War started

mindseye: From CBS News:

What if it turns out there's nothing to disarm?


[hr]

Edit: This article was originally posted at 1:42 pm Eastern Daylight Time. Since then, the quote shown above has been removed from the CBS article at that link.

Here's a link to a transcript of the McChrystal briefing, located on a non-US server.

BIGBOYDAVE: [quote author=mindseye link=board=99;num=1048153410;start=15#15 date=03/23/03 at 10:42:58]From CBS News:


What if it turns out there's nothing to disarm?[/quote]

Wouldn't That Be a suprise. I am more suprised that If The Iraq military had these weapons why havn't they used them yet. Anyway we all know that if there is nothing there now There surly will be after this initial phase is over we have to prove to the world our reasons for going into and destroying an independant country with a ruthless regime. Then we can use there oil to pay for having Liberated them

[quote author=mindseye link=board=99;num=1048153410;start=15#15 date=03/23/03 at 10:42:58]What if it turns out there's nothing to disarm?[/quote]

Bush'll say Saddam invented a cloaking device.

[quote author=BIGBOYDAVE link=board=99;num=1048153410;start=15#16 date=03/23/03 at 10:55:31]

Wouldn't That Be a suprise. I am more suprised that If The Iraq military had these weapons why havn't they used them yet. Anyway we all know that if there is nothing there now *There surly will be after this initial phase is over *we have to prove to the world our reasons for going into and destroying an independant country with a ruthless regime. Then we can use there oil to pay for having Liberated them[/quote]

First off I personally think that Saddam must have some sort of weapon of 'mass destruction' as if he didn't the propaganda that surrounds this whole ordeal wouldn't be needed, and what I mean by that is America and Britain know for a fact what Saddam has got some sort f higly dangerous weapon, but cannot disclose this publicly as it would harm their credibility, the same reason that Saddam won't use them in the war as he would also loose credibility as the victim trying to protect his country.

Moreover, what surprises me most is that it's amazing how history repeats itself. Everyone was having this discussion when Hitler was rearming leading up to the second world war, but what I feel failed to be answered back then and failed to be answered now "What is a weapon of mass destruction?". Shouldn't we have learned that a Gun kills, a Soldier kills, a Bomb kills, Anthrax kills, Nuclear weapons kill. It may be in varying numbers, but if anything kills I believe it is a weapon of destruction.

A nuclear bomb could drop and kill thousands and millions, a gun could be taken into a school and kill 16 children, but don't you think that we would be faced with the same morral and social issues? And although a nuclear bomb kills more, there will be people celebrating those deaths, where as the example of the killing of the 16 children would put a whole country or world even into a state of mourning. So rather than have Anti-War demonstrations, or Political 'spin' why doesn't everyone work together to identify what a weapon of mass destruction is?

The Nuclear Bomb is not the weapon of mass destruction, the test tube filled with small pox is not the weapon of mass destruction, nor is it the gun, the airplains or the tanks. It's the men behind those weapons! it's the men who decide what are to be done with them! So what are the weapons of mass destruction? It's the agressors. It's Saddam, it's Bush it's Blair, it's the crazed psycho's that runs into the school with guns blazing, that are the weapons of mass destruction, and yes Tony Blair and George 'Dubya' Bush will be doing the world good by disarming Iraq, but when push comes to shove, who will disarm the biggest Weapon of Mass destruction, President George W. Bush?

It would not surprise this humble poster to find that Saddam is saving his WMD's for defense of Baghdad.

Pecker

Finedessert: The biggest WMD in Iraq is Saddam himself, and his past actions prove it.

Grandpa

Paris is tormented by weekly manifestations against war - 100,000 persons only Saturday. This morning I received another letter, slid under my door (the 5th letter !) calling me to be a good "citoyen français" and to protest against the war in Iraq. (The NGO who sent the message was something I immediately catalogued as "disgusting" : the French Marxist Students of Jussieu University. The noun in the middle was enough to make me sick, as I remembered the days of Red Roumania before 1989... DoubleMeatWhopper, you have - I believe - similar souvenirs from a Red Cuba...)

