On September 29 2008 05:22 NovaTheFeared wrote: Also it would legitimize Ahmadinejad in the face of the world, a criticism Obama came under from Clinton in the primaries.
Can we end this vague bullshit?
Define legitimizing. Legitimize to who? What will they do differently afterward? What consequences are there?
USA will become the next islamic Caliphate!!!!!!!!!!!11
On September 29 2008 05:22 NovaTheFeared wrote: Also it would legitimize Ahmadinejad in the face of the world, a criticism Obama came under from Clinton in the primaries.
Can we end this vague bullshit?
Define legitimizing. Legitimize to who? What will they do differently afterward? What consequences are there?
USA will become the next islamic Caliphate!!!!!!!!!!!11
If that were the case I'm sure that title would go to France.
On September 29 2008 05:31 Jibba wrote: We really did think they had some amount of WMDs left, although I think they were irrelevant to us invading or not. We expected a chemical attack on soldiers entering the Karbala Gap into Baghdad, which is why we spent a shit load of money vaccinating soldiers and giving them the proper supplies for gas attacks. It never came because Sadam never bothered to rebuild them after Desert Fox, but in hindsight there was no way for us to know that. Sadam's own GENERALS didn't know that. They asked for access to them and when they found out they didn't exist, they basically retired on the spot. That's the #1 reason rolling into Baghdad was so easy - they had already given up by that point.
Democracy in Iraq was a very serious motive, likely the most important motive. Say what you will about oil, but Saddam was always a willing trading partner. If we could install a healthy democracy in Iraq, it would create another country that could lead diplomacy and negotiations, and other populaces would start itching for the same type of freedoms. Unfortunately, you can't force a political system on a group with a shattered social structure/economy/lifestyle/etc. and the DoD should've known better.
I dont think that many people outside the US believed that Saddam had WmD. Btw if you really wanted to find the WmD why you didnt let the AEA experts do their inspections ?
raq disarmament crisis (2002-2003)
During the Iraq disarmament crisis before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Blix was called back from retirement by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to lead United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission in charge of monitoring Iraq. Kofi Annan originally recommended Rolf Ekéus, who worked with UNSCOM in the past, but both Russia and France vetoed his appointment. Hans Blix personally admonished Saddam for "cat and mouse" games and warned Iraq of "serious consequences" if it attempted to hinder or delay his mission.
In his report to the UN Security Council on 14 February 2003, Blix claimed that "If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament -- under resolution 687 -- could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided."
Blix's statements about the Iraq WMD program came to contradict the claims of the George W. Bush administration, and attracted a great deal of criticism from supporters of the invasion of Iraq. In an interview on BBC TV on 8 February 2004, Dr. Blix accused the US and British governments of dramatising the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the regime of Saddam Hussein.
Newt Gingrich stated that approving Hans Blix as chief UN weapons inspector was one of the biggest mistakes the United States ever made.
In an interview with London's Guardian newspaper, Hans Blix said, "I have my detractors in Washington. There are bastards who spread things around, of course, who planted nasty things in the media".
In 2004, Blix published a book, Disarming Iraq, where he gives his account of the events and inspections before the coalition began its invasion.
Ultimately, no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were found.
Hans Blix said he suspected his home and office were bugged by the United States, while he led teams searching for Saddam Hussein's supposed weapons of mass destruction. Although these suspicions were never directly substantiated, evidence of bugging of UN security council representatives around the time the US was seeking approval from the council came to light after a British government translator leaked a document "allegedly from an American National Security Agency" requesting that British intelligence put wiretaps on delegates to the UN security council.
( from wiki )
Moreover do you really think that people like Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle wanted to bring democracy ? You are quite naive. When it was proved that there were no WmD, they had to found some sort of new excuse for this war. Furthermore why bring democracy in Iraq when you have Cuba ( for example ) so close ? It would have been easier to invade Cuba rolf. Nah seriously this is all bs. Your politicians and media fooled the whole population. It is easy to say 5 years later " it was for democracy " but that isnt the truth. They just wanted to get oil and to get rid of a potential rival to Israel.
Do you really trust UN inspector reports? Doing so would be far more naive than anything I said. The UN is a shell. Why are you even citing IAEA? We're not talking about nuclear weapons.
We prepared our troops for chemical warfare, which constitutes a belief that WMDs still existed. You can look through war records if you'd like. The RNG's generals thought they had them too.
They would've found another excuse for war, but dropping names does absolutely nothing to prove the rest of your post. These are all heavy neo-realists. I never said they're spreading democracy for the good of the Iraqi people. They're hoping to spread democracy for the good of America. Better trade networks, better intelligence networks, more means for diplomatic pressure, more ways to coerce Saudi Arabia, etc. You're absolutely right that it wasn't a humanitarian effort, but there's an enormous list of reasons why we would benefit by having an allied, Arab democracy.
Say the US is Zerg and the Arab countries are Terran (gay.)
US: We are infesting your CC because being zerg is awesome (true) and your SCVs will be happier for it Ay-rabs: Noooooooo, you just want our gas!
Reality: You infest that motherfucker not for liberty or for gas, but because it totally fucks up their expo.
On September 29 2008 06:45 Jibba wrote: Do you really trust UN inspector reports? Doing so would be far more naive than anything I said. The UN is a shell. Why are you even citing IAEA? We're not talking about nuclear weapons.
We prepared our troops for chemical warfare, which constitutes a belief that WMDs still existed. You can look through war records if you'd like. The RNG's generals thought they had them too.
We gave him chemical weapons ourself. Those were never the WMDs in question.
Chemical weapons have to be reproduced every 2-3 years because they have lifespans like any other organic thing. The stuff we gave him in the 80s was useless by then, but they thought he had reconstructed the facilities destroyed during Desert Fox.
Iraq agreed to the Resolution on 13 November.[citation needed] Weapons inspectors returned on November 27, led by Hans Blix of UNMOVIC and Mohamed ElBaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The inspectors had been absent from Iraq since December 1998 when they were withdrawn immediately prior to Operation Desert Fox
Inspectors began visiting sites where WMD production was suspected, but found no evidence of such activities, except for 18 undeclared 122mm chemical rockets that were destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision.
I guess there were also experts of bio / chem weapons too but the mission was lead by Blix
P-S: I'm not saying that the UN system is wonderful or even efficient, that's another question, but on this issue the inspectors were right and you can't deny it.
They were, but there's still many indications from the Pentagon that we thought otherwise. Still, you're right that it was a hollow excuse. Even if they did exist, no one in the know expected Saddam would use them against the US or Israel. They were just the political selling point.
On September 29 2008 07:12 Jibba wrote: They were, but there's still many indications from the Pentagon that we thought otherwise. Still, you're right that it was a hollow excuse. Even if they did exist, no one in the know expected Saddam would use them against the US or Israel. They were just the political selling point.
In fact everyone in the know knew that he wouldn't use WMDs even if he had any, because then a bunch of holdouts on supporting the invasion (not implying they ever came/will come around) would join, like France.
The thought that only the U.S. believed Iraq had WMD isn't quite accurate British, German, French, Russian intelligence all believed Iraq had WMD. Hans Blix even said it was his gut feeling that Iraq had WMD.
On September 29 2008 11:16 BlackJack wrote: The thought that only the U.S. believed Iraq had WMD isn't quite accurate British, German, French, Russian intelligence all believed Iraq had WMD. Hans Blix even said it was his gut feeling that Iraq had WMD.
The thought that the US believed that Iraq has WMD is not quite accurate. There are something like 16 different intelligence agencies in this country and not all of them thought it was the case. That is certainly for a different thread though.
On September 29 2008 11:16 BlackJack wrote: The thought that only the U.S. believed Iraq had WMD isn't quite accurate British, German, French, Russian intelligence all believed Iraq had WMD. Hans Blix even said it was his gut feeling that Iraq had WMD.
Bs, they never believed that Iraq had nuclear weapon and a shitload of chem / bio weapon ready to get used vs another country. Some old chem weapons maybe, but definitly not the "OMG threat" described by Powell at the UN ( remember his pics :p ). And i don't think you start a war because there are like 10 chem munitions somewhere in a country. Especially when you did a war vs this same country 10 years before when he had already this kind of weapons, and then had to accept ( more or less ) inspections from UN. Btw both Russia and US have already "lost" nukes and nobody really cares.
The US lost a hydrogen bomb off the coast of Spain, fyi for anyone living there! Literally the carrier went down and the recovery effort failed, so gl to anyone that can reach it!
On September 29 2008 15:51 Jibba wrote: The US lost a hydrogen bomb off the coast of Spain, fyi for anyone living there! Literally the carrier went down and the recovery effort failed, so gl to anyone that can reach it!
I wish gl to terrrorists if they want to find WmD in Iraq too. Especially nuclear weapon .
Btw Jibba you are the one who said that if Iran gets the bomb " it isn't a game changer ".