Where Are All The W.M.D.s?

Something very silly is going on here. The folks who argued 12 years wasn't enough time for The UN to "Discover" prohibited weaponry now rage that the US has failed to do so in a matter of a few weeks. Simultaneously, the folks who argued for the lifting of sanctions either (or both) pursuant to failure to discover proscribed items or to allieviate the suffering of the Iraqi People now see the sanctions as desireable to maintain.

timber

I didn't know, UN inspectors had invaded in such a great number Iraq and over all that time.

Besides, we have been presented - the Security Council as well as the British Parliament and the US Congress - "proofs" on videos and photos and as reports.

I ahve never seen anyone assert that 12 years was not enough time to find WMDs. This is, as far as I know, a fallacious straw man.

I have seen people assert that the UN inspectors were not given enough time to do their job. This is based on the UN inspectors themselves who expressed regret that the US did not allow them to complete their job.

As to the demands on the US to produce the WMDs I find them logistically impractical but rhetorically reasonable.

A) The US used WMDs as it's casus belli.

B) The US repeatedly asserted that it had intelligence on the WMDs that, though not made available to the public, clearly prooved that Iraq had WMDs.

C) The US decided that it was prefferable to keep this alleged intel to themelves and not share it with inspectors.

D) The US by declaring war effectively booted the inpectors out of Iraq and denied them the opportunity to do their job.

It's not unreasonable to hold the US to it's word. It sold the war with promises that they eventually must take into consideration.

The US used WMDs as its legal basis for the war and WMDs were the main casus belli. The US did not allow the inspectors to do their job.

Now the US is responsible for the inspectors job, if only to justify their invasion of a sovereign nation.

Of course, those to whom sovereignty means nothing (except when it's your own) these points may seem insignificant. But they should not fault those who care about such trivialities such as rule of law and due course in justifying the unprovoked invasion of another nation.

If it is logistically unreasonable to demand the WMDs so soon it is just as logistically unreasonable to have touted the mushroom cloud (since Iraq was not near nukes and this was a rhetorical tool).

I agree that something very silly just went on but we differ greatly on whom we would apply this allegation to.

It's extortion, of course. The lifting of sanctions must be approved by the UN. France and Russia have veto powers over the security council. When French and Russian interests in Iraq are guaranteed, the sanctions will be removed. That's all there is to the objections, and nothing more.

Sure? Nobody has any legitimate concerns about the US power grab (real or perceived)? The opposition is just playing the dirty profit game? Our intent is pure as the driven snow and thiers is dirty blood money?

I would have a lot less to think about if I were to accept such simply defined parameters.

CdK, I have never agreed with The Current Administration's focus on WMD as primary casus belli. And yes, the 12-year thing is a bit of hyperbole. The core of my position on the Attack on Iraq is 3-fold:
1st) Iraq's contined defiance of the conditions of UNSCR 687, as reitterated particularly in UNSCR 1284 and UNSCR 1441,

2nd) Iraqi complicity in terrorism in The Middle East at the very least, if not globally.

3rd) Iraqi Human Rights Violations precisely the same as those which occasioned the eventual US responses to the recent chain of Balkans Crises.

I see little logic in The Current Administration's behavior in the matter, and I am appalled that they seem to have been right for all the wrong reasons. There is much room for reversal ahead, but should things continue in the current vein, Bush the Younger may be remembered as Bush the Greater. That is very troubling.

Neither did I, but what we think is irrelevant. WMDs were the only legal basis for the initiation of hostilities.



Again, duplicity in its epitome is using UN resolutions to justify something you like and considering them irrelevant when they don't think like you do.



Other than Saddams PR checks to Palestinians what itel are you making this argument from? Anything recent? I actually agree with this but like a bit more evidence when pre-emptive war is being put on the table. What is terrorism if not an unprovoked "pre-emptive" attack. Anything can be called pre-emptive (unless the other side initiates it), my deep reservations are about the burden of proof that the pre-emptive act should be held to.

Isreal had far more justification for their pre-emptive strikes and the grey area that is anything pre-emptive has contributed to the lack of a resolution giving closure.



Very relevant, this could have been the way this war was sold. The legal basis would be a bit more iffy but it would have eliminated the need for backpedaling when Saddam accepted inspections.



