WMD Weapons of Mass Deception

[Cosmos Jack]

Isn't every war at the end of all the good deeds and bad at the very core just about economics?

[Zodiac]

Very nice post Skinwalker. Thumbs up there for the explanation.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Cosmos Jack

Isn't every war at the end of all the good deeds and bad at the very core just about economics?

 

Pretty much. It plays a big role anyway.

 

When countries go to war, they must carefully analyze the loss and gain of it. If financial ruin is the economic result of it, there must be some other gain outcome, even if it that can mean stability in the area, or the world.

 

Often, though, the economic reasons are valued the heaviest. And it looks like it will stay this way for a long time.

 

But why is this so bad? When USA helped us win WW2, they weren't doing it for our blue eye's sake. They were afraid to get raped as well, and had an economic partner in England. And look what came of it - by and large it was all good.

[mr116]

I do strongly think that the right to invade a nation is part of national sovreignty... If the leaders of our country think that that is in the best interest of anything (world peace, or even our oil reserves) then they have the right to do what they see fit, since we as a nation did elect them.

[Breton]

Originally posted by mr116

I do strongly think that the right to invade a nation is part of national sovreignty... If the leaders of our country think that that is in the best interest of anything (world peace, or even our oil reserves) then they have the right to do what they see fit, since we as a nation did elect them.

 

Does this mean that Russia has every right to invade Finland if they see it fit? Does this mean that Norway has every right to invade Sweden if they see it fit? Does this mean that Canada has every right to invade USA if they see it fit?

 

What's the difference?

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Originally posted by Breton

Does this mean that Russia has every right to invade Finland if they see it fit? Does this mean that Norway has every right to invade Sweden if they see it fit? Does this mean that Canada has every right to invade USA if they see it fit?

 

What's the difference?

 

Well, let's say Russia invades Finland, Norway invades Sweden, and Canada invades the USA.

 

First thing that'll happen is that according to NATO, USA will declare war on Norway, Russia, and Canada, for invading other NATO members (Norway and Canada, obviously, are no longer allies of the NATO nations, not Finland, Sweden, and the USA, at least). Russia doesn't have allies.

 

So it'd be (at least):

 

Aggressors:

• Norway
  
• Russia
  
• Canada
  
• If these aggressors have a damned good reasons for their suicidal invasion, maybe one or two other nations will join.
  

Defenders:

• Finland
  
• Sweden
  
• Germany
  
• England
  
• France
  
• Italy
  
• Denmark
  
• USA
  ...to mention some NATO members.
  
• All other nations joining the war.
  

 

Most likely, the three agressors would ally, and Russia does have nukes, but we would eventually lose to the USA and NATO, maybe after taking Sweden and/or Finland, and temporarily occupying some US cities.

 

Similarily, if Iraq and China had a mutual protection treaty, the USA couldn't have invaded them without setting off a war with China, which most likely would also involve NATO, countries neighbouring China like Taiwan and Japan, and countries neighbouring Iraq like Israel. It'd be really close to a World War.

 

See my point? We've got allies, Iraq didn't. The USA, thus, had absolute power to invade them, as the president doesn't even require Congress approval to invade someone ().

 

So if the USA wants to invade someone, it's not their right, but they simply have the power to refuse to give a damned crap, so they don't.

 

I do strongly think that the right to invade a nation is part of national sovreignty...

I do have some very good questions for you then:

 

• If you don't care about international treaties, why did you sign them?
  
• If you don't care about the UN, why did you not just join, but also have the UN HQ built in the States?
  
• If you believe in sovereignity and every country doing whatever the heck it pleases, why do you come up with treaties and vote for many of those that others in the UN come up with for other nations?
  
• When you say it's okay since the people wants to do it: What makes you think it's right just because the people want it? You may say that the governmnent represent the people, but in this case, it's just as much the other way around: The people have been swayed by the government.
  

[Zodiac]

The response of an egocentric, arrogant and ignorant american would be: "The difference is that our government is the best there is, and they're always right when it comes to tough and big decisions (because of the vast amount of information they get). And I trust them completely, otherwise me and my fellow americans would not have elected them."

 

 

*p u k e*.

 

Fortunately, not all americans are like that.

Unfortunately, some are!

[Wilhuf]

IRAQI MOBILE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS LABORATORY LOCATED

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Wilhuf

Those crying deception have themselves deceived.

 

If you actually read the article and not the headline, you might have noticed something that all the WMD finds have in common. The article began with "A suspected mobile biological weapons lab..."

 

Note the word "suspected."

 

The article also notes that the "lab" was cleaned very thoroughly. At the moment, the authorities have no idea what was done in the "lab."

 

The thing that this find has in common with all the others? No confirmation. Not yet, at any rate. We hear nothing of the conex containers that were located a couple weeks ago. We hear nothing of the stash of barrels that contained suspicious chemicals from two weeks ago..... etc. We hear nothing about these anymore becuase there's nothing to hear.

 

Now I agree, it seems likely that its purpose was nefarious, but we also have to ask: was the "lab" in use recently? If so, where are the agents that were produced?

 

But whether or not any WMDs were present or not isn't the real point. The real point is that WMDs were the excuse that we used to invade the nation. Many nations within that region have WMDs against the will of the United Nations. Libya, Syria, Jordan and Iran all have confirmed or strongly suspected to have chemical/biological weapons. Isreal even has nuclear weapons.

 

ECONOMIC CONTROL OF THE REGION.

[Luc Solar]

Russia could never take Finland!

 

Those bastards *tried* back in the days they were big and powerful, but...

 

...pwned..

 

 

I have to say that the stuff about "I'm bigger so I'ts alright for me to beat you up if I want to" was pretty hilarious.

 

Yeah...sovereignty is way overrated. In Bush we trust.

[Breton]

You know, a funny detail about this is that Saddam Hussein has never had any Weapons of Mass Destruction! We know this.

 

You see, the defenition of Weapons of Mass Destruction is "A weapon that can kill very many people in a very short time, and from a certain distance". According to Dieter Röhrich, professor in physics, the only weapon that fits to this description, and thereby the only weapons that can be called Weapons of Mass Destruction are nuclear weapons. Saddam has never had nuclear weapons.

 

And I doubt he had chemical/biological weapons anyway.

 

For instance, it is only a myth that the Weapon Inspectors were kicked out of Iraq in 1998. The Iraqi regime refused to cooperate 31. Oktober 1998, because they had gotten a letter from the Security Council, wich indicated that even if Iraq did cooperate, they didn't have to remove the oil blocade, wich was put on Iraq by the SC. However, two weeks later, the Weapon Inspectors were allowed into Iraq again and allowed to continue their inspections, wich ran smoothly, until the leader of the inspectors decided to pull them out at 16th December. They weren't kicked out, they pulled out themselves.

[Luc Solar]

I do recall seeing some pretty funny footage of Iraqi officials not letting the weapon inspectors do their job, though..

 

It was like: "sure, you can search this building but not quite yet... 'cause we need to get some..stuff done first."

 

or

 

"We got nothing to hide but if you don't give me those documents back I'll have to shoot you all. I promise you'll get them *all* back next week but first we need check what exactly it is you got there."

 

 

...yeah right!

[Wilhuf]

Pardon my French but the idea that "economic control of the region" is the American objective in operation Iraqi Freedom is utter horsesh*t.

 

US Department of Defense representatives testified before the US Congress that the military operation in Iraq could cost up to $80 BILLION. And another $FIVE BILLION per year for the occupation and reconstruction. Assuming the US commitment is relatively short, say five years, that will run the American taxpayer $105 BILLION. A longer commitment costs more.

 

Here's preemptive strike: Don't waste your time griping about how Haliburton and its subcontractors are "war profiteering." Guess who has to pay Haliburton and its subcontractors for their work? THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER. $Hundreds of millions, payed for by Americans. Not the EU, not the UN.

 

Operation Iraqi Freedom is NOT a money-making exercise. The US does not intend to and will not profit in this endeavor. WAKE UP!

 

For the reality-challenged here, I'll help you think through the implications of a MOBILE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS LABORATORY:

 

Imagine that you're a third world dictator bent on intimdating and controling your neighbors. The obvious thing to do would be to build a Chemical, Biological, Riadological, Nuclear (CBRN) capability to leverage power projection ability. This was necessary since your air force was mostly destroyed in 1991, and those aircraft that weren't, are now under Iranian control since you ordered them to flee to Iran.

 

Now, understand that in 1991 you were required, under INTERNATIONAL LAW to disarm and dispose of said CBRN ability. Pesky United Nations inspectors had traversed your brutal dominion for twelve years, looking for the goods. Until you finally kicked them out, that is.

 

Yet an annoying country, those infidel do-gooder Americans, and their British puppets, just wont shove their heads up their collective *sses and go away, unlike much of the rest of the world. They aren't buying your claims of innocence. How could you achieve your goal under these appalling imperialist conditions? What to do, what to do?

 

Enter the MOBILE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS LABORATORY. The concept is simple and effective. Haul a camoflaged vehicle around hinterland Iraq, and develop CBRN ability. Keep it clean, in the event that it is captured. Gotta maintain plausible deniability, after all.

 

Besides, why worry. Most countries will simply look the other way. After all, noone gave a sh*t about what you did to the Iranians back in the 80s. Hell, they don't care what you do to your own civilian population. At least not enough to actually DO something to stop it.

 

... Except for those Imperialist Americans and Brits!

[Wilhuf]

you can't invade a nation for having a bad leader.

 

This is the core flaw in the existing international system. Too many countries shoving their heads in the sand, pretending the problem will go away, rationalizing their inaction and acquiesence. ANYTHING short of confrontation. It's a DISGRACE.

 

Fortunately we have leaders such as US Undersecretary Wolfowitz who actually believe and ACT on the premise that Human Rights should take FRONT and CENTER stage, backed up by FORCE, in international policy.

 

Yes it is neoconservative idealism, but it is about time a country stood up to the rest of the world and and acted for what IS right.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

For the reality-challenged here, I'll help you think through the implications of a MOBILE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS LABORATORY:

 

Imagine that you're a third world dictator bent on intimdating and controling your neighbors. The obvious thing to do would be to build a Chemical, Biological, Riadological, Nuclear (CBRN) capability to leverage power projection ability. This was necessary since your air force was mostly destroyed in 1991, and those aircraft that weren't, are now under Iranian control since you ordered them to flee to Iran.

Hmm.. yes. ONE facility.

 

If he had ten or a dozen or a houndred, sure I'd be scared, but he can't manufacture and store many bio-weapons with only one facility to. IMO, if he wanted a war, he'd do far more damage with conventional means.

 

And the other big question:

If Saddam had WMDs, why didn't he use them when the Coalition rolled in? It could have turned the tide of the war a bit, at least delaying the US Juggernaut long enough for Saddam to actually ready and fire those Scuds at Israel... for he was going to, right? That he was a threat to the neighbouring nations was another reason the Coalition invaded.

 

But no. No WMDs. No invading or harrasing neighbouring nations except from one missile that hit a Kuwaiti Shopping Mall (don't think there was anything but that).

[Zodiac]

Here's preemptive strike: Don't waste your time griping about how Haliburton and its subcontractors are "war profiteering." Guess who has to pay Haliburton and its subcontractors for their work? THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER. $Hundreds of millions, payed for by Americans. Not the EU, not the UN.

 

Operation Iraqi Freedom is NOT a money-making exercise.

Nope, it's not a money-making exercise for the american taxpayer. But that's not the case for those bigger chiefs at Haliburton (& Co). They are getting richer from those contracts. and well.. you even said the american taxpayer has to pay Haliburton and its subcontractors for its work too...

 

.. so if I was an American taxpayer.. I'd feel screwed.

[Breton]

Originally posted by Wilhuf

Imagine that you're a third world dictator bent on intimdating and controling your neighbors. The obvious thing to do would be to build a Chemical, Biological, Riadological, Nuclear (CBRN) capability to leverage power projection ability. This was necessary since your air force was mostly destroyed in 1991, and those aircraft that weren't, are now under Iranian control since you ordered them to flee to Iran.

 

But you don't need to build chemical and bilogical, since you have gotten these weapons from the USA and gotten help to denvelop it to kill Iranians (they later gave weapons to the Iranians to kill the Iraqis, but you don't know about this).

 

Now, understand that in 1991 you were required, under INTERNATIONAL LAW to disarm and dispose of said CBRN ability. Pesky United Nations inspectors had traversed your brutal dominion for twelve years, looking for the goods.

 

And they haven't found anything very bad. And since the US cannot find anything either, I doubt that is because the UN inspectors are bad.

 

Until you finally kicked them out, that is.

 

Wrong. It should be "Until they pulled out after advice from the US representative at UN".

 

Yet an annoying country, those infidel do-gooder Americans, and their British puppets, just wont shove their heads up their collective *sses and go away, unlike much of the rest of the world. They aren't buying your claims of innocence. How could you achieve your goal under these appalling imperialist conditions? What to do, what to do?

 

Yet again, this shows the wrong picture. The rest of the world never wanted to leave Saddam alone. They just wanted to solve the matter peacefully, unlike certain others. Every country knows that Saddam isn't innocent.

 

Enter the MOBILE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS LABORATORY. The concept is simple and effective. Haul a camoflaged vehicle around hinterland Iraq, and develop CBRN ability. Keep it clean, in the event that it is captured. Gotta maintain plausible deniability, after all.

 

I know a better one: They threw all their chemical weapons onto a space ship and flew it to Venus, where they will get it when the coast is once again clear.

 

No really. There is nothing that leads to the excistance of these Mobile Labs, and far from anything that proves anything. It is only speculations and accusions.

 

Besides, why worry. Most countries will simply look the other way. After all, noone gave a sh*t about what you did to the Iranians back in the 80s. Hell, they don't care what you do to your own civilian population. At least not enough to actually DO something to stop it.

 

Well there is one country that does give a sh*t: USA. After all, it is them who are giving you what you need to kill the Iranian people and oppress your own population. Yes, Saddam has many reasons to be thankful to USA.

 

This is the core flaw in the existing international system. Too many countries shoving their heads in the sand, pretending the problem will go away, rationalizing their inaction and acquiesence. ANYTHING short of confrontation. It's a DISGRACE.

 

Can you mention any of these countries?

 

Because I don't know of any.

 

Yes it is neoconservative idealism, but it is about time a country stood up to the rest of the world and and acted for what IS right.

 

Tell me: What is right? To kill innocents? To occupy another country without any real reason?

 

Most of the Iraqi people didn't like Saddam. Just as most of the Iraqi people doesn't like being occupied by US.

 

And remember, kids: If everyone were socialists, there would be no wars.

[Zodiac]

This is the core flaw in the existing international system. Too many countries shoving their heads in the sand, pretending the problem will go away, rationalizing their inaction and acquiesence. ANYTHING short of confrontation. It's a DISGRACE.

 

The International Law is fine, but the way it's followed is the real flaw! I think the biggest flaw in the current Security Council is the veto right for the five (US, UK, France, China and Russia). permanent members of that council. You accused countries of not going into confrontation and "shoving their heads in the sand", but it's actually the US who vetoed the most when the Security Council DID want to act against crimes at human rights.

 

Each of the 5 priviliged countries has used their right to veto several times, with the United Stated topping the bill of number of vetoes in the Security Council (73 times since 1990!!). Many of those vetoes favoring Israel, the US' ally, in their conflict with the Palestinians. Now while some vetoes were correctly used for the preservation of peace, other were not.

By misusing their right to veto, I think those members misused and/or even abused their power for their "own" (most likely economic) reasons, and not for the protection of the humane situations in other countries.

 

It's time to put an end to this current veto system and establish a new and more equal voting system without privileged members.

 

But there lies this other problem: The current five members love their current privileged status and the power they gain from it, and they sure as hell don't want to lose it. The taste of power sure is sweet.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

And remember, kids: If everyone were socialists, there would be no wars.

Huh?

Do you mean as in democratic:confused:?

[Wilhuf]

Why didn't Saddam use WMDs when the Coalition rolled in?

 

Because he wanted to exact political rather than military damage. Obviously if Saddam used CBRN that would lend justification to the Coalition's operation. That was unacceptable to him.

 

Also it could be that Hussein never had the chance to issue the final release order for their use, if he was eliminated during the operation.

 

Anyway, the fact remains, whether Haliburton profits or not, is that Iraqi Freedom COST the US in absolute terms. The anti-Americans here (and you ARE an anti-American) cannot justify their complaints that Iraqi Freedom is of some kind of Imperialist exercise.

 

BTW a US veto on the security council is a GREAT thing, given that countries such as LIBYA and CUBA are on the HUMAN RIGHTS Committee.

 

Yes the taste of power is sweet, and thankfully the US uses that sweet power to promote FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY.

[Wilhuf]

What is right? To kill innocents? To occupy another country without any real reason?

 

This is supreme irony. The question crystalizes the justification for the US operation in Iraq. Hussein has killed innocents. THOUSANDS of them. And has occupied other countries (Kuwait, Iran) without any real reason.

 

I really wish that those who truly believe in internationalism, and multiculturalism would open their eyes to what the Baath regime was about. Stop sticking your heads in the sand.

 

Confront, do not appease!

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I really wish that those who truly believe in internationalism, and multiculturalism would open their eyes to what the Baath regime was about. Stop sticking your heads in the sand.

Sarcasm: Oh, and I thought the Baath party was a democratic regime:rolleyes:.

 

Confront, do not appease!

And how, exactly, did we appease Saddam?

NOT by "letting him have WMDs", so don't even think about saying that. Give us some truth here.

 

Because he wanted to exact political rather than military damage. Obviously if Saddam used CBRN that would lend justification to the Coalition's operation. That was unacceptable to him.

Do you have any evidence to back that up?

 

Anyway, the fact remains, whether Haliburton profits or not, is that Iraqi Freedom COST the US in absolute terms. The anti-Americans here (and you ARE an anti-American) cannot justify their complaints that Iraqi Freedom is of some kind of Imperialist exercise.

Let me just say this: You can dislike the US military and Bush without hating the USA.

 

BTW a US veto on the security council is a GREAT thing, given that countries such as LIBYA and CUBA are on the HUMAN RIGHTS Committee.

Don't Cuban nationals have the same rights to human rights as Americans, even though they're "just commies"?

 

USA's veto on those Child Rights were definetly not a good thing.

 

Yes the taste of power is sweet, and thankfully the US uses that sweet power to promote FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY.

FREEDOM, DEMOCRACY trough BOMBING, THREATS, and BASHING OF ALLIES. Personally, I can't say I like the tasts of that.

[Wilhuf]

And how, exactly, did we appease Saddam?

 

If by "we" you mean the French representation to the UN, it was by sitting by and doing NOTHING while in Iraq, THOUSANDS died, and THOUSANDS more languished in illegal, unjust imprisonment, many subject to continual TORTURE.

 

I can promise you that sitting by and hemming and hawing about how "now is not the right time to act" will accomplish ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in advancing the ideals of freedom and pluralism. Pres. Bush was absolutely right to act when he did.

 

The suggestion (from the French Ambassador to the UN for instance) to "wait until we have proof" is really the same thing as saying "don't do anything ever." This is appeasement.

 

I know it is difficult, but the reality you must face is that there are times when the seemingly unspeakable is the right thing to do.

 

Just because it is difficult and perilous does not mean that Freedom and Democracy should not be stood up for.

[Wilhuf]

Don't Cuban nationals have the same rights to human rights as Americans, even though they're "just commies"?

 

1. Cubans aren't just commies. Drop the stereotypes NOW.

 

2. Cuban nationals SHOULD have the same human rights as Americans. Unfortunately they DONT enjoy them in their own country because of the Castro government and CP. The US, because of this, has enacted a series of economic embargoes against Cuba for the past four decades.

 

3. The Cuban representation on the UN Security Council has between little to nothing to do with representation of the actual will of the Cuban people. The same is true for Libya. It is yet another irony that one would try to advocate for greater Cuban or Libyan representation on the security council, given each regime's lack of legitimacy.

[Wilhuf]

Until they pulled out after advice from the US representative at UN

 

Exactly. And the US recommendation was driven by the Iraqi statments that UN inspectors' "security could no longer be guaranteed." That is diplomatic parlance for "get out or we'll kill you!"