Maybe if Bush Sr. had taken Saddam out in the Gulf war, instead of being such a pussy, you wouldn’t need to be posting about this shit!
[quote]SKman wrote:
Maybe if Bush Sr. had taken Saddam out in the Gulf war, instead of being such a pussy, you wouldn’t need to be posting about this shit![/quote]
Rememer, the USA was PART of a coalition for Gulf War I. Ah, I forget the exact details, but I believe that the member nations of the Coalition agreed that the goal was to oust Iraqi’s from Kuwait. Not to remove the Saddam regime. Bush Sr. would’ve had to go it alone and against the wishes of the coalition to take out Saddam.
JeffR,
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Makkun,
Great Post!!!
You wrote:
“name me one German gouvernment official who has allegedly profited from the OFF scandal. If proven, I will be outraged - before that, I’ll just wait for the facts.”
A quick search revealed this:
“In January 2003, two German businessmen were convicted of supplying weapons-making equipment to Saddam Hussein in violation of the U.N. embargo. Apparently, this was just the tip of the iceberg: according to an Iraqi weapons report to the U.N., over 80 German companies were involved in supplying Saddam’s military, some of which were still doing so just months before the war. “Of further embarrassment to Germany is that […] German companies make up more than half of the total number of institutions listed in the [Iraqi weapons] report,” the BBC noted.”[/quote]
Tried and convicted, before the war even began. Their alleged gouvernment clout didn’t really help them at all, did it?
It’s a funny coincidence that you quote a source that actually is based on a report by one of Germany’s biggest most liberal - no leftist - newspapers:
And, oops, the third guy is actually an US citizen: U.S. Businessman Guilty of Arms Sales to Iraq – DW – 11/28/2003
And: The NewStandard
and http://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?file=542917.html
Does that make the “Germans” or the “Americans” guilty? Nope. It shows that there are scoundrels out there, who are being prosecuted for doing this - even before the scandal was known.
Off course not. Did it affect the decision making process - here, I would. Your accusation is pure conjecture. That is about as valid as making W. responsible for Enron, because he knew Ken Lay. I’ve seen the discussions on that topic here - in dubio pro re. Can’t speak for Russia or France, but so far, no gouvernment meddling in Germany has been proven (or actually even alleged).
[quote]I apologize, hedo answered your list of alternatives to my satisfaction directly following your posting. I’ll comment upon your list as you requested.
You wrote:
“Alternative to attacking Iraq - almost too simple… 
How about not attacking Iraq? How about assessing the “threat” and concentrating on the real international issues - some of them even would have an effect on the war on terror (like supporting the middle-east peace process not pulling out of it for so long”
Hard to believe you are serious here. How many plans have we put forward in the last few years? Off the top of my head: The Mitchell plan, and the W. very detailed plan W. put forward in 2000.
Please refresh yourself on the reasons for these plans going awry. I’m not going to type them out for you here.[/quote]
Did so. You meant Mitchell plan (coming from an initiative from good old Bill Clinton) and the Tenet plans. Granted, I stepped out a bit bold on that statement - but starting a war in the region was hardly helpful. And the US’s strong support for Israel isn’t exactly helping its image of an honest broker.
[quote]“bolstering and cleaning up the UN and making it a properly acting international body,”
Agreed. It is coming.[/quote]
I might add, on the UN’s own initiative.
[quote]“joining the International Criminal Court”
Not a chance. Look it up. Plenty of EXTRA-vulnerabilities inherent in being an American Soldier in front of this court.[/quote]
I would think it as showing real commitment.
[quote]“putting pressure on Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and not to forget Russia and China towards embracing human rights,”
Please read the news. I suggest starting with google on each of these topics.[/quote]
Done: “Last year, President George W. Bush, in a widely publicized speech, admitted that the United States had turned a blind eye as dictators and authoritarian rulers in the Muslim world trampled on basic rights and ruled by fiat.” (Pakistan Army Inc.: Propping up Musharraf)
China and Russia - here is at least some pushing going on: http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/2004/Dec/16-465671.html
Saudia Arabia: “The Washington Post in December 2002 described the rendition of captured al-Qaeda suspects from U.S. custody to other countries, such as Syria, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Morocco, where they were tortured or otherwise mistreated. One official was quoted as saying, ?We don’t kick the [expletive] out of them. We send them to other countries so they can kick the [expletive] out of them.” The United States' "Disappeared "The CIA's Long-Term "Ghost Detainees" : II. Background
Eek.
[quote]“trading less weapons, fighting hunger and poverty, giving the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay proper and fair trials”
All happening.[/quote]
When? How?
Hunger: “U.S. tightens budgetary belt by cutting food aid” http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/12/22/news/aid.html
Guantanamo Bay: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/04/iraq/main659101.shtml
[quote]" and … hm, and even going after Saddam with all of your allies’ support in the end)."
