the rest of the world perceives America.

Regarding Butler’s comments, (hey BrainDrain, he said it, and you sent me the link) he explains that weapons remained “unaccounted for” when Hans Blix made his last reports before the invasion. It was this information, and a continued lack of cooperation with the UNSC, which led the US to invade. Importantly, this was also seen as part of a long pattern, whereby Iraq was frequently able to evade censure by the Security Council- internal division within the UNSC prevented it from enforcing its own resolutions, instead continuing to give Saddam more time and letting him off the hook for repeated violations.

This internal division resulted from very real interests held by France and Russia in the continuity of the Baathist regime, and in fast-tracking the inspections at the expense of rigour. These interests included a combination of financial;

-both French and Russian companies had massive oil contracts with the Baath party, French socialist parties had been financed by the Baath Party since the 70’s, and the Russians were owed $8 Billion by the Iraqi government for military equipment,

and strategic- to challenge, and be seen to challenge the influence of the US, and, importantly, because they did not perceive so great a danger from a WMD armed Iraq. (Note that when I mention financial interests, I do so in the context of a combination of factors, and consider it rash to view financial interests as the primary or only consideration.)

Thus, France and Russia were prepared to allow their own national interests to undermine the chief international institution charged with preventing the proliferation of WMD, (and the chief enforcement body of the NPT.) Iraq’s obfuscation constituted a challenge to the legitimacy of the UN. Inaction would have sent a signal to all other would-be proliferators that they could do so without fear of retaliation.

In short, there were no good choices. The irony was that no WMD were found- as much Saddam’s fault as the US’s. And the threat of a WMD armed Iraq would soon have re-emerged if Saddam remained in power.

"In short, there were no good choices. The irony was that no WMD were found- as much Saddam’s fault as the US’s. And the threat of a WMD armed Iraq would soon have re-emerged if Saddam remained in power."

Dozer - still sticking to the narrative.

The point is that it was an artificial construct from the get-go. The lies that were propagated to get some action, doomed it from the start.

Powell's UN presentation, Blair's Dossier - lies, all lies.

Hicks incarcerated in the service of a lie.

Ruddock examining the feasibilty of criminalising the truth (sedition laws). How big does a turd have to be before you even smell it?

And the most absurd narrative of our times - the NBMWBC Theory (nineteen brown men with box-cutters) - used to trash the US Constitution and empty the US treasury.

The more absurd the narrative, the more erudite must it's proponents be in it's service. Never has there been such academic boondoggling.

So what are you waiting for?

Nose to the grindstone!

,'dozer,

I do so hate walking away from duels while my worthy opponent is still firing (wide of the target) and i still have powder left. : )

Point conceded on your use of Wolfowitz quotes. Like all politicians and those who 'serve' them he was capable of telling a truth (Iraq is a rich resource - Sorry - is resource rich). Relying upon his words as an unbiased view of what happened after 9/11 - I don' fink So!

I did read Butler's interview in full before i posted the link for your benefit in understanding Bulter did NOT say Iraq had WMD's, just that weapons were not correctly and fully accounted for under his inspections. (If they don't exist it's hard to prove they've been destroyed If they've been destroyed, they don't exist, but proving it may be impossible).

You appear to be making a mistake in your reading.... Butler was kicked out in 1998. UN inspectors were allowed back in in 2002 and they left just before the invasion began in 2003 (Hans Blicks, Sorry - Blix) in the last two years Inspectors came to the conclusion NO WMD's had been found! (proven to exist) I find Butler's suggestion Saddam 'gave' them to Syria just before the invasion incredibly stupid.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/14/iraq/main540681.shtml

"It is now generally recognized that the principal assertion on which the war in Iraq in 2003 was sold to the US public and Congress and to the UK parliament and on which there was an attempt to sell it to the UN Security Council – the continued presence in Iraq of WMDs – was false.

The fact that UN inspectors had reported from some 700 inspections at some 500 sites that they had found no WMDs and that they expressed doubts about some of the evidence which was advanced, was ignored. And seems still to be ignored."
(Hans Blix 21/10/05)

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. "
Cont.

"Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power." (It disarmed in 1991 after being beaten in the Iraq-Kuwait/US war).

"To all of the men and women of the United States armed forces now in the Middle East, the peace of a troubled world and the hopes of an oppressed people now depend on you.

