Is the United States' Credibility in Tatters?

Post Reply
Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Is the United States' Credibility in Tatters?

Post by Coito ergo sum » Fri Sep 13, 2013 3:10 pm

rainbow wrote:The BIG LIE was that there was an imminent threat, which there wasn't.
The Bush administration never said it was an imminent threat. His opponents kept screaming that it wasn't, and that therefore there should not be any reason for invasion because the humanitarian reasons were insufficient. What Bush said was that we ought not wait until a threat is imminent -- take this quote from his State of the Union address before the war: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late." The Bush Administration never described Iraq as an "imminent threat" using those words.

What the Bush Administration did, over and over again, is to suggest that the concept of "imminent threat" was no longer sufficient to deal with threats from rogue states like Iraq.

Whatever lies the Bush Admin told, saying Iraq was an imminent threat was, quite simply, not among them.
rainbow wrote:
The humanitarian crisis never was the reason for the invasion until after it became obvious that no WMD would be found.
False. Absolutely,positively, inarguably, false. Humanitarian reasons were always part of the equation. In 1998, the Iraq Liberation Act, specifically noted, among other things, that Iraq had violated international laws. Look at this statement from President Bill Clinton in February, 1998:

"Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.... Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits.... It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.... Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal.... " President Clinton ~ 1998

In the text of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the enactment stated as follows:
The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) On September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, starting an 8 year war in which Iraq employed chemical weapons against Iranian troops and ballistic missiles against Iranian cities.
(2) In February 1988, Iraq forcibly relocated Kurdish civilians from their home villages in the Anfal campaign, killing an estimated 50,000 to 180,000 Kurds.
(3) On March 16, 1988, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurdish civilian opponents in the town of Halabja, killing an estimated 5,000 Kurds and causing numerous birth defects that affect the town today.
(4) On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded and began a 7 month occupation of Kuwait, killing and committing numerous abuses against Kuwaiti civilians, and setting Kuwait's oil wells ablaze upon retreat.
(5) Hostilities in Operation Desert Storm ended on February 28, 1991, and Iraq subsequently accepted the ceasefire conditions specified in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991) requiring Iraq, among other things, to disclose fully and permit the dismantlement of its weapons of mass destruction programs and submit to long-term monitoring and verification of such dismantlement.
(6) In April 1993, Iraq orchestrated a failed plot to assassinate former President George Bush during his April 14-16, 1993, visit to Kuwait.
(7) In October 1994, Iraq moved 80,000 troops to areas near the border with Kuwait, posing an imminent threat of a renewed invasion of or attack against Kuwait.
(8) On August 31, 1996, Iraq suppressed many of its opponents by helping one Kurdish faction capture Irbil, the seat of the Kurdish regional government.
(9) Since March 1996, Iraq has systematically sought to deny weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) access to key facilities and documents, has on several occasions endangered the safe operation of UNSCOM helicopters transporting UNSCOM personnel in Iraq, and has persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction programs.
(10) On August 5, 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM, and subsequently threatened to end long-term monitoring activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNSCOM.
(11) On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-235, which declared that `the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.'.
(12) On May 1, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-174, which made $5,000,000 available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition for such activities as organization, training, communication and dissemination of information, developing and implementing agreements among opposition groups, compiling information to support the indictment of Iraqi officials for war crimes, and for related purposes.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.4655.ENR:

And, in the Iraq War resolution of 2002:
Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

The fact is, the humanitarian issues were front and center from day one. They were ignored by the Administration's political opponents, which included most of the media. But, if people paid attention, they would have repeatedly heard references to the humanitarian issues.
rainbow wrote: The fact that one has a few truths interspersed between a bunch of lies, don't make those lies the truth.
You'll need to pick a different statement that you think is a lie. Attributing something to them that they never said doesn't make them liars. It makes the person attributing such things to the other person either mistaken or purposefully misattributing the statement.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Is the United States' Credibility in Tatters?