Which allies would that be? Our allies are involved currently. Check Coalition.[/quote]
Did so. Interesting numbers here:
Countries which had troops in or supported operations in Iraq at one point but have pulled out since: Nicaragua (Feb. 2004); Spain (late-Apr. 2004); Dominican Republic (early-May 2004); Honduras (late-May 2004); Philippines (~Jul. 19, 2004); Thailand (late-Aug. 2004); and New Zealand (late Sep. 04).
Countries planning to withdraw from Iraq: Poland (starting Jan.05 and completed by end.05(?)); the Netherlands (Mar. 05); Hungary (end Dec. 04).
Countries which have reduced or are planning to reduce their troop commitment: Ukraine (-200); Moldova (reduced contingent to 12); Norway (reduced from ~150 to 10 late-Jun.04, early Jul.04); Bulgaria (-50, Dec.04); Poland (-700, Feb.05). Iraq Coalition - Non-US Forces in Iraq
Looks like it’s getting smaller and smaller.
Do so. Not conclusive yet, but waiting for results aswell, as I hope the perpetrators get punished.
And - did he act, did he confront, did he clear up the mess? Nope. Or do you mean all the investigation into WMD that he could not wait out?
That’s their choice - for whatever reason. If the US would have made a more convincing effort, perhaps. But - alas, you have made your verdict anyway.
[quote]In short, I didn’t find anything particularly realistic about your “alternatives.”
It just falls too far short of the realities of the situation circa Februrary 2003.
I appreciate the sincere attempt, however.
Thanks!!!
JeffR
[/quote]
Great that we’re back on topic.
Makkun
Makkun
I can’t believe if given the chance OBL would choose the same course.
He underestimated our response based on his experience dealing with Clinton. If he thought he would have lost his primary base of operations and most of his leadership and troops he would have tried something else.
From a strategic standpoint his attack backfired. The problem is we are being attacked by a puny enemy who is willing to initiate “total war” with us. They will put everything at risk and will attack innocent civilians, children etc. because they view all infidels as the enemy. As I have said before that is an idiotic and fatalistic approach. If they use a nuke on the us we will respond, in kind, massively. This serves no purpose but yet we are heading down that path.
I live in NYC, about 1/2 mile from the WTC site. I have no doubt that we will be hit again. I think it will be a wmd. I pray that it is caught and that they don’t have a thermonuclear weapon.
So back on point, any alternative. I don’t think so. Diplomacy has failed because our opponent does not wish to negotiate. He views us as subhuman. His fantasy idealogy rewards him more in the afterlife then in the present. The course we have chosen is to eliminate, rather then to negotiate with an wnwilling enemy. I hope we can take them out fast enough.
Makkun:
Great post!!!
I anticipated your change in direction. That’s why I made sure to point out that EIGHTY GERMAN BUSINESSES were involved. It doesn’t take a hell of a lot of intuition to imagine the sort of Government contacts these companies had.
If I understand your original premise, it was: “The Germans/German Government weren’t involved, so stop including them with the French and the Russians.”
Here’s my favorite part: “Of further embarrassment to Germany is that […] German companies make up more than half of the total number of institutions listed in the [Iraqi weapons] report,” the BBC noted."
When your point was refuted you turned it into, there are plenty of scoundrels.
Or, “It’s our liberals reporting this!!”
Or, “We cleaned up the mess BEFORE the war began”
Your point: The American companies did it too!!!
Want to know the big difference?
Of course you do?
Our nation, along with our allies are making the effort.
Let me reiterate.
Any debt of culpability that my country had incurred by official/unofficial support of Saddam, has been more than paid for.
Can Germany say the same?
I continue to support our Government and our soldiers/families for their noble effort.
Thanks!!!
JeffR
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Makkun:
Great post!!!
I anticipated your change in direction. That’s why I made sure to point out that EIGHTY GERMAN BUSINESSES were involved. It doesn’t take a hell of a lot of intuition to imagine the sort of Government contacts these companies had.[/quote]
I stand by my request - proof?
Well rounded up. Yep.
That is very well possible - still does not make the German gouvernment corrupt and part of that. And - as you prooved yourself, it has been addressed in earlier cases.
Wow, that I missed. Where was I refuted? I still miss your proof of German gouvernment involvement. You conclude, but you still don’t deliver any proof.
As a sign that we have an active alive gouvernment critical liberal media that makes it hard for any foul play - so it’s obviously doing it’s job.
You chose that quote. Find another one that is more current, if you don’t like the fact that it was already addressed by the courts.
To show you that corporations do not represent a country’s gouvernment. Hence my Enron analogy. Neither makes the German nor the US gouvernment accomplices.
[quote]Want to know the big difference?
Of course you do?