Despite any of our reservations about Bush don't you think his legacy is pretty much assured? I personally think he will make some positive moves in the coming years that will help make him one of the best remembered presidents of America.

BTW, I must add that I know you enough to know that you do not think this way, but don'tcha think the comment can be interpreted in this black and white manner?

"Great", in this instance, having the same intrinsic value as The Great San Francisco Earthquake, the Great Chicago Fire, the Great White Shark and/or the Great Pumpkin.

If Iraqui complicity in terrorist activity were a legimate charge... wouldn't it behoove us to admit that TRAINING and ARMING the terrorists is complicitous as well?
Who trained these people during the Iran/Iraq war?

Not The US, Magus. The Iraqi Military is equipped and trained along the Soviet model, with some French frills. During the Iran/Iraq War, US support to Iraq consisted chiefly of Intelligence, greatly in the form of Satellite Imaging. Physical support, including weaponry and training, was provided to Afghani opposition to Soviet occupation, among whom were elements of the Taliban, but Iraq got no US military hardware or advisors. Try to find a picture of an Iraqi-Operated, US-Provided Tank, Aircraft, Artillery Piece, Air Defense Weapon, Naval Vessel, or Small Arm, or a translation of a US Training Manual for distribution to Iraqi Military Students. Take your time.

I have some serious problems with this point of view. Has the US the right to start a war over human rights?

Not only does the United States put people to death on a scale rivaled only by major-league human-rights violators; it also executes minors and mentally retarded persons. Even China has abolished the practice of executing minors; Yemen, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Iran and the United States alone fail to respect international law barring such executions. Two countries in the world execute the retarded: Uzbekistan and the United States.

Many of the measures adopted by the U.S. government after the September 11 attacks violated fundamental provisions of international human rights and humanitarian law. These included the arbitrary and secret detention of non-citizens, secret deportation hearings for persons suspected of connections to terrorism, the authorization of military commissions to try non-citizen terrorists, a failure to abide by the Geneva Conventions in the treatment of detainees held in US military custody in Cuba and elsewhere, and the military detention without charge or access to counsel of U.S. citizens designated as "enemy combatants."

frolic..

What do you think about the role of the US in WWII. Do you live in Europe?

I am very sorry for saying this.
Europe made several problems these few hundred years at least, the turmoil of 90's included. Could European solve those problems yourselves without the help of the US?
In 60's there were anti-war movements throughout the world, and the US scarcely produced terrorists (I do not say none), but Europeans yielded groups of terrorists. What's happening to you Europeans?
Nazism and Stalinism were European sense of politics in a wider sense. At least they were born there.
(I admire Dadaists, BTW.)

Whats your point? I know you live in the past, you're an historian.
But some replies on your remarks:

Is everything peacefull in the US backyard? Zapatista? FARC? Chavez? Argentina? Vileda? Pinocet? Nicaragua? El Salvador?......


Nazism and Stalinism were European sense of politics in a wider sense ???? democracy, liberalisme=liberté, fraternité et egalité. Descartes, Hobbes, Hume, Burke, Locke,....


But still, I dont get your point. BTW, the war in Kosovo was an NATO operation, in cooperation with Russia ,and not a unilateral action of the US like now in Iraq.

But back to the humanitarian aspect to justify this war. Isn't a big hypocrite to attack other countries for their non-compliance with international human law if you yourself execute retarded and minors. And put people away without allegations?

Human nature doesn't change.
I was talking about the continent.

satts,

Did you intend to ever make a point about the continent?

satt




Since I'm a European and a historian, could you please explain this?

You won't say you do not know WWI, WWII, Nazism, Stalinism, or terrorism (if you are in Europe you know what I mean by this term) and many others that the US has almost no connection.
You are historian? Then you know what I mean. (You must be pretending not to know.)

I know, but it looks like you are drawing conclusions that are ridiculous. I asked you to explain because I did not want to assume that you were drawing those conclusions.

Please state your conclusion.

It goes like this:

Does the US have a right to go to war over human rights?

You: WWI, WWII, Nazism, Stalinism, or terrorism ......

You: Human nature doesn't change. I was talking about the continent.

Unless you are throwing our random tid bits there are some serious logical fallacies in the conclusion you are hinting at.

That's why I ask, please clarify what your point is.