To be honest, I am now more & more pro-war. It happens that sometimes force must prevail ; diplomacy is still a refined language that barbarians like Saddam will never appreciate, learn or care about it : it simply means you cannot use it anymore with such creatures. 2,300 years ago a (mmm, handsome) guy named Alexander of Macedonia ("the Great") showed that extreme solutions are needed for extreme cases : he simply cut the Gordian knot. That's what US are doing. Oil is irrelevant compared to the freedom of 25-30 million human beings.
Saddam (not Iraq) was from 1979 a source of instability in the region. Think a bit : 8 years of war against Iran, 1 year of peace (1989), continuously harassing Israel, war against Kuwait, 12 years of embargo and crisis mixed with Anglo-American bombing, internal problems with the Kurds, dictatorship. A great combination, huh !... The unique problem with this war is the fact that there is no international law to invoke in order to wage it (creating it would mean turning the world into chaos) - but there is a undeniable moral legitimacy. I talked yesterday to some Iraqi students, whose families fled Iraq in 1987. To say that the entire nation is oppressed is just being superficial. What must be properly understood is that US are not fighting the Iraqi nation but Saddam and his clique (his family, mostly), no matter the pretext (disarmement, etc). I know what liberation means for a people after 24 years of true tyranny - Iraq aches for liberty as much as Eastern European countries ached for it 50 years after 1945. Everybody expected a big Anglo-Franco-American war to liberate the 11 states from Soviet domination, but it never happened. Iraq might be luckier.

I do regret seeing Europe pathetically loosing its guts, drowned in its post-1945 political irresponsibility. I do regret seeing Europe hidden behind an impractical, juvenile pacifism. I understand Europe and her supreme hatred for war (2 "things" like those in 10 different years plunged Europe into being a grave for some 40,000,000 human beings and a colossal ruin, morally and physically), I know European unity is still to come, but Europe seems damaged by some temporary amnesia. She forgot Munich 1938 (stopping Hitler = stopping Saddam : what if one day an A-bomb launched from Iraq will erase Athens, just because Greece is a part of the "satanic NATO" ? Tears will be useless, chére France); Europe forgot the bomb-blasts "in the name of Algeria" that shivered EU citizens in 1995 and 1996 - and that meant terror. Terror I also felt last week when we were announced "a suspect parcel was found in the Glacière tube station, the train will not halt there; thank you for you comprehension", terror that makes me wonder "when the next hit comes ?"

I don't say this as a Roumanian whose country was invited last November to join NATO and who will participate in this war with de-contamination units and peace-keeping troops after the "dirty job" is done - I say it as someone who believes in an old (European, my dear France, my dear Germany and my dear Belgium) saying : "cut the evil from the roots".

(PS - besides, trust me, I know a lot of French applauding this war. The French Coq didn't die : he just appreciates precaution more. )

The "Union des Banques Suisses - Warburg" financial consortium made public yesterday that the second Iraq war, combined with the US economy's recession and the basic problems of the US economy (deficits, etc.) are probably going to bring the US $ to a uncomortable parity with the €uro : 1 € = 1.2 at the end of 2003, and 1 € = 1.25 for 2004. I wouldn't really bet on this, but...

At already 1.06-1.08 $ for 1 € some American acquaintances of mine, here in Paris, told me Europe is getting more and more expensive to visit.

hung: We need to remember this fact:

Peaceful people are indeed quite different from Peacemakers. We have Peacemakers in Iraq from the United Kingdom and the United States of America along with about 34 allied countries.

The Peaceful life in France, Germany, China and Russia only because Iraq owes each of these countries Billions. Therefore they are peaceful because then want their money from Iraq.

Hung wrote :
Roumania wants its money from Iraq and it's neither peaceful, nor a great power ! (Bulgaria also.)