Our nation, along with our allies are making the effort.[/quote]
To repeat myself here once again - I don’t doubt it is an honest effort. I still argue that it is strategically detrimental.
[quote]Let me reiterate.
Any debt of culpability that my country had incurred by official/unofficial support of Saddam, has been more than paid for.[/quote]
How? Who has gone to jail for it?
You provided the evidence - yes. And if there are more, they will be tried.
That’s your right and I guess your duty. But being critical about the proceedings and being respectful to the ones who question it might not hurt either.
[quote]Thanks!!!
JeffR[/quote]
Don’t mention it.
Makkun
Makkun,
Great post!!!
Here is what you wrote in response:
"I stand by my request - proof?
That is very well possible - still does not make the German gouvernment corrupt and part of that. And - as you prooved yourself, it has been addressed in earlier cases.
Wow, that I missed. Where was I refuted? I still miss your proof of German gouvernment involvement. You conclude, but you still don’t deliver any proof.
To show you that corporations do not represent a country’s gouvernment. Hence my Enron analogy. Neither makes the German nor the US gouvernment accomplices."
I’ve spent some time researching German Government complicity with the arms dealing.
Not only have I found plenty of direct evidence, but I think I’ve managed to construct quite an overview of overall German involvement with Hussein in general.
This is from the German Website: Dw-World.de.
The website is:
http://www.dw-world-de/dw/article/0,,716376,00.html
This gives a wonderful summation from a German source:
"Iraqi Report Could Prove Damaging to Germany
Volatile information - the weighty Iraqi report on its weapons program
Iraq?s declaration of its weapons programs contains explosive news for Germany, a Berlin paper has reported. The dossier is said to detail covert arms deals between German defense firms and Iraq.
Just as the heated debates within the German government over the role of German troops and equipment in a possible war against Iraq seem to be cooling down, another potential bombshell threatens to reignite the fires.
On Tuesday, the Berlin-based left-wing paper, Tageszeitung reported that aspects of the 12,000-page Iraqi report on Iraq’s weapons programs, submitted to the U.N last week, could prove highly embarrassing for Germany.
The newspaper - believed to be the first to have access to the top-secret dossier - has written that the Iraqi declaration contains the names of 80 German firms, research laboratories and people, who are said to have helped Iraq develop its weapons program.
Germany, Iraq?s number one arms supplier?
The most contentious piece of news for Germany is that the report names it as the number one supplier of weapons supplies to Iraq. German firms are supposed to easily outnumber the firms from other countries who have been exporting to Iraq.
They have delivered technical know-how, components, basic substances and even entire technical facilities for the development of atomic, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction to Iraq right since 1975.
In some cases, conventional military and technical dealings between Germany and Iraq are said to date till 2001, ten years after the second Gulf war and a time when international sanctions against Saddam Hussein are still in place.
The paper reports that the dossier contains several indications of cases, where German authorities right up to the Finance Ministry tolerated the illegal arms cooperation and also promoted to it to an extent.
Wait and watch says German Finance Ministry
The German Finance Ministry has said that it will react to the report only once it has studied the Iraqi declaration.
“We?ll first wait till the report is in our hands,” a spokesman from the ministry said on Tuesday.
The spokesman however said that the German government of the time in 1990 had informed the parliament about such German supplies to Iraq.
Ever since Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, there has been a strict embargo against the country. The spokesman said that there have been a few cases of violation of the embargo and the government has initiated investigations.
German military exports to Iraq nothing new
Explosive as the newspaper report may appear, it?s not the first of its kind.
For months rumors have been circulating in the German media of murky deals between German arms companies and businessmen with Iraq despite the rigid embargoes in place.
In October this year, a magazine of the German radio channel, S?dwestrundfunk reported that electronics giant Siemens had delivered specialized technical equipment to Iraq for the treatment of kidney stones, but which could also under certain circumstances be used as a detonator for atom bombs.
Siemens insisted that the device could not be misused because it had commissioned an Iraqi company to regularly monitor the equipment. In fact the delivery was even sanctioned by the sanctions council of the U.N. and the Federal Office of Economics and Export Control (BAFA).
The latest newspaper report also touches upon the gray zone between medicine and armaments and writes of so-called dual-use goods that can be used for developing weapons as well as for civilian purposes.
The German government was apparently informed in 1999 of the delivery of such dual-use goods to Iraq, but is said to have turned a blind eye.
German defense firms conduct roaring trade with Baghdad
German arms companies in the meantime have been conducting booming business with Iraq in recent years. According to the German Federal Statistics Office, German military exports to Iraq have been steadily rising from year to year.
From annual exports amounting to 21,7 million euro in 1997, the volume of exports for the following year shot to some 76,4 million euro. The trend continued in 2001 with exports to Iraq bringing German firms profits in the range of 336,5 million euro.
German goods worth 226,2 million euro have already been shipped to Iraq in the first half of this year. Some of the official heavyweights in the export scene are the German electronics firm Siemens with medical equipment and energy distribution systems and carmaker DaimlerChrysler. Both are reported to rake in revenues worth double digit figures in the millions.
Chancellor Schr?der in precarious situation
Though the German government has not officially reacted to the Iraqi declaration detailing its role in supplying Iraq with arms, there is little doubt that the issue is bound to stoke passions.
Ever since Chancellor Gerhard Schr?der refused to be part of any military action in Iraq before the German general elections in September, Berlin?s relation to Washington has been a strained one.
With Schroder sticking to his pacifist line, but dithering over the level of cooperation with the U.S. in the case of a war against Iraq, the latest report is guaranteed to provide ammunition to the opposition who have strongly criticized Schr?der?s policy towards America.
Another real fear is that Schroder’s image as a staunch pacifist might now be sullied if it emerges that Germany has all along been helping the very leader who it has been unwilling to topple, to stockpile his weapons.
The report could also provide the U.S. with an excuse to step up the pressure on Germany to give in to American military demands for deployment of German troops and use of German military equipment in the case of a military attack on Iraq."
Let me highlight several key areas. First, notice the number of different sources suggested. Note the wide ranging levels of support on various systems.
IN PARTICULAR, NOTE THE FINANCE MINISTER’S COMMENT STATING THAT THE GERMAN PARLIMENT KNEW ABOUT THE TRANSFERS.
NOTE THE GERMAN DEFENSE FIRMS’ DIRECT INVOLVMENT.
By the way, that would be a win for me. A loss for you.
Here are some other fascinating articles that gives names, dates, exact amounts, and very disturbing summaries.
http://www.investigatemagazaine.com/apr3,iraq.htm
http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/iraqmissle/2920.html
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/missle/rumsfeld/pt3_germany.htm
http://www.thebulletin.org/article.pp?art_ofn=apr92albright
http://www.isis-online.org/publication/expcontrol/rietz.html
To summarize: The evidence of German Government/Companies frank involvement with Hussein is FRANKLY STUNNING!!!
I had no idea.
Makkun, it’s time to cut your losses and admit that your denial of DEEP GERMAN involvement is undeniably false.
JeffR
For some reason last links don’t seem to be operational.
I’ve sent the orginals via PM to Makkun.
PM me if anyone else would like to see them.
I don’t know why some of the links aren’t working.
JeffR
We shouldn’t have invaded Iraq.
Instead we should have
-
focused on rebuilding afghanistan. Draw the enemy(religious fanatics) there where we can bomb the shit out of them in caves etc. rather than in urban warfare in Iraq.
-
Pushed for an investigation of the food for oil scam using poitical capital which we would have had more of had we not invaded Iraq.
-
Put more emphasis on creating a palestinian state so as to take away the terrorists main recruiting tool.
-
Invest heavily in alternatives to oil including efficiency and different fuel technologies. As long as we support brutal regimes terrorism will happen. We need to drain the swamp rather than killing the mosquitos. Granted this will take awhile but it will helpd create a long term solution.
If you still want to invade Iraq you have to sell it to the american people on what it is. Bush said there were weapons of mass destruction and an imminent threat from terrorsits. This wasn’t the case.
Soco,
I appreciate your post.
I agree with many of your points.
However, please elucidate exactly what we should have done with Hussein.
Remember, there was a groundswell for removing “sanctions” against Hussein. Without our military on his border, there would have been no possibility of inspections (and I think you know that). Further, the Duefler report clearly shows his intention to reconstitute his weapons systems.
With ineffective sanctions/massive bribery and no possibility of inspections, what in the hell would have deterred Saddam?
We are learning more daily about his support for various terrorist organizations.
With no checks on him, could we realistically have taken that chance post 9/11?
Again, I implore people who answer this thread to give alternatives that go A to B to C.
For example, “We shouldn’t have invaded Iraq” needed to be followed by a realistic alternate plan in dealing with Hussein.
Please think this through and repost.
Thanks!!!
JeffR
Realistic plan is to continue to contain him and expose the oil for food scandal. The CIA knew about this for quite awhile and the we could have used the examples of corruption to push for harsher sanctions.
I would be willing to go as far as wthdrawing support from the UN if they are not willing to develop adequate measures of transparency on the oil for food program. Frankly the organization is pointless if it cannot even gaurantee adequate oversight.
I guess the point of my original post was to say that this has been a distraction from the real war on terror.
Even if Saddam stayed in power he represented less of a threat than civil war in Iraq and the possible founding of another islamic state. Combine this with the loss of over a thousand american lives, billions of dollars, and nearly 100,000 Iraqis and I believe you are hard pressed to justify the war in Iraq.
I realize that hindsight is 20/20 but many of the intelligence reports for Iraq predicted civil war due to ethnic tensions and internal strife. Given this information was known, it was irresponsible to go to war in Iraq.
I can email more later but I have to get back to work.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
I’ve asked this question in many different ways and in many different forms.
I still haven’t heard a single alternative to our present actions that is both realistic and responsible.
Allow me to repost a recent comment:
Let me ask my liberal friends (aldurr, tme, moriarty, elk) a direct question.
If you think the Iraq War was a mistake, provide an alternative.
Please go A to B to C.
For example, “we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq.”
Ok, now how could we have stopped him from reconstituting the weapons? Training terrorists? Funding Terrorists? Firing on our planes (nearly daily)? Bribing UN officials? Throwing UN inspectors out at will/obstructing their inspections? Moving weapons/changing sites PRIOR to inspections? Not declaring weapon systems that we have subsequently found since the invasion?
The problem with the ABB crowd (among many things) is that they have offered EXACTLY ZERO in the way of a viable alternative.
The American people in their wisdom saw right through the rhetoric and entrusted W. with another four years.
Prove me wrong, PLEASE.
Good Luck!!!
If you cannot come up with some reasonable alternatives, think about supporting the war effort. The constant whining and agitating without an alternative makes many of you seem small, petty, and rather insignificant.
JeffR
[/quote]
This shouldn’t even be a liberal/conservative arguement. Do you honestly think the current situation is better than it would have been otherwise? I don’t think there was any easy way, but the fact is, Bush Sr. wrote in his book the reason he did not invade Iraq in the Gulf War was that there was no viable exit strategy. There still isn’t. The administration tried to muscle through the situation and it turned out messy. If you think they made a brilliant decision, then detail how we are getting out of this. We are making progress, but not nearly enough. We can’t pull out and leave the place in anarchy. Saddam shouldn’t have been in power, but instead of being A problem, he’s now OUR problem, and one we were not prepared to deal with. He didn’t have the WMD. The torture chambers aren’t there now, but I say the situation for the Iraqi people isn’t much better right now. There are constant bombings and no real infrastructure (because it was bombed). You know how to make everything better, make it happen. If not, don’t feel any better than the people you successfully called out.
This war can be easily broken down into a cost benefit analysis.
Did the expected benefits exceed the costs? The facts pointed to no but Bush chose to cherrypick intelligence reports to produce the solution he wanted.
Iraq needed to be dealt with but via indirect means. As I stated earlier we need to secure afghanistan and push for a middle east peace plan to create stability and credibility in the arab world. Only after this is done can we attempt to approach a problem like Iraq.
well…we’ve already invaded Iraq so the question is moot…
a better question would be: What do we do now?
I’m not saying I have the perfect answer to this question…but I think that there’s no use in ‘crying over spilt milk’…as the saying goes…
what’s done is done…but where do we go from here?
Hi Jeff,
I just read your thread. I don’t think it was a mistake to invade Iraq, and I think the world is safer without Saddam. The only problem I have is that people weren’t given the real justificion for it.
JeffR,
sorry for taking so long. Had to do some research first. Sorry also, when I shorten some of your original text - it’s just for keeping the answer manageable.
(Sorry also to the moderator - this post will be really long.)
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Makkun,
Great post!!!
Here is what you wrote in response:
"I stand by my request - proof?
(…)
I’ve spent some time researching German Government complicity with the arms dealing.
Not only have I found plenty of direct evidence, but I think I’ve managed to construct quite an overview of overall German involvement with Hussein in general.
This is from the German Website: Dw-World.de.
The website is:
http://www.dw-world-de/dw/article/0,,716376,00.html
This gives a wonderful summation from a German source:
"Iraqi Report Could Prove Damaging to Germany
Volatile information - the weighty Iraqi report on its weapons program
Iraq?s declaration of its weapons programs contains explosive news for Germany, a Berlin paper has reported. The dossier is said to detail covert arms deals between German defense firms and Iraq.
(…)
Wait and watch says German Finance Ministry
The German Finance Ministry has said that it will react to the report only once it has studied the Iraqi declaration.
(…)
For months rumors have been circulating in the German media of murky deals between German arms companies and businessmen with Iraq despite the rigid embargoes in place.
(…)
German defense firms conduct roaring trade with Baghdad
German arms companies in the meantime have been conducting booming business with Iraq in recent years. According to the German Federal Statistics Office, German military exports to Iraq have been steadily rising from year to year.
From annual exports amounting to 21,7 million euro in 1997, the volume of exports for the following year shot to some 76,4 million euro. The trend continued in 2001 with exports to Iraq bringing German firms profits in the range of 336,5 million euro.
German goods worth 226,2 million euro have already been shipped to Iraq in the first half of this year. Some of the official heavyweights in the export scene are the German electronics firm Siemens with medical equipment and energy distribution systems and carmaker DaimlerChrysler. Both are reported to rake in revenues worth double digit figures in the millions.
Chancellor Schr?der in precarious situation
(…)
With Schroder sticking to his pacifist line, but dithering over the level of cooperation with the U.S. in the case of a war against Iraq, the latest report is guaranteed to provide ammunition to the opposition who have strongly criticized Schr?der’s policy towards America.
Another real fear is that Schroder’s image as a staunch pacifist might now be sullied if it emerges that Germany has all along been helping the very leader who it has been unwilling to topple, to stockpile his weapons.
The report could also provide the U.S. with an excuse to step up the pressure on Germany to give in to American military demands for deployment of German troops and use of German military equipment in the case of a military attack on Iraq."[/quote]
First of all - a 2 year old source? Schr?der must have felt very uncomfortable in those 2 years, as all this has been … wait a minute - nothing has happened. The way I see it, the Finance Ministry is still waiting for that report to come out and cause mayhem. As already addressed earlier - I never doubted that German companies dealt with illegal weapon exports. I remember them selling submarines to South Africa and tanks to Saudi Arabia. In the first case the (conservative) Chancellor Helmut Kohl was actually called before an investigative panel. But in this case? Nope, nothing. How come?
[quote]Let me highlight several key areas. First, notice the number of different sources suggested. Note the wide ranging levels of support on various systems.
IN PARTICULAR, NOTE THE FINANCE MINISTER’S COMMENT STATING THAT THE GERMAN PARLIMENT KNEW ABOUT THE TRANSFERS.
NOTE THE GERMAN DEFENSE FIRMS’ DIRECT INVOLVMENT.[/quote]
Here again - firms/companies yes. Proof for gouvernment involvement? Nope.
If you say so…
[quote]Here are some other fascinating articles that gives names, dates, exact amounts, and very disturbing summaries.
http://www.investigatemagazaine.com/apr3,iraq.htm [/quote]
I guess the article you mean is “PROJECT BABYLON: WHO ARMED IRAQ?”
It states that the French (and the British) gouvernments had ties to Iraq. It also states that German companies had. Nothing new. No claim of gouvernment involvement - a wait, there is some mention of the communist East German gouvernment. Good that this hasn’t been around for 15 years - its main people either dead or in jail.
I guess you mean “Thyssen Executives Convicted”. Yup, has happened. Any claim of gouvernment involvement? Nope. And again - convicted.
Or do you mean “Bundestag To Seek Iraq Briefing In Light Of New Baghdad-IAEA Data” http://www.nti.org/db/nuclear/1993/n9310513.htm :
“Due to new information compiled by IAEA inspectors revealing that Germany, both legally and illegally, transferred dual-use nuclear equipment and gas centrifuge enrichment technology to Iraq, Bundestag officials are pressing the Kohl government to clarify German involvement in the Iraqi nuclear weapons program.”
This one actually hints that there is a parliamentary inquiry into that. And the (conservative) Kohl gouvernment. This gouvernment ended in 1998.
I checked quite a few others on that site - yes, companies have been dealing with Iraq, and the state was regularly pursuing them.
Now this one is really conclusive. A very good and detailed report on how German companies have continuously thwarted the gouvernments attempts to control its dealings. But again the report states clearly that
"Since the Gulf War, the German government has attempted to strengthen its export control system by increasing cooperation between government agencies
and between government and industry. After learning of Germany’s involvement in Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and allistic missile programs, the FRG adopted strict corporate compliance procedures. ? In creating more rigid internal compliance requirements, the FRG government has shifted a significant amount of responsibility onto German exporters for monitoring compliance with federal export control standards.
These enforcement practices reflect Germany’s desire to strengthen its export control system to ensure the responsible use of German products in the international arena. It does not appear that German industry has been a
cooperative partner in this endeavor, however. On numerous occasions, German firms have lobbied the FRG to relax the measures that were implemented during the early 1990’s. But more problematic, reports have surfaced that German companies have continued to supply dual-use goods and technologies to WMD and ballistic missile programs in Syria, Iraq and Iran, thus suggesting that the government’s nonproliferation initiatives have been imperfect since the end of the Gulf War."
Again, my point has been proven - companies have broken German laws dealing with Iraq. The gouvernments have been (as usual) slow to react, but they did. No “bribery”, as you suggest, is alleged.
That one is also quite clear in its conclusion: “The IAEA inspection effort in Iraq provides a snapshot of one country’s success in attempting to procure equipment and know-how for a nuclear weapons program. Iraq spent 10 years and billions of dollars, but the evidence shows that Iraq got as far as it did because of political circumstances, suppliers’ ignorance, commercial deception and greed, and even scientific curiosity.
Western governments that backed Iraq against Iran looked the other way when firms sent dual-use items to Baghdad, and companies have justified their behavior on the basis that Saddam Hussein was battling Teheran’s bearded mullahs. But there is no reason to believe these firms would not have supplied Iran had their governments made another choice.
There is, however, little reason to doubt that many firms were victims of Iraqi deception regarding the end uses of their products. That is particularly the case for many common items, like small iron magnets, aluminum motor housings, and bolts of copper wire. Records seized by the IAEA testify that most of the items Iraq ordered from abroad were ordinary. But not all. Some items used to manufacture centrifuge rotor assemblies–flow-forming machines, CNC-machine tools, and specialized welding gear–were critical to the success of the program. Lax export controls, particularly in Germany and Switzerland, gave Iraq easy access to this equipment.”
Interesting again that there is no mention of corruption in Germany - yes, negligence in the world’s biggest exporter of … well, everything - but no sign of foul play; not even from the Kohl gouvernment (1983-1998). Interesting the mention that as long as Iraq was regarded Iran’s enemy (it was Saddam who started that war), everyone turned a blind eye to trading with evil Saddam - including the US. Proof of German gouvernment bribery … err … no.
Now this is the only one which puts a direct guilt on to German state practices - I have to point out that the author was actually one of the lawyers representing caught and tried exporters - but he gives a very good and chilling account of his experiences.
"Even at the end of 1995, Herbert Schm?lling, the government spokesman, explained to the press that German suppliers never officially supported the Iraqi missile program. And if isolated companies had aroused suspicion, criminal proceedings had been initiated and have been in part completed with the passing of judgment on them. The truth is that not only the approval of [such] practice by German authorities, but also the subsequent criminal prosecution in Germany was no brilliant achievement.?
A more detailed acoount can be found below. Michael Rietz talk on December 10, 1999 :
"I pointed out that the German government and the international community were also to blame for the developments in Iraq. For years, the guiding rule of export controls had been laissez-faire, which created an environment where an individual exporter could feel endorsed and easy about lacking political sensitivity with regard to illegal exports. Especially in Germany there was an export policy that was driven by the aim of increasing export figures at any price. Even the BND, the German Secret Service, sold millions of dollars worth of high-tech arms material to Iraq through a cover company called Telemit in the early 1980s, and trained members of the Iraqi secret service in Augsburg and Munich in the latest espionage and other secret service techniques. And as far as I can see, even in other European countries, and in America, too, Iraqi scientists were educated in advanced high-tech techniques, for example in the nuclear field.
…
The fact was, the Court then continued, that at the end of the 1980s, the Western world did not regard the Saddam Hussein’s regime as an enemy. Rather the ayatollahs in Iran were regarded to be the source of all evil. In contrast, Iraq was seen as a guarantee for stability in that critical political region. The reprehensible support through the delivery of dual-use, arms-related equipment did not take place in such a negative atmosphere. So the court had to leave all those later developments out of account. Nothing had occurred to prove the opinion that the accused had calculated such an outcome.
Nevertheless, Justitia in Germany is blind. The Higher Court in M?nster therefore wrote in its verdict that the foreign relations and the reputation of the Federal Republic of Germany had - without any doubt - been damaged by these exports. It had become difficult for Germany, since the knowledge of those illegal exports, to convince the world community, and especially Israel, that it had a serious export control regime. It had also cost a lot of German political capital to prove its credibility in the field of export controls. And this circumstance was not changed by the fact that other exporters, even in America, also violated export rules. The German government had earned a great deal of international criticism for not preventing these exports. The accused did not intend such a result, but they were responsible in a second degree, because they knew that Iraq was a belligerent and unpredictable country. So they were at least to be punished because of negligent violation of export laws."
Interesting to see, that until shortly before the first Gulf War, Iraq was not seen as an enemy, Saddam not Satan, but an ally - and many of the deals with him were made under that premise.
Again, no hint of a German gouvernment being bribed or having shady deals with Iraq. Especially the current gouvernment which consists of old pacifists (both Schr?der and Fischer have roots in the Anti-War movement the 70ies).
So, after this lengthy discussion of your sources I come to this conclusion: German companies have been making deals with Iraq for decades - during the misguided time when Saddam was supported by the West (keep in mind that your initial quote talked about 80 German and then 24 US companies doing deals with Iraq - any trials on that in the US?) with a blind eye by many governments (but even then when caught, people were put on trial for that), including Germany’s.
Is there proof of bribes of the current or even earlier German governments? Nope. Hence, I rest my case.
Still … nope. Companies - yes. Gouverment - no.
I see that.
Read your own sources - your allegation that the German gouvernment was bribed into not supporting the Iraw war is not proven. Not even that it was bribed in the first place.
But thanks for the opportunity to do some research on the topic - you know, I am outraged by the hypocrisy of international arms dealing (yes, especially by Germans who should really know better) and the volatility of making friends with dictators (like currently Pervez Musharaf, the house of Saud for example) just because they seemingly support a common cause. So - here, I hope, we share common ground.
