thousands of U.S. troops stationed along the DMZ in Korea for 50 years, and sending thousands of troops into a foreign country like Iraq specifically to deal with the threat of WMDs.

If that doesn't make sense to you, then I don't know what to say.

[Stone Mountain]

Is it your usual practice as a FReeper to recycle left-wing agitprop? There is not a shred of evidence, nor are there even credible or coherent accusations that the United States ever supplied Iraq with biological weapons. IIRC, the most that has been asserted (with what actual evidence, if any, I don't know) is that the United States government looked the other way, allowing Iraq to acquire standard laboratory strains of pathogens, and/or precursor chemicals, which they then developed into bio and/or chem weapons.

Look, I immediately corrected myself and amended it to weapons precursors in my suceeding post. And I provided two sources for this - see posts 67 and 93. And don't give me that left-wing agiprop crap - refute what I have to say or don't, but ad hominem should be beneath the posters here at FR.

[dvwjr]

Anyone who truly believes that the United States government would have placed thousands of U.S. military personnal in close proximity to Iraq if there was any chance in hell that Iraq possessed "weapons of mass destruction" is naive.

No, it actually reinforces my assertion. This is exactly why the U.S. was willing to wage war against a nation whose "weapons program" consists of a few mobile labs and old protective suits, but calls for "multi-lateral discussions" with a nation that has a weapons program that represents a legitimate threat.

Ah, if this buttresses your original assertion, that being that countries with weapons of mass destruction prevent US troops from being deployed in close proximity to said nation, then this must mean that the US will soon withdraw its forces from South Korea, much less from the Korean DMZ, correct? If the logic of your contention holds up, this is the only possible course of action. However, I believe that you will find that the US will be willing to wage war against North Korea if necessary, regardless of their WMD status.

Now as to the mobile labs and protective suits, let that fall out over time. Ignore the personality of the dictators and stick to the subject raised: WMDs possessed by unfriendly nations prevent the US from positioning or using its Armed Forces in the furtherance of its National Security Policy because of fears of loss of life, equipment etc.

North Korea has a few nukes, once they are used on either South Korea or Japan, they will cause their casualties and be over with, as will the North Korean government. You see they do not have enough weapons or range to provide a strategic threat to the US, only a tactical/operational one. As insurance, President Bush is pushing forward an early deployment of National Missile Defense (NMD) to complicate the planning in North Korea.

Without strategic delivery mechanisms, North Korea and Iran are regional threats, which is why the US is involving the other 'regional' Powers, not because of the fear of WMDs.

dvwjr

[Consort]

It doesn't matter. Next thread.

[Alberta's Child]

The irony here is that most have the sense to understand the real strategic reasons behind the overthrow of Hussein . . .

I'd love to hear what those reasons are, especially in light of all the lame ones that have been provided to the American public.