The Gulf War II Time-capsule thread

[Karl K]

Well, ladies and gentlemen, it was a succinct -- and damning -- presentation.

After two months of inspections, huge gaps remain in information and knowledge base.

Some highlights

--the 12,000-page weapons declaration submitted on Dec. 7 had not answered key questions; as he put it, it was just a copy of all other things they submitted before.

--some documents actually had info taken OUT, and pages renumbered.

--No info on the whereabouts of the VX nerve gas, they KNOW they had

--No info on the the 2 tons of nutrients or growth media for biological agents, they KNOW they had, which can cultivate anthrax among other deadly agents.

--No info on the 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas and 6,500 chemical bombs the KNOW they had

--Despite the fact that Iraq said it had given over all the documents it had, his team found thousands of documents hidden in the home of an Iraqi scientist, suggesting the more documents may be squirreled away. Ooops!! Then they just happened to come with a new ledger, which UNMOVIC is studying. But as he pointed out, there have got to be a whole host of documents around -- bills of lading, funding requests and approvals, and other essential administrative paperwork.

--After receiving a list of some a few hundred scientists to interview, Blix confronted the Iraqi's that they had evidence that over 3500 had been involved. They came to him with some additions to the list -- just a handful.

Menawhile, Blix said that depite Iraq saying all weapons had been accounted for or destroyed since the 1991 Gulf War, they have in the meantime obtained missile engines as well as raw material for rocket fuel and chemical agents, a violation of an arms embargo that is part of 12-year-old U.N. sanctions.

And despite assurances from Iraq that it would encourage its scientists to submit to private interviews, no such talks have taken place and Baghdad has blocked the use of U-2 surveillance flights over all parts of Iraq.

All of this was hedged by the fact that Iraq had allowed the inspectors free movment (with some minor harrassment) and that they had yet not uncovered specific evidence of WMDs.

But the issue is this: should we tolerate this obvious campaign by the Iraqi's to disguise, camoflage, obfuscate, delay, and otherwise to NOT offer a transparent and complete disclosure? Should the inspectors wind up being a detective agency, trying to ferret out the truth, with Iraq bobbing and weaving and trying every trick to muddy the waters?

I predict the Security Council will give them 30 days to come COMPLETELY clean. Then on March 1st, we warm up the M1 engines, and we're on the move.

[Karl K]

Oh, yeah...Blix used a cliche...but I never thought a cliche could be so....well, chilling...when he said that the chemical warheads they HAVE discovered could be the....

"tip of the iceberg"....

[dfb547490]

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000055XFY.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg


Alex

[cossack]

The Guardian pipes in on speculation many have had. Namely, Iraq never had the intent to disarm its WMD because it believed the US was going to attack regardless and wanted to keep them for defense/retaliation whatever the cost.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,883248,00.html

[Bluecat82]

1441 was never about "the smoking gun"...

1441 was about providing the means for assisting Saddam to dispose of his WMD along the models of South Africa and the Ukraine...you hand them over, we'll (the UN) get rid of them.

Saddam's in material breach...again. The only point in keeping up this charade of inspections any longer is to make sure the coalition has all its ducks in a row...then it'll be time for dealin'...

...or for Saddam to catch the next flight to Libya or Zimbabwe (I'm sure he and Mugabe will get along real well)...

[MLSNHTOWN]

Where are the anti-war we are just in it for the oil types at? Shouldn't they have piped in by now?

[Bluecat82]

http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000027.html

It's very long...but worth reading...

[Danwoods]

Originally posted by MLSNHTOWN
Where are the anti-war we are just in it for the oil types at? Shouldn't they have piped in by now?

I'm sure the reasons have nothing to do with oil. When are you leaving again? Do you have to go through basic training before you save the women and children of america from Iraq?

[Dan Loney]

Originally posted by MLSNHTOWN
Where are the anti-war we are just in it for the oil types at? Shouldn't they have piped in by now? It's all about oil.

Legally? Bush has what he needs. The Democrats gave it to him long before the UN, according to the Constitution. As if that matters now, because the UN resolution gives him all he needs to justify it, at least to his constituencies in the petroleum industry. France, Germany and Russia were just posturing, and they knew it. (Unless they have more pull in Washington than it seems.)

That list is an argument for more sanctions, and more inspections. It's at best an argument to send a few bombers over to where they think the weapons are located. It's certainly not a warrant for invasion.

