StraightEdge
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2021
- Messages
- 2,262
- Reaction score
- -6
- Country
- Location
20 years anniversary of the disastrous lie Colin Powell told in the UN
- Thread starter StraightEdge
- Start date
Kuru
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2017
- Messages
- 2,880
- Reaction score
- -18
- Country
- Location
Why didn’t the US ‘planted’ the WMDs in Iraq to hide this lie after invading Iraq?
I mean, majority people on this forum accuse the US of ‘planting’ or ‘orchestrating’ the killing of Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan. So planting the WMDs shouldn’t be a big deal.
I mean, majority people on this forum accuse the US of ‘planting’ or ‘orchestrating’ the killing of Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan. So planting the WMDs shouldn’t be a big deal.
jhungary
MILITARY PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2012
- Messages
- 19,295
- Reaction score
- 387
- Country
- Location
I don't do politics, even tho I have a degree in international politics. But I did argue with my Practice International Law Lawyer wife once about the legitimacy of the invasion of Iraq.
Long story really short, you are looking at two things here.
1.) Did Iraq action contribute to the violation of resolution 1441.
2.) Did US (et el) have the Casus Belli for the invasion of Iraq.
Most people do not know the "lies" is not whether or not Iraq have WMD, or US said that it had, the lies is not that, the "lies" about 1441 is mostly refer to the fact that US, UK, France and to some degree Russia sell 1441 as a cooperation resolution instead of de jure "act of war" resolution. And that lies is purported with Syria representation in UN that voted in favor of 1441
Now, we all know after 1441 passed and violated, that's the beginning of Iraq War.
That is the lies that many people claim but got wrong including the OP.
On the other hand, if you look at 1441 in wording,
Point 1 - 7 layout what Iraq had not done in cooperation with IAEA and UN resolution passed before hand
Point 8 - 11 layout what UNSC member, Iraq to complied with said resolution
Point 12 is basically UNSC have to convene again once an official report has been issued by IAEA or Iraqi response to said resolution,
Now point 13 is a kicker.
We can all agree that Iraq did not complied with the IAEA on resolution 1441, because they did not hand over a report 45 days from the passing of RS1441. The point of contention here is not whether or not Iraq have WMD, because IAEA don't know, and that because Iraq failed to cooperatewith IAEA and quote
So according to aforementioned report by IAEA, we can see Iraq failed to comply with RS 1441.
That's the answer for question number 1.
So, now the prospect is that whether failure to comply with 1441 can have military consequence. Which is what point 13 kicked in. It didn't expressly mentioned military operation is of consequence on failure to comply with 1441. But again, it did not expressly denied that right, the term "face serious consequences" is very, extremely board, it can literally mean anything, from verbal warning, to sanction, to ultimately military operation. Now, whether or not Syria actually have assurances that this will not lead to automatic strike on Iraq, but on the other side of the question, does it matter? Syria is not a permanent member of UNSC, which mean even if Syria did not have assurance and voted no on the resolution, it will still pass because none of the P5 against it and none other than Syria raise the question of whether or not strike is included in this resolution, we can argue til the end of time what other may or may not do if this is explicitly put on table, but that would just be our conjecture. Because it didn't happened that way.
Which means this is a very board resolution which have a very board meaning of "Consequences" it basically means if you believe "war" belong to "Serious Consequence" If it does then there are casus belli for war, and if it does not, then there aren't. But either way, that does not mean this war is illegal, because it did not specify it was illegal.
As for whether or not Iraq have WMD, yes, they did, in fact, they have declared their entire stockpile in 2009 when they joined Chemical Weapon Convention. That 2 bunker full of expired chemical weapon was in Iraqi procession and at one point the US and Allied government scare of it being in ISIS hand
Iraq's 'hidden' chemical weapons: US 'covered up' discovery of
Around 5,000 chemical warheads and bombs ‘were found – but kept secret’
www.independent.co.uk
Iraq do have chemical weapon, what they do not have is the capability to make more chemical weapon, because their lab were all destroyed during the subsequent airstrike since 1991 war.
Rank
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2009
- Messages
- 10,771
- Reaction score
- 46
- Country
- Location
They were exposed even before hatching the conspiracy. If they did such a thing, they could have faced a more serious situation than what they have seen to date.
gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
The problem is the interpretation of 'WMD' to start.
If the initials 'WMD' is meant to be FUNCTIONAL devices, then the UN inspection and enforcement regime on Iraq was illegal from conception. A functional nuclear device would be proven with a huge 'BANG' somewhere in the Iraqi desert. But by then, it would have been too late. That was how India and Pakistan became nuclear weapons states: BANG.
But since Iraq was under UN inspection and enforcement regimes, long before we invaded, that mean the initials 'WMD' must be more broad than just functional nuclear devices. If you disassembled a watch and lay out the components on the table, would you still have a FUNCTIONAL device? No. But do you STILL have a watch? Yes. So yes, we could have easily planted components of a functional, or near functional, nuclear weapon in assorted locations in Iraq, thereby 'proved' in front of the world that Iraq was just moments away from having that nuclear BANG.
According to the UN, the non-proliferation treaty requires current nuclear weapons states to NOT export knowledge, people, materiel, and support to any country that want to have nuclear weapons.
According to Mahdi Obeidi, Iraq's chief nuclear scientist, components of a nuclear weapons PROGRAM essentially made Iraq a nuclear weapons state.
Amazon.com: The Bomb in My Garden: The Secrets of Saddam's Nuclear Mastermind: 9780471741275: Obeidi, Mahdi: Books
Amazon.com: The Bomb in My Garden: The Secrets of Saddam's Nuclear Mastermind: 9780471741275: Obeidi, Mahdi: Books
www.amazon.com
The 'bomb' that Obeidi alleged was a pair of centrifuges that Saddam Hussein ordered Obeidi to hide in his house's garden. After the invasion, Obeidi sought out US authorities and handed over what he had. The centrifuge is a component of a nuclear weapon but a device to refine uranium to build that nuclear weapon, in other words, the centrifuge is several degrees away from the actual BANG device. But despite being several degrees away, the UN considers that component critical enough to punish any country that export that device without monitor and license.
What is maraging steel?
Maraging steel - Wikipedia
Maraging steel is used in nuclear weapons development and FENCING.
AF MARAGING E. FOIL BLADE: (BARE)
The new AF Maraging #2 foil blade! This ultra light foil blade is designed for serious youth fencer and the blade is made in Maraging. It is lighter, safer, holds better, less breakage, and more manuverable. This blade is made by the same maraging steel that makes FIE blades. The only difference...
If you buy a certain quantity of maraging steel, you will earn international attention and men with badges with inquiring minds, or even a search warrant, will knock on your door.
So yes, we could have easily planted evidences all over Iraq.
Similar threads
