Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Seagoon on July 31, 2007, 12:00:18 PM
-
For some time now, I've been hearing anecdotal evidence of positive returns from the "troop surge" in Iraq. Not surprisingly though, the mainline media hasn't been giving much lineage to these stories, largely I fear because they are heavily invested in the valid theory "defeat in Iraq = massive Republican defeat in '08". Obviously, no paper (with the possible exception of the Village Voice) has more interest in pressing home this strategy than the NY Times which has had an almost uniform "No Good News from Iraq is Fit To Print" policy since at least 2003.
That was until yesterday when they ran the following OP-ED entitled "A War We Just Might Win" from Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack from the liberal Brookings Institution:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/opinion/30pollack.html
The OP-Ed has landed both of them and the Times in some extremely hot water for breaking ranks with the "Lose to Win" consensus on the left (frankly I think that this is short-sighted, they'll win in '08 even if O'Hanlon and Pollack are right if only due to a complete lack of vision amongst the Republicans and a total failure to listen to the concerns of their base)
Here are the initial paragraphs:
VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.
Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.
-
I'd heard about this article, but hadn't read it until now. Thanks for the link. What is sad is my firm belief that the mainstream news sources will all but ignore this. Back in WWII, any good news (defined as showing progress towards victory) was hailed by the press, with set backs being de-emphasized. Now it is just the opposite. Or perhaps what has changed is the left's (and their willing accomplices) definition of good news (redefined as anything that casts dispersions on the Administration and leads to disgrace and defeat in Iraq/Afganistan).
Not so long ago, when the Iraqi elections were held and a consititution voted on and adopted, prominet democrat Harry Reid was saying that political progress was useless unless the security situation improved. This, he said was impossible because the President didn't send enough troops into Iraq to insure security. Then the President announces a troop increase to achieve that security, which Reid instantly opposes. Now that the surge (along with evolving tactics) are resulting in an improving security situation, Harry Reid over the weekend said that improving security was useless unless the political situation improves.:rolleyes: Like the democrats' position on the economy, any improvement will instantly be countered with some reason why that improvement is irrelevant. "Growth is through the roof" is countered with, "The gap between rich and poor is growing"; "Unemployment is at an all-time low" is replied to with "But their not good jobs"; "Wages and earings are up" envokes "but we're producing too much CO2!" And of course, "US and Iraqi casualties are down" is countered with "but we're producing too much CO2!!!" (Hey, the left doesn't have to make sense, just noise:huh )
-
I actually saw this piece on World News Tonight yesterday and was surprised it had been picked up by one of the major television news shows. I actually stood there staring at the tv speechless.
Video story in upper right. (http://abcnews.go.com/WN/)
-
At least the good news is finally getting some press coverage. Maybe this will become a trend. :)
-
Read Michael Yon's blogs. He constantly talks about there being only a handful of reporters embedded with active troops. I am convinced that most of the reason we do not hear anything but canned wire reports is because there is simply no one there reporting it. The lame stream media just reports on casualty numbers.
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/bread-and-a-circus-part-i-of-ii.htm
-
"lame stream media "
:rofl
-
Who was the recent democrat politician who is being quoted all over now basically saying "success in Iraq is bad news for us” (the democrats)?
-
Before you know it the democrats will be wanting to reverse the reversal on their '02 Iraq vote.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
At least the good news is finally getting some press coverage. Maybe this will become a trend. :)
Probably just a means to upset all the candidate held positions on the issue. In general, the media is about bashing the current Administration, since polls tell them that will be popular. But the polls also tell them that bashing Congress and candidates will be popular too, so set them up with anti-war, pull-out-now rhetoric..... then pull the platform out from under them.
"News media" is much more about political positions, entertainment, and market share. The "news" part gets lost in all that.
-
I'm not sure even John Kerry can keep up with the possible before/after/befores on this one. 5 will get you 10 that should Iraq become a stable democracy in a few years there won't be a democrat anywhere that called for us to pull out early.
-
I'm not sure even John Kerry can keep up with the possible before/after/befores on this one. 5 will get you 10 that should Iraq become a stable democracy in a few years there won't be a democrat anywhere that called for us to pull out early.
Unfortunately, AK, that question's still on the table(stable democracy.)
If the government that the U.S. installed can stand on it's own, for a year, two years, even more, It might sway an election or two. If it falls almost immediately after the U.S. pullout, There'll be a huge round of "I told you so's". Also, if it does fall, and is replaced by a Muslim-Theologically based gov.t', that will affect our election's as well. Right now, this would be like trying to place a $100 to win bet on the Kentucky derby, without even seeing the odds of any horse.
-
Here's something that might affect the outcome, too:http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070731/pl_nm/usa_iraq1_dc_1
44 min. old, according to yahoo! news.
-
the govt of iraq was elected by iraqis.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Here's something that might affect the outcome, too:http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070731/pl_nm/usa_iraq1_dc_1
44 min. old, according to yahoo! news.
The US is still in Germany and Japan. Would you consider them to be stable?
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Unfortunately, AK, that question's still on the table(stable democracy.)
If the government that the U.S. installed can stand on it's own, for a year, two years, even more, It might sway an election or two. If it falls almost immediately after the U.S. pullout, There'll be a huge round of "I told you so's". Also, if it does fall, and is replaced by a Muslim-Theologically based gov.t', that will affect our election's as well. Right now, this would be like trying to place a $100 to win bet on the Kentucky derby, without even seeing the odds of any horse.
i find it interesting that the democrats wish for you to bail out of iraq, meaning let a muslim theology government have control, but get there panties in a bunch over american politicians going to church on sunday.
-
I can't remember who it was exactly, but i remember someone denouncing public TV. They said it was all government run. Well, on our public TV staion, most of the news is balanced. and when the good things in Iraq happen, it gets reported. I saw this on there even. And they also show good shows that are scientific, and balanced to show both sides. Nothing government controlled I can see. This is good, we are making progress now. I don't really support the war entirely, but I now understand why we went and that it isn't all bad like is reported in the mainstream news. I quit watching "main stream news" years ago, it has been left or right sided for some time now. It really isn't news anymore, it's worse on celebrity gossip than the "National Inquier" you see depicted in old cartoons. It is junk. "Lame stream media" really describes it well. But, I'm glad we are actually getting something done in Iraq.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Who was the recent democrat politician who is being quoted all over now basically saying "success in Iraq is bad news for us” (the democrats)?
link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291634,00.html)
View From the Front
Democratic House Whip James Clyburn says a positive report from Iraq forces commander General David Petraeus to Congress in September would be — "a real problem for us."
Clyburn tells The Washington Post that an upbeat assessment of the war from Petraeus would likely split House Democrats — making their goal of forcing a timetable to end the war impossible. Clyburn says Petraeus' words will carry significant weight among the 47 Blue Dog Caucus members — and without their support — a timetable is probably out of reach.
Clyburn is advising other Democratic leaders to wait until Petraeus' report before making their next move in their battle with the president over the future of U.S. troops in the region.
In other words, don't keep declaring defeat, we might (Argh) win
-
Originally posted by bj229r
link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291634,00.html)
In other words, don't keep declaring defeat, we might (Argh) win
pretty sad to be basing you political future on the US losing a war. You would have thought he would be smart enough to lie about it at least.
