Comments on: Meanwhile, in a galaxy far, far away

By: ginger

ginger — Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:30:43 +0000

Barry: hmm, how about my neighbours, in violations of resolutions about playing techno on Sunday mornings… Seriously, what I meant is that the resolutions had stated the requirements was to prove destruction of wmd, not existence. Of course whether intervention is decided or not in the UNSC, and of which type – diplomatic or military – is not taken for granted. Each case is different. And it’s always about interpretation. So you have a good point there, eh… But, whatever one thinks of the whole thing, the fact is that everyone had agreed to resolutions up to 1441, so they can’t really reverse the terms is was based on. And that “they” includes the governments who supported the military action. It’s rather disappointing that they’re now getting caught up in their own muddled arguments.

By: Barry

Barry — Thu, 19 Feb 2004 13:39:18 +0000

Ginger: “…. thought it had been established that, according to all the previous UN resolutions, the failure on the part the Iraqi regime to prove they had destroyed all WMD’s (and the failure to prove they were not entertaining new WMD programs) was enough for them to be in violation of those previous UN resolutions. Hence, enough for intervention.” Wow. Time to get out the list of those who violate UN resolutions, and get to work. Who are we invading this year? Barry

By: ginger

ginger — Thu, 19 Feb 2004 08:38:04 +0000

But I think no Western government thought that Iraq had no WMD at all. If I didn’t get it all wrong (because it is getting confusing…), I thought it had been established that, according to all the previous UN resolutions, the failure on the part the Iraqi regime to prove they had destroyed all WMD’s (and the failure to prove they were not entertaining new WMD programs) was enough for them to be in violation of those previous UN resolutions. Hence, enough for intervention. So, even if what the Australian Prime Minister is saying sounds like a joke at this stage, it’s actually correct… The problem is that governments, as usual thinking they had to present their arguments in front of a mass of idiots, made a mess of explaining that case, and so the requirement for intervention turned from “failure to prove destruction of those weapons” to “need to prove the existence of weapons”. The case for the UN itself to decide for intervention was very clear. In fact, the UNSC did decide there was ground for intervention, only they decided not to decide which kind of intervention to choose. Because countries in the SC, Russia and Germany and France, had all the financial and strategical interests not to remove Saddam’s regime even if the case for intervention was there and they’d agreed to it. But even if there was a case for military intervention (and not just in terms of WMD but security strategies as well), it could have been handled a lot better and more coherently by those who carried it out. When you got your own intelligence services contradicting you and making you look like an idiot, that’s your own problem to solve. When you, instead of keeping to a coherent presentation of your case, move from one argument to the other and then end up with yielding to the reversal of the original case, and come up with a farcical enquiry commission into something that had already been enquired at and decided in the UN… well you’ve screwed it up really bad.

By: ahem

ahem — Thu, 19 Feb 2004 06:01:39 +0000

¿Could someone tell me then what role had WMDs in the war (seem pretty irrelevant to me) and ¿Why bother with sanctions and inspections if all that mattered were Saddam’s future intentions? A scared populace (and legislature) is easier to push into war. Simple as that.

By: Carlos

Carlos — Thu, 19 Feb 2004 04:09:49 +0000

So, Sebastian, if I understand well; If Saddam had WMDs then war was justified and if Saddam had not WMDs then war was justified too because he would have gotten them once sanctions were dropped. ¿Could someone tell me then what role had WMDs in the war (seem pretty irrelevant to me) and ¿Why bother with sanctions and inspections if all that mattered were Saddam’s future intentions? It makes some kind of sense (in a perverted, Stalinistic way).

By: bad Jim

bad Jim — Thu, 19 Feb 2004 03:50:24 +0000

The point, of course, is that Kay’s findings were exactly those of Blix a year ago, that there were no weapons of mass destruction or means for delivering them. What we know now is no different than what we knew then. In a way it’s reassuring to learn that it isn’t only American leaders who assert “I was right!” and reason backwards from there.

By: Justin Hart

Justin Hart — Thu, 19 Feb 2004 01:29:51 +0000

Here are few quotes from Blix in 2003: “As we know, the twin operation ‘declare and verify’, which was prescribed in resolution 687 (1991), too often turned into a game of ‘hide and seek’.” “Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance-not even today-of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.” (is there an implication of war in that last statement)

By: Glenn

Glenn — Thu, 19 Feb 2004 00:21:37 +0000

all these people who care about the iraqi people so much and wanted the sanctions to end couldn’t give a damn that the iraqis are most grateful for saddam’s removal from power. hippercrites. here’s a nice tribute from an iraqi artist to the american soldiers: http://www.snopes.com/photos/arts/kalat.asp

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Wed, 18 Feb 2004 23:21:31 +0000

That would be the Atomic, Biological and Chemical weapons which he was banned from having and seeking.

By: Ted

Ted — Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:32:08 +0000

i refer you to the article in The Weekly Standard by Kagan and Kristol. They quote Bill Clinton and Sandy Berger as to exactly what they believed Saddam would do after sanctions were lifted. And that is why the Clinton administration advocated regime change in Iraq as our national policy. Saddam, himself, was the ultimate WMD

By: BP

BP — Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:20:20 +0000

Would that be WMD as in nuclear weapons, Mr. Holsclaw?

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:16:05 +0000

“There is no real evidence that Saddam was seriously looking for WMD.” You haven’t read the Kay report then. There is plenty of evidence that he was looking to obtain WMD. What is lacking is evidence that he was successful in obtaining WMD. The inference is that sanctions did little to control his desire, but apparently much to control his ability to act on that desire. Since sanctions were ending, I stand by what I wrote above.

By: Andrew Boucher

Andrew Boucher — Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:02:26 +0000

ct reader, If such a statement could not be found, wouldn’t that only prove that the French and Germans are more careful than their American counterparts about making unwarranted categorical assertions?

By: BP

BP — Wed, 18 Feb 2004 21:58:40 +0000

Mr CT Reader What exactly do you mean by Weapons of Mass Destruction?

By: CT reader

CT reader — Wed, 18 Feb 2004 21:53:14 +0000

I think it’s right that many people, governments and intelligence services thought before the war that Iraq has no large stockpiles of WMDs. But I think no Western government thought that Iraq had no WMD at all. So here’s a task: Please find a statement by the German or French government published before the war started which contains a sentence like “Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction”. I’ve searched the websites of the German Chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder, and his Foreign Secretary, Joschka Fischer. No sign here.