I don't feel any more fearful today than I did yesterday, and I won't feel any more secure the day after Baghdad is levelled than I did the day before. We're not fighting the right war.

[edcrocker]

Originally posted by Karl Keller
Well, ladies and gentlemen, it was a succinct -- and damning -- presentation.

After two months of inspections, huge gaps remain in information and knowledge base.

Some highlights

--the 12,000-page weapons declaration submitted on Dec. 7 had not answered key questions; as he put it, it was just a copy of all other things they submitted before.

--some documents actually had info taken OUT, and pages renumbered.

--No info on the whereabouts of the VX nerve gas, they KNOW they had

--No info on the the 2 tons of nutrients or growth media for biological agents, they KNOW they had, which can cultivate anthrax among other deadly agents.

--No info on the 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas and 6,500 chemical bombs the KNOW they had

--Despite the fact that Iraq said it had given over all the documents it had, his team found thousands of documents hidden in the home of an Iraqi scientist, suggesting the more documents may be squirreled away. Ooops!! Then they just happened to come with a new ledger, which UNMOVIC is studying. But as he pointed out, there have got to be a whole host of documents around -- bills of lading, funding requests and approvals, and other essential administrative paperwork.

--After receiving a list of some a few hundred scientists to interview, Blix confronted the Iraqi's that they had evidence that over 3500 had been involved. They came to him with some additions to the list -- just a handful.

Menawhile, Blix said that depite Iraq saying all weapons had been accounted for or destroyed since the 1991 Gulf War, they have in the meantime obtained missile engines as well as raw material for rocket fuel and chemical agents, a violation of an arms embargo that is part of 12-year-old U.N. sanctions.

And despite assurances from Iraq that it would encourage its scientists to submit to private interviews, no such talks have taken place and Baghdad has blocked the use of U-2 surveillance flights over all parts of Iraq.

All of this was hedged by the fact that Iraq had allowed the inspectors free movment (with some minor harrassment) and that they had yet not uncovered specific evidence of WMDs.

But the issue is this: should we tolerate this obvious campaign by the Iraqi's to disguise, camoflage, obfuscate, delay, and otherwise to NOT offer a transparent and complete disclosure? Should the inspectors wind up being a detective agency, trying to ferret out the truth, with Iraq bobbing and weaving and trying every trick to muddy the waters?

I predict the Security Council will give them 30 days to come COMPLETELY clean. Then on March 1st, we warm up the M1 engines, and we're on the move.
Karl and others, I would like to better understand the position of those who believe that President Bush is morally permitted and/or morally obligated to order an invasion of Iraq within the next few months. Many US citizens hold this view. I’m sure you are busy, and discussing controversial political issues on the internet can be taxing and time-consuming. But if it is not inconvenient, your indicating why you believe that Bush is morally permitted and/or morally obligated to order an invasion of Iraq within the next few months would be greatly appreciate at least by me.

To give some background: My view is that assuming nothing new and substantial comes to light within the next couple weeks, Bush's ordering an invasion of Iraq within the next four weeks is morally impermissible. In fact, unless new and substantial information comes to light, it seems that it’s hard to make the case that it would be morally permissable for Bush to order an invasion of Iraq within the next few months. This is partly because of the variables I mentioned in my most recent post in the “Chomsky thread.”

But it would be good to hear the views others. Hearing these views most definitely would help me, and it might help advance the discussion among members of the Bigsoccer community.

Thanks.

[Dan Loney]

Originally posted by Bluecat82
It's very long...but worth reading... You're half right.

Obviously my campaign to have the invocation of September 11th as a justification for invading Iraq punishable with a punch in the urethra hasn't made any headway. But it still pisses me off.

If ejectejecteject cares so much about 9/11, why is he/she/it/they cheerleading for this wankery in Iraq, when al-Qaeda and their financiers walk free to this day?

[Karl K]

Originally posted by edcrocker
Karl and others, I would like to better understand the position of those who believe that President Bush is morally permitted and/or morally obligated to order an invasion of Iraq within the next few months.

I dunno...getting rid of a vicious dictator who has slaughtered his people, engaged in rapacious wars of conquest against his neighbors (with casualties in the millions), deployed and used chemical weapons, and continues to engage in lies in the face of the will of the international community seems to me to be a fairly high-minded concept.

Especially if it lubricates the way to a generally more democratic Middle East.