Makkun
Soco,
good ideas. Sorry for having had such an entrenched discussion with JeffR on the German (non)involvement - just comes up all the time. I especially like the idea of getting away from oil as a main source of energy production - damn that I did not come up with that one myself. 
Makkun
[quote]Soco wrote:
We shouldn’t have invaded Iraq.
Instead we should have
-
focused on rebuilding afghanistan. Draw the enemy(religious fanatics) there where we can bomb the shit out of them in caves etc. rather than in urban warfare in Iraq.
-
Pushed for an investigation of the food for oil scam using poitical capital which we would have had more of had we not invaded Iraq.
-
Put more emphasis on creating a palestinian state so as to take away the terrorists main recruiting tool.
-
Invest heavily in alternatives to oil including efficiency and different fuel technologies. As long as we support brutal regimes terrorism will happen. We need to drain the swamp rather than killing the mosquitos. Granted this will take awhile but it will helpd create a long term solution.
If you still want to invade Iraq you have to sell it to the american people on what it is. Bush said there were weapons of mass destruction and an imminent threat from terrorsits. This wasn’t the case.
[/quote]
I wanted to publically state that the recent posts by Soco and veruvius were the most reasoned that I have heard on this forum and in other print from people who have misgivings about our effort in Iraq.
I mean this with all sincerity. This is exactly why I started this post.
I wanted to tell you two that I am aware of the difficulties we are facing and will continue to face.
It is going to get more bloody before it beings to stabilize.
I wanted to highlight the power of deterrance. Libya and their voluntary relinquishing of 500,000 tons of chemical/biological/nuclear weapons is a HUGE development. The Saudi crackdowns (including from today) and the Pakistani offensives against Al Qaeda are a HUGE development. Syria taking steps (at least symbolically) to tighten border security is a HUGE development.
I sincerely believe none of these actions would have happened had we not invaded Iraq. Our country is showing the will to fight and to endure.
The re-election of George W. Bush was a HUGE development. It singled quite clearly that we were not going to change our foreign policy in the near term.
DPH,
I started this post with two goals in mind. First, I wanted a sincere discussion about alternatives. It’s possible that there may have been another way. I’m not discounting that possibility altogether. I’ve given this much thought.
Second, if there was no reasonable alternative, this thread was going to highlight that. It is at least theoretically possible that people with misgivings may learn some things they didn’t know. Maybe a few minds could be changed. Maybe someone in Ontario, Hamburg, or Caen writes a letter to their representative. Imagine a representative of the governments who opposed the effort reading a missive from a constituent who admits that they have changed their mind based on sincere reflection.
That’s how things begin to change.
JeffR
Cool statement, Jeff.
I don’t agree with you on a lot of things (quite obviously), but the intention of the thread is really good. Being flexible in your views is important - goes for all of us; even myself
Makkun
Anyone who is sane will agree that Saddam is crazy and that nuclear weapons in his hands would be a big problem. These solutions admittedly have their flaws as I don’t claim to be an expert, but I do think they are at least possiblities.
I wonder if this mess could have been avoided had we been more involved in the peace process in the middle east. If Iraq could have been assured of its own security, perhaps it would have been more apt to end its weapons programs and comply with the UN. Iraq has a history of war. For protective purposes it would make sense for them to have weapons. With no threat, Iraq would have less reason to create such weapons.
The second alternative that comes to my mind is to deal with Afghanistan and with the Saudis. Maybe then Iraq would have agreed to let weapons instructors in.
Devoting more money, time, and research to alternatives to oil would help as well. I do believe oil is a factor in this war, though it may not be the main culprit. I belive we recieve about 25-30% of our oil from the Persian Gulf(correct em if I’m wrong). However, 65% of the world’s known oil supply is in the gulf region. If the U.S. gains control of Iraq’s oil supply it creates the opportunity to weaken OPEC. The system as it is leads to unrest as oil is a scarce resource.
Another possible solution would be to demilitarize the situtation in Iraq. The constant bombings in those regions may have helped Saddam’s standing in the eyes of the Iraqi people because they would have come to view the U.S. and others as hostile nations.
I lean to the left myself, but I would not object to this war if we exhausted diplomatic means, if the American people were not lied to about the WMD, and if we were more prepared to goto war. I also hate to see the loss of human life, as I hope all others on this board do. That, more than any reason is why I am against the war.
Look at a newspaper from 25 years ago. The faces and names have changed, but the same problems remain. My question is why? Our leaders continue to make the same mistakes again and again. This is not a a result of the right or left wing. It is a mess created by both.
My hope with this situation is that we learn from the situation in Iraq and do not get into this situation again. If we do learn, perhaps this war will not be the mistake that liberals have painted it to be (and then maybe we can solve the problems with education, poverty, health care, and all that fleeces us) .