-
AK, this seems to be an old article, but it pretty much shows why we kept troops in Germany since the end of WWII, and why we still maintain a few:
http://www.iht.com/articles/1991/11/07/nato.php
Japan's a handy base, too, as was proven in Korea, Vietnam, and as a port for the Pac. fleet.
John, the current Iraqi gov't. IS made up of representatives' that won they're seats in an election. The same kind of government the Founding Fathers' of our own country wanted, when they took up arms' against King George. There is, However, one thing about the whole mess over there that perplex's lot's of people, a question that many don't ask.
When the Iraqi army was defeated in 1991, after Desert Storm, why didn't the Iraqi's rise up against Saddam Hussein at that time, overthrow him and hang him themselves, and install this sort of govt. then????
Iraq's military was crushed, or didn't owe enough allegance to Saddam to fight Coalition forces to the death...Why didn't they take advantage of it?
We should not have had to come back over a decade later and do the job for them, if they wanted it that badly.
Was it because they weren't as bothered by Saddam as we think?
If anyone has any info to shed light on this question, please, any input's appreciated. This has been kind of a black-hole as far as any Mid-east political discussion's that I've seen in alot of places.
-
Originally posted by john9001
the govt of Iraq was elected by Iraqis.
????
Yeah, but Iraq's "jiffy-pop" Constitution was a hurried mess pushed through by a Interim Government, led by U.S. chosen members, all the while being harranged by a United States Congress in a hurry to roll out said Constitution and the elections.
Result: a weak, ineffective, central Iraqi government composed of compromise and power plays with numerous factions and rife with corruption.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
When the Iraqi army was defeated in 1991, after Desert Storm, why didn't the Iraqi's rise up against Saddam Hussein at that time, overthrow him and hang him themselves, and install this sort of govt. then????
Iraq's military was crushed, or didn't owe enough allegance to Saddam to fight Coalition forces to the death...Why didn't they take advantage of it?
We should not have had to come back over a decade later and do the job for them, if they wanted it that badly.
Was it because they weren't as bothered by Saddam as we think?
If anyone has any info to shed light on this question, please, any input's appreciated. This has been kind of a black-hole as far as any Mid-east political discussion's that I've seen in alot of places.
Actually they DID rise up. General Schwartzkopf had granted Iraq use of it's Soviet built military helicopter forces in the peace talks after the cease fire. Saddam used those helicopters to crush the uprisings among the Shiaa and Kurds. If the United States really wanted Saddam toppled from within, that concession was then a huge blunder on the part of the General, but in fairness to him, he had little to NO input from either the Administration nor the State Department in those peace talks. Wasn't his job to run peace talks, but it fell on him due to Disneyland on the Potomac dropping the ball.
Also, there was a lot of thought toward not wanting to neuter Iraq completely, as they were seen as a counter-point to Iran. If we took out Iraq in 1991/1992.... then Iran would have been the sole big boy on the block in the region. With Iraq still a force to contend with, the hopes were to contain Iran through them.
-
Ty for the post, Ted
Though, most still can't understand the sudden change of strategy. If we'd left Saddam in power, He would have been handier than what they have now, it seems-He was there, and stood on his own, while now we have a substantial portion of our own armed forces tied up holding down Iraq itself, unavailable for other crises'(Darfur, for example.)
-
Result: a weak, ineffective, central Iraqi government composed of compromise and power plays with numerous factions and rife with corruption.
Ala South Vietnam?
-
Whistling in the Dark springs to mind.
PPl on here should read up on British colonial History in the middle East 1915 to 1949.Then at least you would have some Idea why your losing.:aok
-
do not compare failed British colonialism with the United States defeating a dictator and trying to set up a democracy.
and who said we are losing?
-
your're in a War you can't win.Why?I refer you again to the failed British colonialism above.
When you've finished pass it on to Bush.:aok
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
AK, this seems to be an old article, but it pretty much shows why we kept troops in Germany since the end of WWII, and why we still maintain a few:
http://www.iht.com/articles/1991/11/07/nato.php
Japan's a handy base, too, as was proven in Korea, Vietnam, and as a port for the Pac. fleet.
I lived in Japan for 6 years and Korea for 1. I do know why the US military is there, to maintain presence and theforefore stability/influence in that region. Much the same reason we'll likely keep troops in the middle east for a long time.
-
Originally posted by Hazzer
your're in a War you can't win.Why?I refer you again to the failed British colonialism above.
When you've finished pass it on to Bush.:aok
After we give it to GW, maybe we should give it to the muslims that are quite successfully colonizing the UK. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Though, most still can't understand the sudden change of strategy. If we'd left Saddam in power, He would have been handier than what they have now, it seems-He was there, and stood on his own, while now we have a substantial portion of our own armed forces tied up holding down Iraq itself, unavailable for other crises'(Darfur, for example.)
Well, there is the publicly given strategy and and the internal reasons for Iraq in the first place. I do believe that going into Iraq had a lot more to do with other interests than WMD's or any tenuous link to fundamentalists terrorists on the part of Saddam's secular hedonistic government.....
Look at a map. Central to the Middle East region. Border with Allied Turkey. Borders with problem children Iran and Syria. Oil rich. Resource rich. Has several water sources (more than most of the region has access to). Access to the sea. Arable land. A large segment of the population being well educated. A (then) largely metropolitan and secular society.
They saw the Middle East's version of South Korea. A shining beacon of democracy in the Middle East. A bastion of American might and permanent American bases to project power and influence in the region in the greater war on terror. The people would welcome us with flowers and candy by getting rid of Saddam and his evil sons......
But the map is not the ground, and they failed to consider, or chose to dismissed as unimportant, the cultural or historic realities in and of Iraq... or of the region as a whole. They saw what they wanted to see.
They compounded these mistakes with further blunders:
* Not enough troops to begin with to secure the country, lowballing the numbers and counting on using the 400,000 Iraqi forces to help secure the country as justification for low numbers.
* Then Firing those 400,000 soldiers, sailors and airmen of the Iraq forces who they went to great lengths to subvert to remain on the sidelines during the invasion. Those who knew where the munitions were buried. Those who eventually became the core of the Insurgency and of many organized crime gangs operating in Iraq.
* Failing to secure all those munitions dumps around Iraq whose stores were turned against coalition forces.
* Rushing Iraq through a quickie Constitution to come up with the mess of a government they have now all in the name of quick government and quick elections. "lookit what we did!" back home.
* Failing all along to recognize, admit to, and adjust to mistakes made these past five years.
* Failing to reconstruct basic utilities, human services, and security to Iraq after five years. The shortsightedness and stubborn arrogance has been staggering at times.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
I'd heard about this article, but hadn't read it until now. Thanks for the link. What is sad is my firm belief that the mainstream news sources will all but ignore this. Back in WWII, any good news (defined as showing progress towards victory) was hailed by the press, with set backs being de-emphasized. Now it is just the opposite. Or perhaps what has changed is the left's (and their willing accomplices) definition of good news (redefined as anything that casts dispersions on the Administration and leads to disgrace and defeat in Iraq/Afganistan).