That trust is well placed."
(GWBush 19/03/03)

As for your point concerning Iraq's continued UNSC resolution violations... What role does the US continue to this day to play in Israel's many violations of UN resolutions concerning the occupied territories and war crimes as recently as the bombing of the UN observation post in Lebanon?

You final statement I am afraid is without foundation as the only reason UN weapons inspectors were removed from Iraq in March 2003 was for their safety which the American invasion would have put at considerable risk. With the inspectors in place and Saddam continuing to be forced to some co-operation, WMD's would have remained unfound or existing in Iraq for as long as the world wished it.

Bush wanted an easy victory against a tin-pot little dictator in some country he knew next to nothing about other than he could whoop it's little muslim Ass. With the promise of massive oil reserve wealth, reconstruction project bonuses, destabilised middle eastern politics (and so ensure his country's continuing reason to financially prop up the failed Israeli 'state)' and the prospect of being seen as the Christian free world's Saviour once successful.

How could the redneck refuse all that?

Look what it has cost. (Iraq mostly, but a few thousand American families have paid the ultimate price as have hundreds of UK and 2 Aussie ones.

Has Bush lost anything but a little 'cred' for the US?

He's personally doing just fine out of it thank you very much.
As are US corporations - which, I believe, brings us back to the start of the Thread?

How's that for circularity? : )

Carl,

Regarding the collapse of WTC7. There is an argument which runs as follows:

Firstly, the fact that it burned for that long is understandable- as the building was completely evacuated, the two towers had already collapsed, and the main priority was rescuing survivors, the fire was allowed to burn unhindered. But buildings, new or old, aren’t meant to burn for 8 hours straight. Thus it collapsed.

However, there is evidence of more widespread fires in other buildings, burning for similar or longer periods of time.

In response, each situation is different. The FEMA report, which was inconclusive, is not the only investigation into the matter. The NIST report, gleaned from a wide range of expertise, lists a couple of explanations. http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf. I’m no structural engineer so forgive me for using Wikipedia:

“NIST has released video and still photo analysis of Building 7 prior to its collapse that appears to indicate a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA. Specifically, a large 10-story gash existed on the south facade, extending a third across the face of the building and approximately a quarter of the way into the interior. A unique aspect of the design of 7 WTC was that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 186 square meters of floor space, suggesting that the simultaneous removal of a number of columns would lead to a severely compromised structure… news footage shows visible cracking and bowing of the building's east wall immediately prior to the collapse, which started from the penthouse floors”

NIST does not have a closed mind to the possibilty of a “controlled explosion,” but has found no evidence to date.

Chris,

Although I have presented narrative, I have presented evidence to support it, and have frequently analysed this evidence and the evidence of my opponents. You on the other hand have not responded to the serious questions I have raised regarding your methods of evidence gathering and preparation. Perhaps this is why you didn’t even bother to present evidence in your last post, and instead continued your accusation of

lies, lies, lies. I could use your statement, “The more absurd the narrative, the more erudite must it's proponents be in it's service. Never has there been such academic boondoggling,” to mock the silliness of the idea that the US staged 911. Then again, I would argue that your language is not so much erudite as it is flowery.

BrainDrain,

Firstly, I am fully aware that Butler left in 1998.

Secondly, I read that very same article before I made my last post. (Right near the top of the Google list, and rightly so, and was considering posting it but as I have said a number of times, 700 words ain’t much.) You will notice that Blix makes an important distinction between “in principle cooperation” and “cooperation in substance,” of which the latter was not forthcoming from Iraq. Blix also notes that “many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for.”

The Iraqi government’s SOP was to only ever provide the minimum information, the minimum level of cooperation, as required. Basically, to make it look as though it was cooperating when it was merely stringing the process out as long as possible, knowing that the longer it continued, the more international unity and resolve would wane. An example of this is given by Butler (from Saddam Defiant- don’t have a page number or the book on me but paraphrasing will do.): When questioned about a particular chemical agent, for example VX, the initial response would be that there was never a VX program. When evidence of a VX program was found, the reply would be that yes, there was a program, but no VX was ever produced. When a small quantity of VX was discovered, the response would be that that was all that was produced, and it was never weaponised. You can imagine what happens next- large quantities of VX found, and evidence of weaponisation.

Thus, Iraq’s actions were just more of the same. As I have already said, Saddam’s mistake was to not realize that the US attitude had changed, and was prepared to go outside the UN.