Iraq owes Roumania $ 1.2 billion, as a result of short-term loans made by Ceausescu to Saddam during the 1980s, when Roumania had pro-Arab attitudes (in the name of "anti-imperialist resistance").
November 2002 : Tarek Aziz, Iraqi minister for foreign affairs, to Mircea Geoana, Roumanian minister for foreign affairs, when hearing that Roumania joined the pro-war camp: "You want you money back ? Go now and ask America for it !"

Just a little example of "Iraqi diplomacy"...

BIGBOYDAVE: As I stated in a few posts back The oil will be used to pay for the war and the repair of the Iraq nation after this is over.
Maybe you should ask Mr Bush if he can use it to pay Iraq's debts after the war. I am sure there is going to be plenty of money from oil to go around and that way it will be easier to keep Iraq's people in control for many years to come. Lets forget about having gotten rid of the Person who caused the debts, lets just make his "newly liberated people" Pay for his misdeeds. Lets have them continually under the punishment of there liberators a punishment for having lived all these years under a world hated Dictator that they were to weak to get rid of. Get the Picture!

Please excuse me if my ramblings are obscured by a slight alcoholic haze, but rest assured this is Jacinto talking, not the tequila.
Do I agree that Saddam Hussein should not be in a position of power? Yeah, I'm in agreement there. Do I believe that the USA and the UK have the right to break international law, defy the UN and ignore the protests of their international allies in order to remove him from power? Absolutely not. Moral 'obligations' do not empower anyone to become a vigilante.
I saw Donald Rumsfeld on CNN complaining that Iraq had violated the Geneva Convention by showing the American POWs in a position of subjugation on Iraqi television. His outrage might have been more effective if I hadn't seen Iraqi soldiers with their hands on their heads held at gunpoint by UK military on American network news just two hours earlier. Excuse me, but who's the pot and who's the kettle?
But here's what bothers me most. Dubya says our objective is to free the Iraqis of a dictator so they can set up a democratic government. Am I the only one who can't envision a Shi'ite dominated country having a clue what a democratic government entails? Does anyone remember when another Shi'ite country (Iran) ousted their tyrannical ruler (the Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi)? Who replaced him? The Ayatollah Khomeini! Hello!?!? When Sodomy Insane is a smoldering charcoal briquet, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Iraqis erect a fundamentalist Muslim as their head honcho. The Sunnis will swap places with the Shi'ites as the second class citizens, and the Kurds will be as oppressed as ever. Such is the way when Islam and government collide.
Finally, I can't see myself supporting war in principle. Regardless of who wins, all sides lose.

mindseye: CBS News reports again today, that the coalition still hasn't found any chemical weapons. *

[hr]

Update: March 27: * They didn't find any today, either.

[hr]

Update: *March 30:
"Ten days into a war fought under the flag of disarmament, U.S.-led troops have found no substantial sign of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. . . . U.S. forces have tested 10 of their best intelligence leads, four that first day and another half dozen since, without result.

[hr]

Update: *April 2: *Even now that troops have closed in on Baghdad and are engaged in combat with the Republican Guard, they still haven't found any banned weapons.

[hr]

Update: *April 4: *In fairness, I should now report that troops have now discovered a substance that may turn out to be a banned chemical weapon. *Samples of the substance, which has thus far been found at only a single site, have been sent to labs for evaluation.

[hr]

Update: April 11: In case anyone's still keeping track, Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged today that the coalition forces still have not found any biological or chemical weapons in Iraq.

Hell, So-dumb was put in by Reagan to fight the Ayatollah.

If you've ever installed a dictator as part of the fight for democracy, you might be a Contra.

[quote author=mindseye link=board=99;num=1048153410;start=15#27 date=03/25/03 at 2110]CBS News reports again today, that the coalition still hasn't found any chemical weapons.[/quote]

I'm still surprised we're fighting a war based on the idea that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And since the US actually has chemical weapons, should we not be bombing ourselves?