Not so long ago, when the Iraqi elections were held and a consititution voted on and adopted, prominet democrat Harry Reid was saying that political progress was useless unless the security situation improved. This, he said was impossible because the President didn't send enough troops into Iraq to insure security. Then the President announces a troop increase to achieve that security, which Reid instantly opposes. Now that the surge (along with evolving tactics) are resulting in an improving security situation, Harry Reid over the weekend said that improving security was useless unless the political situation improves.:rolleyes: Like the democrats' position on the economy, any improvement will instantly be countered with some reason why that improvement is irrelevant. "Growth is through the roof" is countered with, "The gap between rich and poor is growing"; "Unemployment is at an all-time low" is replied to with "But their not good jobs"; "Wages and earings are up" envokes "but we're producing too much CO2!" And of course, "US and Iraqi casualties are down" is countered with "but we're producing too much CO2!!!" (Hey, the left doesn't have to make sense, just noise:huh )
You ever think it might be because the media was "used" by this admin as part of the lie to get us into the war in the first place? Had this admistration been truthful from the start, maybe they would hold better light in the mainstream media. Much less with the American people and the world.
You lie then you get treated as a lier.
-
After we give it to GW, maybe we should give it to the muslims that are quite successfully colonizing the UK.
UK religion demographics:
Christian 42,079,000 71.6%
Muslim 1,591,000 2.7%
Hindu 559,000 1.0%
Sikh 336,000 0.6%
Jewish 267,000 0.5%
Buddhist 152,000 0.3%
Other religion 179,000 0.3%
Not stated 4,289,000 7.3%
No religion 9,104,000 15.5%
Total religious 45,163,000 76.8%
Yes, we are swarming with Muslims.
-
TE Lawrence on the Turkish occupation of Iraq:
"Rebellions can be made by 2 per cent active and 98 per cent passively sympathetic"
or this, on the same occupation in1914/18 War.
The Turks "would have need of a fortified post every four square miles, and a post could not be less than 20 men. The Turks would need 600,000 men to meet the combined ill wills of all the local Arab people. They had 100,000 men available." Sound familiar?
there's lots more,and it makes chilling reading.
See you at the victory parade.:aok
-
Originally posted by crockett
You ever think it might be because the media was "used" by this admin as part of the lie to get us into the war in the first place? Had this admistration been truthful from the start, maybe they would hold better light in the mainstream media. Much less with the American people and the world.
You lie then you get treated as a lier.
Exactly how was the administration not truthful in the lead up to the war, and how did the Bush Administration manipulate the press into supporting the "lies" you speak of?
-
On August 1 , 'Operation Banner' came to an end. At 38 years it was the British army's longest campaign to date. They arrived in Northern Ireland in 1969 for what they thought were a few weeks. This week they finally returned to barracks. They never won the war but they didn't lose either. In the end the politicians and the people made them redundant.
At the moment they are involved in another campaign: 'Operation Telic' in Iraq. Going four years now and no sign of it ending.
Just a warning as to what can happen. Read what tedrbr and hazzer says. Even if Al Qaeda evaporated in the morning. The Iraqis or more to the point the tribalism inherent in that area will keep the pot stirred. It has to be solved politically. The US army cannot do that.
If Petraeus is the man, everyone says he is, then he knows that and will spell it out in September. The US military can keep a lid on it for years just like the British in Northern Ireland but can never make it go away.
The war cannot be won militarily alone.
-
Originally posted by crockett
You ever think it might be because the media was "used" by this admin as part of the lie to get us into the war in the first place? Had this admistration been truthful from the start, maybe they would hold better light in the mainstream media. Much less with the American people and the world.
You lie then you get treated as a lier.
:rofl :rofl :rofl
Hold a better light in the mainstream media, which in itself is full of liars, and panic mongers?:rofl :rofl :rofl
Do you do stand up?
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
snip......Result: a weak, ineffective, United States government composed of compromise and power plays with numerous factions and rife with corruption.
fixed......
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Exactly how was the administration not truthful in the lead up to the war, and how did the Bush Administration manipulate the press into supporting the "lies" you speak of?
Dear god, countless examples have been give countless times on this bbs. But people you will constantly pretend they haven't been.
-
Hazzer,
Dont waste your breath... I tried to explain the history of the region before the Iraq War and its comparison to the WW1, and by the way the British were not colony building.. if not for the assyrians they would have lost control immediately. And thats well documented.
At the time the people on these boards called me liar, terror lover etc.. their words ring especially hollow with that taste of crow in their mouth.. not naming any names... our favorite war college edumicated tanker. and friends..
4 years later as you can see on TV, the internet, etc.. ham radio etc.. that Iraq is in shambles... just as i predicted. I saw the the rag tag coalition for what it was, the numbers on the ground, and said we are insane for doing this.. on this level... pathetic planning equals pathetic results...
Now...
Everything is down.. electricity is down... Roads are down... schools are down... sacred sites are destroyed. If thats winning your right, Scorched earth warfare. You destroyed the whole freaking county.. Victory... Pyyric but victory...
now the 4th gen powder keg is primed... and a northern turkman invasion might just set the keg off.. history repeating itself.. (craven turks did the same thing when the stability fell last time... but who reads their history, history smistory...)
and for those who say we are winning.. at a 1/20 success rate per IED (and thats conservative) at 50$ per IED vs the cost of 1-3 x 200000 sgli, 200000 worth of hummer, logistics and training or after care for survivors/dead, 500000-3000000 (thats conservative also) hell thats a couple of million vs 2000$
Any military planner who calls that winning should be elightened to their ignorance Stalin style..
Counter Insurgency is a BS operation... Armies are not designed to handle that on a 4th gen battlefield... you people are trying to force a square into a circle...
But what do I know... Ive only called this war to a T.. (correct) said jessica lynch was a sham.. (correct right out of her own mouth... she has my respect..at the time tanker and friends accused me of Jealousy.. woot...), the freaking tillman case of fraticide.. (correct on that one too..) no matter how unpopular...
Rebuttal... trust me you have none...
When you go against every system of SUN TZU on the field of battle and expect to win.. you are sadly mistaken.. and will be left wanting...
Read your history / Smistory for examples..
DoctorYo
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Exactly how was the administration not truthful in the lead up to the war, and how did the Bush Administration manipulate the press into supporting the "lies" you speak of?
Really, it's not worth the time to explain to you as you must be wearing your "Republican blinders" if still don't understand what this admin did to mislead this nation into a war with Iraq.
If you can't see it by now, then nothing I say on a message board will ever change your mind. However I like to think everyone has a brain and can use it..
So watch this vid maybe not the best on the subject but it's short and sweet and provides the info I guess you want to ignore.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7xyd_IRgGs
Nice background music regardless..
-
Really, it's not worth the time to explain to you as you must be wearing your "Republican blinders" if still don't understand what this admin did to mislead this nation into a war with Iraq.
Really, as Maverick said in another thread. There is no proof that will hold up in a court of law to support this. All we have is allegations. You choose to believe the allegations, some of us choose to wait for further evidence.
You too have your blinders on, they are just a different type. ;)
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Really, as Maverick said in another thread. There is no proof that will hold up in a court of law to support this. All we have is allegations. You choose to believe the allegations, some of us choose to wait for further evidence.
You too have your blinders on, they are just a different type. ;)
I guess you are still waiting for the WMD's to be found.. btw I assume you missed the video I posted above? Seems like all the proof in the world that is needed is in that simple 3:29 video.
If their own words aren't enough proof for you, then you wont ever accept
any proof given to you. So it's a useless battle much like Iraq is today.
