catapult magazine
discussion
"I don't think war is noble"
dan
Feb 03 2003
11:49 am
Just to clarify: There is no evidence that Iraq has a nuclear program anymore. Biological and chemical, yes. Nuclear no. All Bush could come up with for evidence was the following in his speech last week:
“
The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.
”
Summary: Iraq used to have a nuclear weapons program. Saddam tried to buy uranium. Iraq imported some aluminum tubes.
That doesn’t qualify as evidence of a nuclear program. These bogus (until I see more evidence) arguments undermine the real arguments Bush is trying to make. Namely that Iraq is dangerous, nuclear or not. Good debaters know that one’s position is not bolstered by adding lots and lots of arguments. To make a strong case, you pick the strongest arguments and stick with them.
JabirdV
Feb 03 2003
12:40 pm
Just got this from Worldnet Daily:
“EYE ON THE GULF
Saddam’s bodyguard flees
with ‘smoking gun’
Details underground chemical, biological weapons, Scud assembly
-——————————————————————————————————————-
Posted: February 3, 2003
3:07 a.m. Eastern
? 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
Saddam Hussein’s senior bodyguard has fled Iraq with what at least one former U.N. weapons inspector calls “the smoking gun” – proof positive of the Iraqi dictator’s possession of undisclosed weapons of mass destruction, according to a report in Australia’s Herald Sun newspaper.
The bodyguard – one of the reported many doubles Saddam deploys to confuse potential assassins – is named Abu Hamdi Mahmoud. According to the report, Mahmoud gave Israeli intelligence officials a list of weapons-laden sites the current crop of U.N. inspectors have not visited., including:
“An underground chemical weapons facility at the southern end of the Jadray Peninsula in Baghdad;
“A Scud assembly area near Ramadi. The missiles come from North Korea;
Two underground bunkers in Iraq’s Western Desert. These contain biological weapons."
Former United Nations weapons inspector William Tierney characterizes Mahmoud’s revelations as “the smoking gun,” according to the Melbourne-based paper. “Once the inspectors go to where Mahmoud has pointed them, then it’s all over for Saddam,” said Tierney.
Saddam even swims with bodyguards
A member of Saddam’s elite inner circle of bodyguards called the Murasiq Qun, Mahmoud was known as “The Gatekeeper,” said the report, which noted that the muscular Mahmoud is a “Saddam lookalike, often photographed standing behind Saddam when he is seated, or to his left when on the move.”
Though Mahmoud was reportedly debriefed last week by Israeli intelligence at a high-security base in the Negev Desert, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who strongly won his re-election bid Tuesday, is only allowing small parts of Mahmoud’s sensational claims to be shared with the American CIA and the British MI6 intelligence service, said the report.
“Sharon intends to shatter the growing anti-war movement,” a source close to Sharon told the Herald Sun. “He plans to call all those European leaders who are wavering to let them know how Saddam has continued to fool Hans Blix and his weapons inspectors.”
Among Mahmoud’s sensational revelations are the locations of five bunkers buried beneath man-made sand dunes, in which are kept warheads identical to the empty shell cases found recently by U.N. inspectors – shells Mahmoud said were waiting to be refilled and sent to the under-the-sand bunkers.
The Herald Sun includes excerpts from Mahmoud’s Israeli debriefing, including the following quotes:
“Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction are also concealed in a tunnel complex deep beneath the sewers of Baghdad and in an underground complex in Ouja, to the north of Tikrit. The complex was built five years ago with help from Chinese engineers. The entrance to the site is through a house in Tikrit. It is the home of one of Saddam’s cousins and is more than half a mile from where the weapons are stored.”
“I was inside the innermost circle where Saddam eats and sleeps. I was among the handful of bodyguards closest to him. Very few people are allowed close to Saddam. Many of the TV images you see of him were taken years ago. Most people now only speak to him over the phone. He usually calls them. If they have to call him back with information he wants, it is passed through his sons (Uday and Qusay) or (Deputy Prime Minister) Tariq Aziz. All those close to him have codes, which they use to access the outer circle. But even they can only come so close to Saddam before there is a cut-off point – the Inner Circle. Even Tariq Aziz is checked to see if he is carrying weapons. Saddam knows fortunes are being offered to have him assassinated.”
The paranoid Saddam, says Mahmoud, is a walking arsenal.
“He has concealed guns all over his body,” Mahmoud said. “He also has panic buttons to press if he even suspects somebody is about to attack him.”
The Herald Sun account notes that Israeli intelligence sources imply Mahmoud’s cooperation was contingent on Israel’s smuggling Mahmoud’s family out of Iraq.
”
grant
Feb 03 2003
03:55 pm
Jabird V—sound engineer in California or Drudge-junior?
I just wanted to turn the question of evidence around and ask why Iraq has not been able to show any decisive evidence that they already destroyed these weapons from the nineties? Shouldn’t Iraq be able to offer locations, materials or documents attesting to their claims that these weapons have been destroyed?
I don’t think the U.S. needs a smoking gun (and all indications today say Powell will not offer one when he speaks to the U.N.). U.N. resolution 1441 clearly gives the U.N. the right to forcefully remove Hussein if he is not forthcoming. Until he offers definitive evidence to the inspectors, he is not abiding by the resolution. So, Saddam, if you’re reading this right now: “All that I’m saying is give peace a chance!” Also: “I am the walrus. Gu gu kachoo kachoo gu gu…”
mrsanniep
Feb 03 2003
05:25 pm
Why is it that the skeptics posting on this topic keep talking about President Bush needing to bring forth convincing evidence and needing to respect the United Nations, etc. when, in fact, according to the United Nations resolution 1441, Saddam bears the burden of proof? Seems President Bush is simply pushing Saddam to either comply or not comply to get this over and done with. Either you’re breaking the rules or you’re not. It seems we can’t get a straight, truthful answer from the guy (that would be Mr. Hussein).
I do recall someone in earlier posts talking about “innocent until proven guilty” et al. as a reason why Saddam doesn’t need to prove anything. However, that’s a premise of our jurisprudence system and not necessarily applicable to the international scene – just as our laws about women and punishment for crimes aren’t universally agreed upon.
JabirdV
Feb 04 2003
06:02 am
And in this case, Mrs Annie, Saddam has already been found guilty…he was just let off the hook for awhile. The man has sown his seed and will reap the whirlwind…it’s pretty much that simple.
I have resisted posting a whole lot of my own interpretations of this whole fiasco, mostly due to the whole “lack of a portrayal of physical proof” on the part of our government. In this case it would seem that the government has, indeed, held physical proof in their hands for quite some time, but due to the nature in which it was gathered or possibly due to their foreign government obligations they have not released this information for public knowledge…yet. I am sure that there is good reason.
dan
Feb 04 2003
10:03 am
The reason for caution and patience is to avoid making mistakes. I think most countries take the view that Iraq should be invaded only after proven guilty. If the USA wants to invade without proof or without sharing proof, it certainly can, but shouldn’t be surprised if the rest of the world disapproves. My basic argument all through this thread has been that being patient can only benefit the US case, and haste will tend to diminish its moral credibility in the world.
mrsanniep
Feb 04 2003
10:52 am
And how much more time would be a good amount of time to wait?
laurencer
Feb 04 2003
02:39 pm
i think we’ve already waited too long to do a lot of the things that could have resolved this situation non-violently. so many people mistake pacifism for passivity, when it is actually active non-violent resistence to unjust situations. here’s an interesting article from sojourners outlining things we could have been doing in iraq (things we could still do), as well as things that have worked in other situations:
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0209&article=020910
some folks like to take potshots at anti-war activists, saying how much easier it is to sit back and do nothing. the things suggested in this article point towards solutions that would be anything but easy to implement. it would be far easier to drop bombs from airplanes and call a job well done than to attempt a non-violent takeover of the iraqi government by the iraqi people.
and that’s my point. we could have been doing more in the past ten years to topple hussein non-violently, but it wasn’t in our short-term interest to do so at the time.
dan
Feb 05 2003
08:51 am
Though I wouldn’t describe Colin Powell’s approach as patient, I appreciate his ability to communicate ideas to the world. When Bush speaks, Americans get a warm and fuzzy feeling and the rest of the world cringes (I’m generalizing). Same with Rumsfeld and Cheney.
But Powell seems to be able to communicate to the world that he actually cares about people who fall outside American borders. His speech today will go a long way in bringing other countries on side. And I think some of the rifts of the last months between Europe and America could have been avoided if more diplomatic rhetoric would have been used all along.
grant
Feb 05 2003
09:54 am
I’ll go with you on that. It does seem like certain language could have been avoided and might have prevented some of the rifts that opened up. But then, after all we’ve said about the fundamental differences in ideology between the U.S. and other countries, does it come down merely to the need for Bush to “talk nicer” in public?
I’m not so sure “mean-ness” or “cowboyisms” should be banned from political discourse yet. I’m still holding out on making a judgment about that “axis of evil” comment. Though distasteful, the phrase does succinctly sum up the situation Bush thinks the world is in right now. If we are in a war against threats to the security of the world, Bush has pinpointed three potential enemies who can either take steps to gain the world’s trust or prove themselves to be the dangerous enemies Bush claims they are.
explore catapult discussions
mrsanniep
Feb 06 2003
03:02 am
Cuba:
We already can’t buy good cigars here anymore. What more do you want? How much more must we sacrifice??