Originally posted by Dan Loney
I don't feel any more fearful today than I did yesterday, and I won't feel any more secure the day after Baghdad is levelled than I did the day before.

Take a look at the calendar and the a map -- this is not 1941 and London....not 1942 and Stalingrad (named after one of Saddam's culture heros)...this is not 1944 and Dresden...this is not 1945 and Tokyo.

It's 2003, with JDAMSs, GPS systems, and accurate-to-the-meter stand off technology.

[Dan Loney]

Originally posted by Karl Keller
I dunno...getting rid of a vicious dictator who has slaughtered his people,...with weapons we gave him...

engaged in rapacious wars of conquest against his neighbors (with casualties in the millions),...one of which we all but paid for, the other of which we signed off on, I ASSUME inadvertently but ya never know...

deployed and used chemical weapons,...with "Made In USA" stamped on them...maybe Dubya could have borrowed some of the boxes for his last speech...

and continues to engage in lies in the face of the will of the international community...too easy.

seems to me to be a fairly high-minded concept.

Especially if it lubricates the way to a generally more democratic Middle East.Now that's good comedy.

Take a look at the calendar and the a map -- this is not 1941 and London....not 1942 and Stalingrad (named after one of Saddam's culture heros)...this is not 1944 and Dresden...this is not 1945 and Tokyo.It also isn't January 1991, and it damn sure isn't September 11th, 2001.

It's 2003, with JDAMSs, GPS systems, and accurate-to-the-meter stand off technology. ...Iraq has this stuff? Come on. Iraq couldn't win an ass-kicking contest against an earthworm.

[edcrocker]

Originally posted by Karl Keller
I dunno...getting rid of a vicious dictator who has slaughtered his people, engaged in rapacious wars of conquest against his neighbors (with casualties in the millions), deployed and used chemical weapons, and continues to engage in lies in the face of the will of the international community seems to me to be a fairly high-minded concept.

Especially if it lubricates the way to a generally more democratic Middle East.

Karl, is President Bush is morally obligated to order the US military to invade Iraq within the next few months? Or is he merely morally permitted to do so? For that matter, is he morally obligated to give said order within the next couple days?

And why should the variables that you have mentioned in the post to which I am referring be more morally salient than X? By "X" I will mean the following: Bush's ordering an invasion of Iraq within the next few months likely would result in significantly more people being killed and/or being injured than likely would result if Bush does not give said order.

I ask because, as I’m sure you agree, both human life and human well-being are precious. Of course, sometimes it is at least morally permissible, and perhaps even morally obligatory, for one person to injure and/or kill another person. For example, if I have excellent reason to believe that a given person will kill hundreds of innocent people if I don't shoot said person in the leg, then I am at least morally permitted to shoot him in the leg – and probably even morally obligated to do so.

But the post of yours to which I am responding suggests that you believe Hussein's past actions are sufficient for Bush's being morally obligated to give said order. You don't even mention the possibility of loss of life in said post. You mention the notion of a "more democratic Middle East." And you focus on Hussein’s past actions. Moreover, when most people make moral arguments, the reasons they believe are usually the ones they believe are the most morally salient.

[Karl K]

Originally posted by Dan Loney
...Iraq has this stuff? Come on. Iraq couldn't win an ass-kicking contest against an earthworm.

But I thought we were going to "LEVEL" Baghdad?

Hmmm...if what you say is the case -- and of course, I find your understanding of the military sciences COMPLETELY credible -- why would we need to do the aforesaid "leveling"??

See, folks like you really WANT us to fail...deep down inside, you WANT us to make a complete disaster out of this whole thing...to engage in the kind of horrific acts you seems to THINK we will to justify the loathing you feel.

Enjoy.

[Karl K]

Originally posted by edcrocker
Karl, is President Bush is morally obligated to order the US military to invade Iraq within the next few months? Or is he merely morally permitted to do so? For that matter, is he morally obligated to give said order within the next couple days?

And why should the variables that you have mentioned in the post to which I am referring be more morally salient than X? By "X" I will mean the following: Bush's ordering an invasion of Iraq within the next few months likely would result in significantly more people being killed and/or being injured than likely would result if Bush does not give said order.

I ask because, as I’m sure you agree, both human life and human well-being are precious.

Sure life is precious.

But can anybody dispute that the Iraqi people would be better off WITHOUT Saddam Hussein in power and a more democratic and less militaristic regime in? That the country would be better off if resources were devoted to creating a stable economy and political system?

And that the Middle East would be better off if he were gone??

If you assume that the tradeoff of lives is the moral litmus test -- i.e., my actions now will save SOME lives today in exchange for saving MORE lives tomorrow -- then I would bet this would pass moral muster according to that criteria.

Calculating that though gets awfully tricky. It could degenerate into arguing about how many angels fit on the head of a pin.

Instead, I think it is better to think about the greater long term benefits of policy decisions. Sometimes it's better to pursue policies that forestall and perhaps even prevent disasters, even if you can't "measure" the tradeoffs in such a quantitative way. Ronald Reagan engaged in an ongoing effort to defeat the Soviet Union, including spending billions on defense, including ballistic missile submarines and other weapons we never used in combat. Would it have been better, in retrospect, to take those billions and save ONE starving child on the planet?

Yet isn't it CLEARLY better that the Soviet Union, and the threat it posed, gone? And that as a result Eastern Europe is now free??

If a life gets traded for human dignity and freedom, is sacrificing that life worth it? Even if the person who gained his freedom via the sacrfice, directly or indirectly, would have still kept his life even as he had NO freedom?

Look life is messy, it's not simple. These are not easy questions, nor do they admit of easy answers. But if our VISION is correct, and our VISION is for freedom and dignity, then those tough decisions have a higher purpose, even though the inevitable mistakes and unintended consequences that may arise.

[MLSNHTOWN]

I for one don't personally agree with going to war with Iraq. I was just saying that the anti war lobby is usually alot louder by now that is all.

With regards to the moral justification, I will try this...............

1. Iraq has clearly been in the process of attempting to develop nuclear weapons. Sure they have some chemical and biological weapons, sold to them by the good ole USA but the key is the nuclear weapon.
2. In my estimation as soon as Iraq develops a nuclear weapon and the capabilities to send the nuclear weapon on a missile, the capital of Israel, or at least one or two of its best cities goes away killing hundreds of thousands if not millions. (they probably don't even need the missile capabilities as Sadaam seems to pay off Palestinian terrorists/freedom fighters)
3. Israel is our ally and friend
4. One jewish life is worth 3 arabs :)

So we kill some Iraqi military and do our best to limit civilian casualties but we will have civilian casualties. not to mention our own military casualties. All in exchange for the prevention of a nuclear bomb going off in Israel.

Obviously there is no guarantee that #2 happens. It might even be a longshot. But I don't want to wait and see if it does. So we take out a corrupt, horrible government, replete with human rights violation after human rights violation, and hope that it prevents #2.

That is at least an attempt at a moral justification.

Throw in the number of lives that Saddam will just kill because he can and I think that will at worse equal the number of civilians killed.

[Dan Loney]

Originally posted by Karl Keller
But I thought we were going to "LEVEL" Baghdad?

Hmmm...if what you say is the case -- and of course, I find your understanding of the military sciences COMPLETELY credible -- why would we need to do the aforesaid "leveling"??Jesus, read a newspaper. We're talking about using tactical nukes just to get into the guy's bunker. Would it absolutely kill you to read up on this stuff?

See, folks like you really WANT us to fail...deep down inside, you WANT us to make a complete disaster out of this whole thing...to engage in the kind of horrific acts you seems to THINK we will to justify the loathing you feel.

Enjoy. Well, it didn't take long for you to get to "You're against the war, so you want Americans to die," did you?

The correct response to this is, of course, "f**ck you, a**hole." Consider it made.

[Garcia]

Tactical nukes?
Not just for theory anymore.

If we have a hard time accepting bin Laden is dead without a body, how in the heck will the American women and children sleep at night?

There will be nothing left of Saddam to be used as proof.

[Sardinia]

Originally posted by MLSNHTOWN

2. In my estimation as soon as Iraq develops a nuclear weapon and the capabilities to send the nuclear weapon on a missile, the capital of Israel, or at least one or two of its best cities goes away killing hundreds of thousands if not millions. (they probably don't even need the missile capabilities as Sadaam seems to pay off Palestinian terrorists/freedom fighters)

This is paranoia.

It won't happen.

1) A lot of palestinians live in Israel.
2) the palestine is very little, a nuke anywhere would create a disaster in the whole region.
3) Israel (and not only Israel) would retaliate nuking the entire Irak.

4. One jewish life is worth 3 arabs :)

? What?