(http://www.aspencountry.com/aspen/assets/product_images/product_lib/34000-34999/34513.jpg)
-
I guess you are still waiting for the WMD's to be found.. btw I assume you missed the video I posted above?
Your allegation is that the Bush administration intentionally misled the American people. Your video links don't support that. You see what you wish to see.
Did our intelligence services think there was WMD's prior to our invasion? Yes.
Did that intel turn out to be inaccurate? Yes.
Does this constitute intentional misleading? No.
Have I seen the CIA report on what quantities and types of WMD's Iraq was believed to have had? Yes. (Interesting to note that those items were verified as having existed by UN weapons inspectors at one time yet some of those items like the 1.5 tons of VX gas have yet to be accounted for, either verification of it being destroyed or the gas itself being found.)
Until I see actual proof of intentional misleading I'm not going to jump on the *Bush lied about the reasons for the war* bandwagon.
-
did saddam bury his WMD is the desert along with his MIG fighters and "weather balloon trucks", yes. It's a big desert.
What about the convoy of soviet trucks that went to Syria just before the invasion?
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Your allegation is that the Bush administration intentionally misled the American people. Your video links don't support that. You see what you wish to see.
Did our intelligence services think there was WMD's prior to our invasion? Yes.
Did that intel turn out to be inaccurate? Yes.
Does this constitute intentional misleading? No.
Have I seen the CIA report on what quantities and types of WMD's Iraq was believed to have had? Yes. (Interesting to note that those items were verified as having existed by UN weapons inspectors at one time yet some of those items like the 1.5 tons of VX gas have yet to be accounted for, either verification of it being destroyed or the gas itself being found.)
Until I see actual proof of intentional misleading I'm not going to jump on the *Bush lied about the reasons for the war* bandwagon.
right...
If you did any research for your self on the Chemical weapons we "believed" he "may" of had. You would know that their "shelf life" had far passed their usefulness.
See I guess that's the difference between you and me. I did my own research. I didn't listen to what some politician or some expert tried to feed me.
I looked up the info on the weapons Iraq was suspected of having prior to the war in Iraq. Pretty much all of it had a extreemly limited shelf life and being we knew he didn't have the capacity to make more, well I knew he wasn't a threat.
I also had already looked up the info on the Aluminum rods that our president used in his go to war speech. That info was on the net prior to his speech and I couldn't believe he tried to sell it to the American people..
You know the whole Valerie Plaime thing.. If you actually did your own research you would have seen the same things I have seen. Instead of just accepting what you wanted to hear.
-
Originally posted by john9001
did saddam bury his WMD is the desert along with his MIG fighters and "weather balloon trucks", yes. It's a big desert.
What about the convoy of soviet trucks that went to Syria just before the invasion?
You can't tell me you actually think that Saddam, would give Syria his WMD's for safe keeping.. :rofl
-
Originally posted by crockett
You can't tell me you actually think that Saddam, would give Syria his WMD's for safe keeping.. :rofl
Why not? During the first Gulf War Saddam sent a good portion of his Air Force to Iran for safe keeping. That didn't turn out so well for him since Iran didn't return those aircraft. It isn't beyond the realm of possibility for Saddam to have thought to try the same thing with any WMD's he may have had left, only this time to try it with a different *partner* in the hopes of a better result.
Considering he buried MiG's to hide them it isn't beyond the realm of possibility to consider he might have done the same thing with other weapons.
I'm not saying Saddam did these things but I am saying it is possible considering he had taken similar actions with other items.
-
Originally posted by crockett
You can't tell me you actually think that Saddam, would give Syria his WMD's for safe keeping.. :rofl
in GW1 saddam flew his MIG's to Iran ( his mortal enemy)for safe keeping.:rofl
-
Originally posted by john9001
in GW1 saddam flew his MIG's to Iran ( his mortal enemy)for safe keeping.:rofl
Yes but Saddam didn't get them back.. :)
Sorry it's a jumbled mess.. cut and paste (you can read it here http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/airforce.htm last paragraph)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At least 115 combat aircraft flew to Iran, out of the total of 137-149 aircraft flown to Iran or crashed enroute [including 15 Il-76s and some number of civilian airliners]. According to an official Iraqi statement, the aircraft included 115 combat aircraft, among them 24 Mirage F1s, 4 Su-20 Fitters, 40 Su-22 Fitters, 24 Su-24 Fencers, seven Su-25 Frogfoots, nine MiG-23 Floggers, and four MiG-29 Fulcrums. Reports that Saddam Hussein ordered 20 Tu-22 bombers to Iran appear unfounded. In 1993 it was reported that Russia was to provide Iran with spare parts, armaments, and operating manuals for the Iraqi jets that flew to Iran during the Gulf War. In 1993 it was reported that China had bought an unknown number of these MiG-29s from Iran, in exchange for Chinese missile technology and a nuclear power station. The two countries had reportedly reached agreement on the exchange in late 1992, with Iran having delivered some of the MiG-29s by the end of 1992. In 1998 Iraq and Iran had high-level meetings to discuss ending their state of war and other matters, including Iraq's request to have its airplanes back. Iran denied it had used any of the Iraqi fighter planes. If Iran had kept the Iraqi planes grounded for the entire time, they are probably nonfunctional -- the Iranians may not be able to start the engines or operate the hydraulics. Other reports suggest that some Su-24s have been added to Iran's existing inventory, some Su-20/22s were in Revolutionary Guard service. The Iraqi Su-25s, MiG-23s and Mirage F1s were thought by some to be not in service, due to age, low capability (MiG-23s) or too few numbers (Su-25). Other reports suggest that Iran had overhauled Iraq's fleet of 24 Mirage F-1B fighters and placed them into service.
-----------------------------------------------------------
So do you really think, after that happened that he would trust Syria with his WMD's? Much less if he actually had WMD's why didn't he use them, knowing this was was a full scale invassion and not a slap on the wrist like DS1 was? Saddam had nothing to lose, it was clear this war was intended to take him out of power.
So why didn't he use his WMD's? oh probably because he didn't have them.. :)
-
If you did any research for your self on the Chemical weapons we "believed" he "may" of had. You would know that their "shelf life" had far passed their usefulness.
I did do my own research. Mustard gas has a very long shelf life. (Measured in decades) VX gas has a shelf life of around 10 years before it starts to degrade. How much degradation is needed before it becomes completely useless is something I never found the info on. That info might actually be classified.
Purity of the precursors has a large effect on the shelf life of all chemical weapons. The higher grade the precursors, the longer the shelf life. Sarin gas actually has a very short shelf life compared to other types of chemical weapons. In some cases, the shelf life is only a few weeks, at best (under premium conditions with high purity of precursors) 5 years. This issue with shelf life is why Iraq preferred to mix the chemicals prior to use rather than store the gas itself.
See I guess that's the difference between you and me. I did my own research. I didn't listen to what some politician or some expert tried to feed me.
Actually you did listen to what some expert tried to feed you when you did your research. Unless of course you yourself are an expert in chemical weapons. Then again, if you were an expert in chemical weapons you wouldn't have needed to do research. ;)
-
Great... 10 years.. ok when was Desert Storm again? Was that 1991? See where I'm going with this...
-
Much less if he actually had WMD's why didn't he use them, knowing this was was a full scale invassion and not a slap on the wrist like DS1 was? Saddam had nothing to lose, it was clear this war was intended to take him out of power.
My opinion on this. I don't think Saddam thought we would actually remove him from power. I also don't think he wouldn't have used any chemical weapons he may have had for a couple of reasons.
1) The US military has very good chemical warfare gear and would be expected to use it so the use of chemical weapons wouldn't be very effective.
2) If he had them and used them, it would have been complete and total justification for the invasion. I'm guessing that even as the invasion started that Saddam didn't think we would remove him from power if chemical weapons weren't found.
That's just my thoughts on the matter and they may be totally out in left field. :D
-
Originally posted by crockett
So why didn't he use his WMD's? oh probably because he didn't have them.. :)
his command and control was disrupted, but the US intercepted msgs from his HQ to use the WMD's, why weren't they used? The special troops never got the msg, the troops knew the war was lost and did not want to be "war criminals", the troops had already deserted. Take your pick.
-
Elfie, I myself had seen some news clips during DS that said the Iraqi AF deserted, preffering internment in Iran to facing the combined air power of the U.S. and it's coalition allies, and it wasn't an order from HQ that made them fly there...I mean, correct me if I'm wrong.
-
Originally posted by crockett
Great... 10 years.. ok when was Desert Storm again? Was that 1991? See where I'm going with this...
That was the best that I could find on VX gas. I think much of the information on VX gas is classified since it is such a deadly chemical. It could be longer, or it could be shorter. As civilians we really don't know for sure.
In regards to the VX gas, Iraq didn't just have the 1.5 tons of gas, they also had thousands of tons of precursors. Given Iraq's penchant for mixing the gas just prior to the intended use I think it's safe to say that VX gas was still a legitimate threat on the battlefield.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Elfie, I myself had seen some news clips during DS that said the Iraqi AF deserted, preffering internment in Iran to facing the combined air power of the U.S. and it's coalition allies, and it wasn't an order from HQ that made them fly there...I mean, correct me if I'm wrong.
Really? That is something I hadn't heard. Quite interesting if true.
Considering Saddam's brutality towards his own people when he found folks he no longer trusted, I'm not sure how true this is. Not saying it isn't, I just have my doubts.
Do you have any links to support this? I would be interested in seeing them if you do.
-
Here's a couple for starters, Elfie, but...one is Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Air_Force#Gulf_War_and_no-fly_zones
And here's another one from globalsecurity.org.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/air-force-equipment-intro.htm
I threw the wiki entry in there because it would contradict what I said; The only problem with it is that it has no citation, and that being wiki, simply, anyone can edit and put anything they want.
-
Originally posted by john9001
his command and control was disrupted, but the US intercepted msgs from his HQ to use the WMD's, why weren't they used? The special troops never got the msg, the troops knew the war was lost and did not want to be "war criminals", the troops had already deserted. Take your pick.
If you honestly believe that, why didn't our US soldiers find the weapons? Did the Iraqi soldiers carry them off for war souvenirs?
-
Originally posted by Elfie
That was the best that I could find on VX gas. I think much of the information on VX gas is classified since it is such a deadly chemical. It could be longer, or it could be shorter. As civilians we really don't know for sure.
In regards to the VX gas, Iraq didn't just have the 1.5 tons of gas, they also had thousands of tons of precursors. Given Iraq's penchant for mixing the gas just prior to the intended use I think it's safe to say that VX gas was still a legitimate threat on the battlefield.
The problem with that, is the fact we had put Iraq under sanctions for 10 plus years.. We had bombed his infrastructure to nothing and UN and even our own govt agreed that he was contained and couldn't produce WMD's with any wide scale success prior to 9/11.
I just don't understand why you guys fail to see that even this admin publicly stated that Saddam was zero threat to the United States. At best maybe a regional threat in another 10 years. This was said several times by the Bush admin prior to 9/11.
Funny as soon as they had 9/11 to use as an excuse, their minds changed about Iraq's capacity for WMD's. They are right 9/11 changed everything, it gave them the excuse to do just about anything they wanted.
btw Elfie..
With the current crop of scandals in this white house. Seeing how easy they will lie under oath claiming they know nothing about this or that. Doesn't that make you question what they have told you in the past?
How can anyone blindly just accept anything this admin says when they hold our laws in contempt.
-
During Operation Desert Storm the Iraqi Air Force did not seek to challenge Coalition air forces, and nearly half the Iraqi Air Force fled to Iran to escape destruction. Why the IQAF fled to Iran is not precisely known, and the answer may never be fully known. In any case, Iraqi fighters and support aircraft fled for the border -- more than 120 left. O
From your second link.....
We probably won't ever know for sure the real reasons all those planes fled to Iran. What we do know is that this didn't work out so well for Saddam. :D
I've seen that Wiki article before, most of the stuff is documented except the part about the agreement between Iran and Iraq to hold the Iraqi planes until the war was over.
-
The problem with that, is the fact we had put Iraq under sanctions for 10 plus years.. We had bombed his infrastructure to nothing and UN and even our own govt agreed that he was contained and couldn't produce WMD's with any wide scale success prior to 9/11.
He had the chemicals to make them at some point. Where/when they were destroyed or hidden is unknown. (At least for some of them, some things were documented as having been destroyed.)
I just don't understand why you guys fail to see that even this admin publicly stated that Saddam was zero threat to the United States.
When has the administration ever said this? This administration has always maintained that Iraq was a threat in various ways. Whether it was WMD or supporting terrorism, this administration has maintained that Iraq was a threat.
Funny as soon as they had 9/11 to use as an excuse, their minds changed about Iraq's capacity for WMD's.
That isn't entirely accurate either. The Clinton administration also believed Iraq still had WMDs, as did the UN. Why else would the UN inspectors have been sent back to Iraq time and time again?
They are right 9/11 changed everything, it gave them the excuse to do just about anything they wanted.
While that may or may not be true at this point it is merely speculation.
How can anyone blindly just accept anything this admin says when they hold our laws in contempt.
Again you are assuming that's what we are doing. Some of us just want to see hard evidence before we try, convict and sentence them based on allegations and speculation.
-
Originally posted by john9001
did saddam bury his WMD is the desert along with his MIG fighters and "weather balloon trucks", yes. It's a big desert.
What about the convoy of soviet trucks that went to Syria just before the invasion?
We've been over this on this board a thousand times as well. Do a search on it.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
We've been over this on this board a thousand times as well. Do a search on it.
True, we have had this discussion before. Fact is, no one really knows. /shrug
-
Originally posted by Elfie
True, we have had this discussion before. Fact is, no one really knows. /shrug
Well know that's not really the case is it, nor was that the consensus on this board.? The Iraq survey group spent years with a budget of hundreds of millions of dollars, and a team of over 1,400 men investigation every freaking aspect of the issue.
But none of that nor there conclusions matter to some people on this bbs. Now, years later they still say stuff like, "Fact is, no one really knows. /shrug".
Yes someone knows, ISG nows and have answered the question definitively years ago. And this has been stated on this board....useless dozens of times.
Here's a link to all the posts that contain the word "Duelfer" anyways.
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=313077&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending
-
Originally posted by Hazzer
your're in a War you can't win.Why?I refer you again to the failed British colonialism above.
When you've finished pass it on to Bush.:aok
You're in a war? Shouldn't that be We are in a war?
-
Holden, from what I can tell, the brits are even more furious about GWB than anyone in the states-Look at the way Tony Blair wound up.
Ask the Brit members of this forum what support for the American occupation of Iraq is, you'll see quite a few more that are against than for.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Holden, from what I can tell, the brits are even more furious about GWB than anyone in the states-Look at the way Tony Blair wound up.
Ask the Brit members of this forum what support for the American occupation of Iraq is, you'll see quite a few more that are against than for.
So if I am furious with GWB, can I ignore my country's involvement in the Iraq war?
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Again you are assuming that's what we are doing. Some of us just want to see hard evidence before we try, convict and sentence them based on allegations and speculation.
So you want hard evidence that we were mislead into Iraq, but you don't care there wasn't any hard evidence of WMD's or that Saddam had no real links to terrorists?
Even though they contradict themselves on video, first claiming Iraq had ties to terrorist then denying they ever said it.
And of course claiming Iraq having WMD's was a slam dunk case and they knew exactly where they were. Only to later deny that as well.. Meanwhile the video speaks a million words.
I mean seriously what other evidence do you need? George Bush himself first said Saddam had ties to 9/11 and used that to sell the war. Later he claims he never said that but Saddam was a bad guy..
Seems to me all the evidence in the world is there if you choose not to ignore it.
-
Originally posted by crockett
I mean seriously what other evidence do you need? George Bush himself first said Saddam had ties to 9/11 and used that to sell the war. Later he claims he never said that but Saddam was a bad guy..
You should be able to link the quote then...
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Well know that's not really the case is it, nor was that the consensus on this board.? The Iraq survey group spent years with a budget of hundreds of millions of dollars, and a team of over 1,400 men investigation every freaking aspect of the issue.
But none of that nor there conclusions matter to some people on this bbs. Now, years later they still say stuff like, "Fact is, no one really knows. /shrug".
Yes someone knows, ISG nows and have answered the question definitively years ago. And this has been stated on this board....useless dozens of times.
Here's a link to all the posts that contain the word "Duelfer" anyways.
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=313077&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Link is on the second page of the 4th thread from your search.
The CIA’s chief weapons inspector said he cannot rule out the possibility that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were secretly shipped to Syria before the March 2003 invasion, citing “sufficiently credible” evidence that WMDs may have been moved there.
Inspector Charles Duelfer, who heads the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), made the findings in an addendum to his final report filed last year. He said the search for WMD in Iraq—the main reason President Bush went to war to oust Saddam Hussein—has been exhausted without finding such weapons. Iraq had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in the early 1990s.
But on the question of Syria, Mr. Duelfer did not close the books. “ISG was unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war,” Mr. Duelfer said in a report posted on the CIA’s Web site Monday night.
There was hardly a consensus on this board either way. I only read the first 4 threads and there was definately not a consensus. ;)
Now I'm not saying those items were moved to Syria, I'm just saying no one knows for sure what happened to some of that stuff. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.
-
but you don't care there wasn't any hard evidence of WMD's or that Saddam had no real links to terrorists?
There was evidence of WMD's before the invasion, that evidence turned out to be false. I have already linked sources for Saddam's link to terrorists (note I did not say Al-Qaeda)
George Bush himself first said Saddam had ties to 9/11
I don't recall that either. I do recall Bush saying Saddam had links to terrorists and that Saddam had given safe harbor to Al-Qaeda members. (One Al-Qaeda member that we know about.) From this folks have come to the conclusion that Bush linked Al-Qaeda to Iraq and from there to 9/11.
And of course claiming Iraq having WMD's was a slam dunk case and they knew exactly where they were. Only to later deny that as well
They thought they knew where they were, but this goes back to the faulty intel as well.
Seems to me all the evidence in the world is there if you choose not to ignore it.
Or it's there if that is all you are looking to see. People see what they want to see. After seeing all the evidence that is out there, I still say, maybe, maybe not. As Joe Americans it is not likely we will ever know the truth of the matter. Our grandkids might know someday when the government finally declassifies documents. We will be dead and gone by then most likely.
*edit* Much of the evidence that is out there is nothing more than allegations and speculation that people have taken as fact.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Well know that's not really the case is it, nor was that the consensus on this board.? The Iraq survey group spent years with a budget of hundreds of millions of dollars, and a team of over 1,400 men investigation every freaking aspect of the issue.
But none of that nor there conclusions matter to some people on this bbs. Now, years later they still say stuff like, "Fact is, no one really knows. /shrug".
Yes someone knows, ISG nows and have answered the question definitively years ago. And this has been stated on this board....useless dozens of times.
Here's a link to all the posts that contain the word "Duelfer" anyways.
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=313077&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending
Yes, we have been over this before. And then, and now, the same pesky fact remains, parts of the Iraqi WMD program went to Syria.
You know the David Kay quote as well as I do, so why are you here pretending it doesnt exist? Its dishonest at best.
-
This is a pretty good article from a man that was part of the inspection teams.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/kay.transcript/
A couple things from the article that I found interesting:
We have discovered hundreds of cases, based on both documents, physical evidence and the testimony of Iraqis, of activities that were prohibited under the initial U.N. Resolution 687 and that should have been reported under 1441, with Iraqi testimony that not only did they not tell the U.N. about this, they were instructed not to do it and they hid material.
I think the aim -- and certainly the aim of what I've tried to do since leaving -- is not political and certainly not a witch hunt at individuals. It's to try to direct our attention at what I believe is a fundamental fault analysis that we must now examine.
And let me take one of the explanations most commonly given: Analysts were pressured to reach conclusions that would fit the political agenda of one or another administration. I deeply think that is a wrong explanation.
As leader of the effort of the Iraqi Survey Group, I spent most of my days not out in the field leading inspections. It's typically what you do at that level. I was trying to motivate, direct, find strategies.
In the course of doing that, I had innumerable analysts who came to me in apology that the world that we were finding was not the world that they had thought existed and that they had estimated. Reality on the ground differed in advance.
And never -- not in a single case -- was the explanation, "I was pressured to do this." The explanation was very often, "The limited data we had led one to reasonably conclude this. I now see that there's another explanation for it."
And each case was different, but the conversations were sufficiently in depth and our relationship was sufficiently frank that I'm convinced that, at least to the analysts I dealt with, I did not come across a single one that felt it had been, in the military term, "inappropriate command influence" that led them to take that position.
Clearly this individual doesn't believe that analysts were pressured to come up with certain conclusions based on the evidence at hand.
He also talks briefly about Iraq's attempts to cover up their WMD programs.
And let me really wrap up here with just a brief summary of what I think we are now facing in Iraq. I regret to say that I think at the end of the work of the [Iraq Survey Group] there's still going to be an unresolvable ambiguity about what happened.
A lot of that traces to the failure on April 9 to establish immediately physical security in Iraq -- the unparalleled looting and destruction, a lot of which was directly intentional, designed by the security services to cover the tracks of the Iraq WMD program and their other programs as well, a lot of which was what we simply called Ali Baba looting. "It had been the regime's. The regime is gone. I'm going to go take the gold toilet fixtures and everything else imaginable."
Notice the bold, not even the Iraq Survey Group has all the answers and it was their job to find them. So for any of us to act like we do know the answers just isn't reasonable imo.
The entire article is worth reading imo.
-
"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered."
"In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes."
"In spite of exhaustive investigation, ISG found no evidence that Iraq possessed, or was developing BW agent production systems mounted on road vehicles or railway wagons."
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf
And from the final ISG report:
"Based on the evidence available at present, ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials."
-
Originally posted by Viking
"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered."
"In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes."
"In spite of exhaustive investigation, ISG found no evidence that Iraq possessed, or was developing BW agent production systems mounted on road vehicles or railway wagons."
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf
And from the final ISG report:
"Based on the evidence available at present, ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials."
This is based on evidence that they found in Iraq. I don't disagree with this.
The guy that was in charge of ISG also admits that because of the destruction of various things, including documents, there will always be a certain ambiguity in regards to what actually happened.
The CIA also can't rule out the possibility of shipments to Syria.
I've always wondered why Saddam didn't have the destruction of this stuff verified by UN weapons inspectors. Wasn't that part of what he was required to do according to a UN resolution? UN sanctions could have been lifted as well and according to some reports that is what Saddam wanted.
I think we just might have avoided this whole mess if Saddam would have had the destruction of these things verified. The whole war on terror might look entirely different now.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
I think we just might have avoided this whole mess if Saddam would have had the destruction of these things verified. The whole war on terror might look entirely different now.
I think we just might have avoided this whole mess if the US Government would have let the UN complete its job of verifying the "evidence" of these things. The whole war on terror might look entirely different now.
-
The UN is incapable of completing anything. I fail to understand why you trust them so much.
P.S. And yes we should have never gone in there in the first place. It was never really about Iraq.
-
UN= united nothings
ya guess what the un has been guarding the borders of israel for about 20 years now,.... look at all the good theyve done.:huh
-
First reported to the UNSC by Hanz Blix
Resolution 1441 (2002) was adopted on 8 November last year and emphatically reaffirmed the demand on Iraq to cooperate. It required this cooperation to be immediate, unconditional and active. The resolution contained many provisions, which we welcome as enhancing and strengthening the inspection regime. The unanimity by which it was adopted sent a powerful signal that the Council was of one mind in creating a last opportunity for peaceful disarmament in Iraq through inspection.
So HB said that the UNSC was of one mind as to the need for Iraqi disarmament. Only the technique of disarament was of issue within the UNSC.
In order to demand disarmament, those demanding are assuming the existance of weaponry.
-
Originally posted by Viking
I think we just might have avoided this whole mess if the US Government would have let the UN complete its job of verifying the "evidence" of these things. The whole war on terror might look entirely different now.
Not to mention the fact that Saddam would still be in power, Iraq would still be one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism, Iraq would still have a WMD program, Iraqis would still live under the yoke of an opressive dictator, and that an Iraq under Saddam would make any move whatsoever against Iran impossible...
The UN could not verify its own a1s, even if they set up two committees to help them out. Nothing is more incompetent, corrupt and outright pointless than the UN. Look at the oil-for-food program, that ended in the mother of all corruption scandals. Its so unbelievably stupid to think that the UN could do anything whatsoever when it comes to things like Saddams Iraq. The UN proves its inability in every single conflict there is. Look at Zimbabwe, Darfur, Somalia, Iraq, Kosovo, Bosnia...
-
This is the full text of Dr Hans Blix's statement [March 7] to
the UN Security Council in New York.
Mr President, For nearly three years, I have been coming to the
Security Council presenting the quarterly reports of UNMOVIC.
They have described our many preparations for the resumption of
inspections in Iraq.
The 12th quarterly report is the first that describes three
months of inspections. They come after four years without
inspections. The report was finalised 10 days ago and a number of
relevant events have taken place since then.
Today's statement will supplement the circulated report on these
points to bring the council up-to-date.
Inspection process:
Inspections in Iraq resumed on 27 November 2002. In matters
relating to process, notably prompt access to sites, we have
faced relatively few difficulties and certainly much less than
those that were faced by UNSCOM in the period 1991 to 1998. This
may well be due to the strong outside pressure.
Some practical matters, which were not settled by the talks Dr
ElBaradei and I had with the Iraqi side in Vienna prior to
inspections or in resolution 1441 (2002), have been resolved at
meetings, which we have had in Baghdad.
Initial difficulties raised by the Iraqi side about helicopters
and aerial surveillance planes operating in the no-fly zones were
overcome.
This is not to say that the operation of inspections is free from
frictions, but at this juncture we are able to perform
professional no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase
aerial surveillance.
American U-2 and French Mirage surveillance aircraft already give
us valuable imagery, supplementing satellite pictures and we
would expect soon to be able to add night vision capability
through an aircraft offered to us by the Russian Federation.
We also expect to add low-level, close area surveillance through
drones provided by Germany. We are grateful not only to the
countries, which place these valuable tools at our disposal, but
also to the states, most recently Cyprus, which has agreed to the
stationing of aircraft on their territory.
Documents and interviews:
Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be
able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed
weapons programmes.
Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been
handed over since we began inspections. It was a disappointment
that Iraq's Declaration of 7 December did not bring new
documentary evidence.
I hope that efforts in this respect, including the appointment of
a governmental commission, will give significant results.
When proscribed items are deemed unaccounted for it is above all
credible accounts that is needed - or the proscribed items, if
they exist.
Where authentic documents do not become available, interviews
with persons, who may have relevant knowledge and experience, may
be another way of obtaining evidence.
UNMOVIC has names of such persons in its records and they are
among the people whom we seek to interview. In the last month,
Iraq has provided us with the names of many persons, who may be
relevant sources of information, in particular, persons who took
part in various phases of the unilateral destruction of
biological and chemical weapons, and proscribed missiles in 1991.
The provision of names prompts two reflections: The first is that
with such detailed information existing regarding those who took
part in the unilateral destruction, surely there must also remain
records regarding the quantities and other data concerning the
various items destroyed.
The second reflection is that with relevant witnesses available
it becomes even more important to be able to conduct interviews
in modes and locations, which allow us to be confident that the
testimony is given without outside influence.
While the Iraqi side seems to have encouraged interviewees not to
request the presence of Iraqi officials (so-called minders) or
the taping of the interviews, conditions ensuring the absence of
undue influences are difficult to attain inside Iraq.
Interviews outside the country might provide such assurance. It
is our intention to request such interviews shortly.
Nevertheless, despite remaining shortcomings, interviews are
useful. Since we started requesting interviews, 38 individuals
were asked for private interviews, of which 10 accepted under our
terms, seven of these during the last week.
As I noted on 14 February, intelligence authorities have claimed
that weapons of mass destruction are moved around Iraq by trucks
and, in particular, that there are mobile production units for
biological weapons.
The Iraqi side states that such activities do not exist. Several
inspections have taken place at declared and undeclared sites in
relation to mobile production facilities.
Food testing mobile laboratories and mobile workshops have been
seen, as well as large containers with seed processing equipment.
No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found. Iraq
is expected to assist in the development of credible ways to
conduct random checks of ground transportation.
Inspectors are also engaged in examining Iraq's programme for
Remotely Piloted Vehicles (RPVs). A number of sites have been
inspected with data being collected to assess the range and other
capabilities of the various models found. Inspections are
continuing in this area.
There have been reports, denied from the Iraqi side, that
proscribed activities are conducted underground. Iraq should
provide information on any underground structure suitable for the
production or storage of WMD.
During inspections of declared or undeclared facilities,
inspection teams have examined building structures for any
possible underground facilities.