Post by Coito ergo sum » Fri Sep 13, 2013 3:19 pm

Warren Dew wrote:
Seth wrote:Wrong. The US responded at the request of its ally Kuwait to Saddam's invasion and kicked Saddam's ass all the way back to Baghdad. Bush the Elder's mistake was in not finishing the job then.
Kuwait was not an ally at the time; in fact, the U.S. had previously had better relations with Iraq than with Kuwait. The Iraqi foreign minister even had a chat with a U.S. undersecretary of state, and thought he had tacit approval for the invasion from the U.S.
This is a myth. The US never gave any such approval, nor would it. Why would the US approve of an unprovoked invasion of Kuwait by Iraq?
Warren Dew wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:Hussein did invade Kuwait and the UN responded in spades and drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait. And a cease fire accord was reached, and there were various conditions imposed on Iraq and a no fly zone. Iraq violated the cease fire accord repeatedly and fired on UN forces repeatedly. Iraq did not comply with the cease fire accord, the no fly zone and a dozen UN resolutions repeatedly telling him to comply. Ultimately, REsolution 1441 was passed by the UN, and force was initiated when Iraq did not comply.
Don't forget the sanctions that prevented Iraqis from getting food and medicine, and killed more Iraqis than did the Iraq war.
I would have preferred they just take Saddam out in 1992. But the more thoughtful Europeans and other UN nations were very insistent that sanctions were better than regime change. The US followed the dictates of the UN. :tea:


Warren Dew wrote:
I disagree with Seth that Bush the Elder's mistake was in not "finishing the job" during the Gulf War. We did the right thing, I think, in abiding by the UN mandate.
I disagree that we should have gone in at all. It wasn't any of our business, and no U.S. strategic interests were implicated. At the time, Iraq was no more oppressive than Kuwait, and served as a useful counterbalance to Iran, stabilizing the region.

Given we made the mistake of going in in 1990, though, it probably would have been better to finish the job the first time, instead of waiting until 2003 to finish the job.
Perhaps so, but we were a member of the UN, and the Gulf War was almost unanimous. What were we to do? Veto it? Just let them go on about seizing Kuwait? It's every member of the UN's "business" to deal with an unprovoked attack like Iraq did relative to Kuwait. We're signatories to the UN charter. if it's going to mean anything, then the UN must act when a country does shit like that.

User avatar
Warren Dew
Posts: 3781
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:41 pm
Location: Somerville, MA, USA
Contact:

Re: Is the United States' Credibility in Tatters?

Post by Warren Dew » Fri Sep 13, 2013 4:24 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
Warren Dew wrote:
Seth wrote:Wrong. The US responded at the request of its ally Kuwait to Saddam's invasion and kicked Saddam's ass all the way back to Baghdad. Bush the Elder's mistake was in not finishing the job then.
Kuwait was not an ally at the time; in fact, the U.S. had previously had better relations with Iraq than with Kuwait. The Iraqi foreign minister even had a chat with a U.S. undersecretary of state, and thought he had tacit approval for the invasion from the U.S.
This is a myth. The US never gave any such approval, nor would it. Why would the US approve of an unprovoked invasion of Kuwait by Iraq?
Read what I said carefully. I said that the Iraqis thought they had approval. I don't think the U.S. thought it gave approval. Based on reports at the time, I think the U.S. undersecretary failed to understand that the "hypotheticals" the Iraqis were discussing might become less hypothetical, and the Iraqis incorrectly took statements that the U.S. had no interests at stake as saying the U.S. would not intervene.
I would have preferred they just take Saddam out in 1992. But the more thoughtful Europeans and other UN nations were very insistent that sanctions were better than regime change. The US followed the dictates of the UN.
Blindly following the dictates of the UN is poor policy. I think Bush pere just wanted to relive the outdated glories of WWII.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Is the United States' Credibility in Tatters?

Post by Coito ergo sum » Fri Sep 13, 2013 4:43 pm

Warren Dew wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
Warren Dew wrote:
Seth wrote:Wrong. The US responded at the request of its ally Kuwait to Saddam's invasion and kicked Saddam's ass all the way back to Baghdad. Bush the Elder's mistake was in not finishing the job then.
Kuwait was not an ally at the time; in fact, the U.S. had previously had better relations with Iraq than with Kuwait. The Iraqi foreign minister even had a chat with a U.S. undersecretary of state, and thought he had tacit approval for the invasion from the U.S.
This is a myth. The US never gave any such approval, nor would it. Why would the US approve of an unprovoked invasion of Kuwait by Iraq?
Read what I said carefully. I said that the Iraqis thought they had approval. I don't think the U.S. thought it gave approval. Based on reports at the time, I think the U.S. undersecretary failed to understand that the "hypotheticals" the Iraqis were discussing might become less hypothetical, and the Iraqis incorrectly took statements that the U.S. had no interests at stake as saying the U.S. would not intervene.
I think that when one looks at the totality of the evidence, April Glaspie made it clear that the dispute with Kuwait was none of our business, but had to be settled by peaceful means, and she received assurances from Hussein that it would be settled by peaceful means. Good summary with quotes - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie

There are those who opportunistically twist what happened into an undersecretary implying to Hussein that we wouldn't care if they invaded Kuwait, but I can't for the life of me see how Hussein gets that impression from the communications. Probably if he took a small piece, we'dve done nothing. But, to swallow the whole country?
Warren Dew wrote:
I would have preferred they just take Saddam out in 1992. But the more thoughtful Europeans and other UN nations were very insistent that sanctions were better than regime change. The US followed the dictates of the UN.
Blindly following the dictates of the UN is poor policy. I think Bush pere just wanted to relive the outdated glories of WWII.
I don't think it was about glory. I think that Bush the Elder sincerely wanted to foster the internationalism that applied at the time. This wasn't "blind" following. It was an attempt to set a precedent that the consensus of the international players would be followed. It was designed to show that the US did not lead the Gulf War as a war of conquest, but a war of liberation. And, that we had no goal of overthrowing Iraq, just bringing it in line.

Knocking out Hussein was considered a bad idea, incidentally, in 1991 and 1992 because it was thought that it would result in chaos and a power vacuum afterwards and that it might devolve into a civil war where outside elements intervened in Iraq to cause even more strife and instability and that nation building was a very difficult and arduous task that would be very bloody and that it would be better to leave the regime in place and bring him to heel with sanctions. This would then allow a peaceful transition from dictatorship to something that would come after it. When Hussein was finally taken down in 2003, what followed after was chaos, devolution into civil war, instability, and difficult nation building that was bloody.....

User avatar
Cormac
Posts: 6415
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Is the United States' Credibility in Tatters?

Post by Cormac » Fri Sep 13, 2013 4:53 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:[quote="Cormac"

Well, at the time the US attacked Iraq, there was no imminent threat either - there was a trumped up tissue of lies.
But there was a humanitarian crisis, and if that is sufficient now, it would be sufficient then, even if the Bush Admin was wrong on imminent threat. It is odd, in my view, for anyone to support intervention in Syria now if one opposed intervention in Iraq then.[/quote]


I'd have been happier to follow into Iraq after he was beaten out of Kuwait.

But I'd also have been happier to go in after him on grounds of his murderous attitudes to the Iraqi people, rather than the makey uppey pantomime to which we were all treated. It wasn't even convincingly done.
FUCKERPUNKERSHIT!


Wanna buy some pegs Dave, I've got some pegs here...
You're my wife now!

User avatar
Warren Dew
Posts: 3781
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:41 pm
Location: Somerville, MA, USA
Contact:

Re: Is the United States' Credibility in Tatters?

Post by Warren Dew » Fri Sep 13, 2013 7:29 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:I think that when one looks at the totality of the evidence, April Glaspie made it clear that the dispute with Kuwait was none of our business, but had to be settled by peaceful means, and she received assurances from Hussein that it would be settled by peaceful means. Good summary with quotes - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie
Where do you get any promise about peaceful means? Her quote says "suitable methods", not "peaceful methods". Iraq promised to wait until an Egyptian sponsored meeting at the end of the month, which they did.

Also keep in mind that Wikipedia's policies require biographies of living persons to take the most favorable interpretation towards the person, so they often omit contrary opinions rather than providing a rigorously objective interpretation.
There are those who opportunistically twist what happened into an undersecretary implying to Hussein that we wouldn't care if they invaded Kuwait, but I can't for the life of me see how Hussein gets that impression from the communications. Probably if he took a small piece, we'dve done nothing. But, to swallow the whole country?
There's no twisting involved. Glaspie says she didn't expect Iraq to take the whole country, and I believe her that she didn't think that, but I can also certainly believe that Saddam Hussein would have interpreted "suitable methods" differently, to include a takeover.

User avatar
rainbow
Posts: 13795
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:10 am
About me: Egal wie dicht du bist, Goethe war Dichter
Where ever you are, Goethe was a Poet.
Location: Africa
Contact:

Re: Is the United States' Credibility in Tatters?

Post by rainbow » Sat Sep 14, 2013 7:22 am

Coito ergo sum wrote:
rainbow wrote:The BIG LIE was that there was an imminent threat, which there wasn't.
The Bush administration never said it was an imminent threat.
The issue before us is not how much time we are willing to give the inspectors to be frustrated by Iraqi obstruction. But how much longer are we willing to put up with Iraq's noncompliance before we, as a council, we, as the United Nations, say: "Enough. Enough." The gravity of this moment is matched by the gravity of the threat that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction pose to the world. Let me now turn to those deadly weapons programs and describe why they are real and present dangers to the region and to the world.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/feb/05/iraq.usa



For more lies:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/ ... nt-threat/

These are things that were actually said by members of the Bush Administration leading up to the invasion of Iraq.

They had not bothered much with humanitarian issues then.
I call bullshit - Alfred E Einstein
BArF−4

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests