That's all you've got?
Jan 25, 2003
So, for the first time, Bush decides to present some evidence for his allegations against Iraq. Like world+dog knows by now, Bush claims Iraq has a nuclear weapons programme. Now though, he's finally presented proof for his allegations.
Well, "proof" is stretching it a bit. The "proof" was documents saying Iraq had tried to buy thousands of high-strength aluminium tubes. Bush claimed these tubes were good for nothing but to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.
However, government officials as well as weapons experts are doubtful. The International Atomic Energy Agency reported in a preliminary assessment that the tubes are "not directly suitable" for uranium enrichment but "consistent" with making ordinary artillery rockets, which is also the official Iraqi explanation.
It was by far the most prominent, detailed assertion by the White House of recent Iraqi efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Washington Post
What I'm wondering is if this is all Bush's got to back-up his wild allegations. If it isn't, why isn't he showing some real evidence for the fact? If this is all the "proof" he's got, why is anyone listening to him?
Comments
People are listening to Bush Jr. because he is the self-appointed leader of "the free world", like it or not.
Comment by talisyn at 10:41, 26 Jan, 2003 #
That doesn't mean you have to listen to him. If nobody listened to Hitler, the world would certainly be a different place today.
Comment by Peter at 18:23, 27 Jan, 2003 #
Numerous intelligence agencies and previous UN inspection teams note that as of 1999 Iraq had (literally) tons of sarin,vx,anthrax,etc. They also had thousands of empty warheads and rockets -- rockets that exceeded the limitations placed on Iraq by the UN. These are well-known facts. The 'wild allegations' are not coming from Bush. The 'wild allegations' are coming from Iraq, who claims that it doesn't have these stockpiles anymore, but isn't presenting any evidence of destroying the materials. If it were simply Bush's word against Hussein's that would be one thing. But numerous sources document the existence of these stockpiles several years ago and Iraq will not give either (A) evidence that they were destroyed or (B) their location, so that they can be disarmed and destroyed now (in agreement with UN Res. 1441).
BTW -- Bush is hardly the 'self-appointed leader of the free world'. When the Soviets crashed and burned in the early nineties, we were the only superpower left. There's no denying that we are the most powerful nation in the world. What do you mean by self-appointed? Do you think anyone else has the military or economic capacity to secure the free world from the ills of terrorism and failed states with rogue leaders?
Comment by Jim Lindstrom at 08:22, 29 Jan, 2003 #
Jim: Well, Bush does claim he has all sorts of evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass-destruction, and the ones he present; aluminum tubes not-really-only-useful for uranium enrichment.
The US is not the world police, the US does not have the right to solely decide what sovereign is to be overthrown and what people to be bombed.
Your entire argument assumes that it's a one man show, that only one country can decide for the rest of the world and that joint efforts, such as the UN, have no say because this one country has a lot of guns and goons.
It's exactly that ignorant bully attitude that got you attacked on 9/11 in the first place.
With great power comes great responsibility, or in Bush's case: not.
Comment by Tomas at 09:07, 29 Jan, 2003 #
There are three important but slightly different points here.
1. The United States is/thinks it is/is expected to be the world police.
2. Iran has biological and chemical weapons that could hurt or kills thousands of people.
3. If #2 is true, someone (the UN, the US, the "coalition") should depose Saddam and eliminate the bio/chemical agents.
Let's not confuse the issues by lumping them into one big pile. Each merits serious discussion.
Comment by Jeff at 22:32, 29 Jan, 2003 #
Jeff: Certainly. Unfortunately, your megalomaniac of a president thinks the choice is his to make alone. It's Iraq btw..
Next, should "someone" bomb all other countries who have WoMD? How about in reverse alphabetical order?
Comment by Tomas at 09:38, 30 Jan, 2003 #
Oops. Must have been a freudian slip. IraQ, or course. Saddam wouldn't be caught dead in IraN would he.
Comment by Jeff at 14:58, 30 Jan, 2003 #
Lindstrom: notice that I put "the free world" within quotationmarks, and not self-apointed leader. There are some that reasons that the term "the free world" is merely a rhetorical tactic, and nothing else. Thus, there is no such thing as a free world. There's just one world, which we all live in. By dividing it up into different worlds, it is easier to blame "the others" (most recently this task of scapegoats have fallen upon the muslims, earlier it was the chinese or the russians etc.).
Comment by talisyn at 15:56, 31 Jan, 2003 #
The discussion has been closed on this entry. Thanks to everybody who participated.