In addition, ground penetrating radar equipment was used in
several specific locations. No underground facilities for
chemical or biological production or storage were found so far.
I should add that, both for the monitoring of ground
transportation and for the inspection of underground facilities,
we would need to increase our staff in Iraq.
I am not talking about a doubling of the staff. I would rather
have twice the amount of high quality information about sites to
inspect than twice the number of expert inspectors to send.
Recent developments:
On 14 February, I reported to the Council that the Iraqi side had
become more active in taking and proposing steps, which
potentially might shed new light on unresolved disarmament
issues.
Even a week ago, when the current quarterly report was finalised,
there was still relatively little tangible progress to note.
Hence, the cautious formulations in the report before you.
As of today, there is more. While during our meetings in Baghdad,
the Iraqi side tried to persuade us that the Al Samoud 2 missiles
they have declared fall within the permissible range set by the
Security Council, the calculations of an international panel of
experts led us to the opposite conclusion.
Iraq has since accepted that these missiles and associated items
be destroyed and has started the process of destruction under our
supervision. The destruction undertaken constitutes a substantial
measure of disarmament - indeed, the first since the middle of
the 1990s.
We are not watching the breaking of toothpicks. Lethal weapons
are being destroyed. However, I must add that no destruction has
happened today. I hope it's a temporary break.
Al Samoud missiles:
To date, 34 Al Samoud 2 missiles, including four training
missiles, two combat warheads, one launcher and five engines have
been destroyed under Unmovic supervision.
Work is continuing to identify and inventory the parts and
equipment associated with the Al Samoud 2 programme. Two
"reconstituted" casting chambers used in the production of solid
propellant missiles have been destroyed and the remnants melted
or encased in concrete.
-
The legality of the Al Fatah missile is still under review,
pending further investigation and measurement of various
parameters of that missile. More papers on anthrax, VX and
missiles have recently been provided.
Many have been found to restate what Iraq had already declared,
some will require further study and discussion.
There is a significant Iraqi effort underway to clarify a major
source of uncertainty as to the quantities of biological and
chemical weapons, which were unilaterally destroyed in 1991.
A part of this effort concerns a disposal site, which was deemed
too dangerous for full investigation in the past. It is now being
re-excavated.
To date, Iraq has unearthed eight complete bombs comprising two
liquid-filled intact R-400 bombs and six other complete bombs.
Bomb fragments were also found. Samples have been taken.
The investigation of the destruction site could, in the best
case, allow the determination of the number of bombs destroyed at
that site.
It should be followed by a serious and credible effort to
determine the separate issue of how many R-400 type bombs were
produced. In this, as in other matters, inspection work is moving
on and may yield results.
Iraq proposed an investigation using advanced technology to
quantify the amount of unilaterally destroyed anthrax dumped at a
site.
However, even if the use of advanced technology could quantify
the amount of anthrax, said to be dumped at the site, the results
would still be open to interpretation.
Defining the quantity of anthrax destroyed must, of course, be
followed by efforts to establish what quantity was actually
produced.
With respect to VX, Iraq has recently suggested a similar method
to quantify a VX precursor stated to have been unilaterally
destroyed in the summer of 1991.
Iraq has also recently informed us that, following the adoption
of the presidential decree prohibiting private individuals and
mixed companies from engaging in work related to WMD, further
legislation on the subject is to be enacted.
This appears to be in response to a letter from Unmovic
requesting clarification of the issue. What are we to make of
these activities? One can hardly avoid the impression that, after
a period of somewhat reluctant cooperation, there has been an
acceleration of initiatives from the Iraqi side since the end of
January.
This is welcome, but the value of these measures must be soberly
judged by how many question marks they actually succeed in
straightening out. This is not yet clear.
Against this background, the question is now asked whether Iraq
has cooperated immediately, unconditionally and actively - with
Unmovic, as required under paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002).
The answers can be seen from the factual descriptions I have
provided. However, if more direct answers are desired, I would
say the following: The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach
conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes.
Iraq has not, however, so far persisted in these or other
conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights. If
it did, we would report it.
It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now
taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some
long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as "active",
or even "proactive", these initiatives three to four months into
the new resolution cannot be said to constitute "immediate"
cooperation.
Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. They are
nevertheless welcome and Unmovic is responding to them in the
hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues.
Other resolutions:
Mr President, Members of the council may relate most of what I
have said to resolution 1441 (2002), but UNMOVIC is performing
work under several resolutions of the Security Council.
The quarterly report before you is submitted in accordance with
resolution 1284 (1999), which not only created UNMOVIC but also
continues to guide much of our work.
Under the time lines set by the resolution, the results of some
of this work is to be reported to the council before the end of
this month. Let me be more specific.
Resolution 1284 (1999) instructs UNMOVIC to "address unresolved
disarmament issues" and to identify "key remaining disarmament
tasks" and the latter are to be submitted for approval by the
council in the context of a work programme.
UNMOVIC will be ready to submit a draft work programme this month
as required.
UNSCOM and the Amorim Panel did valuable work to identify the
disarmament issues, which were still open at the end of 1998.
UNMOVIC has used this material as starting points but analysed
the data behind it and data and documents post 1998 up to the
present time to compile its own list of "unresolved disarmament
issues" or, rather, clustered issues.
It is the answers to these issues which we seek through our
inspection activities.
It is from the list of these clustered issues that UNMOVIC will
identify the "key remaining disarmament tasks". As noted in the
report before you, this list of clustered issues is ready.
UNMOVIC is only required to submit the work programme with the
"key remaining disarmament tasks" to the council. As I understand
that several council members are interested in the working
document with the complete clusters of disarmament issues, we
have declassified it and are ready to make it available to
members of the council on request.
In this working document, which may still be adjusted in the
light of new information, members will get a more up-to-date
review of the outstanding issues than in the documents of 1999,
which members usually refer to.
Each cluster in the working document ends with a number of points
indicating what Iraq could do to solve the issue. Hence, Iraq's
co-operation could be measured against the successful resolution
of issues.
I should note that the working document contains much information
and discussion about the issues which existed at the end of
1998 - including information which has come to light after 1998.
It contains much less information and discussion about the period
after 1998, primarily because of paucity of information.
Nevertheless, intelligence agencies have expressed the view that
proscribe programmes have continued or restarted in this period.
It is further contended that proscribed programmes and items are
located in underground facilities, as I mentioned, and that
proscribed items are being moved around Iraq.
The working document contains some suggestions on how these
concerns may be tackled.
Mr President, Let me conclude by telling you that UNMOVIC is
currently drafting the work programme, which resolution 1284
(1999) requires us to submit this month.
It will obviously contain our proposed list of key remaining
disarmament tasks; it will describe the reinforced system of
ongoing monitoring and verification that the council has asked us
to implement; it will also describe the various subsystems which
constitute the programme, eg for aerial surveillance, for
information from governments and suppliers, for sampling, for the
checking of road traffic, etc.
How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining
disarmament tasks?
While co-operation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at
any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a
proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure,
it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse
documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions.
It would not take years, nor weeks, but months. Neither
governments nor inspectors would want disarmament inspection to
go on forever.
However, it must be remembered that in accordance with the
governing resolutions, a sustained inspection and monitoring
system is to remain in place after verified disarmament to give
confidence and to strike an alarm, if signs were seen of the
revival of any proscribed weapons programmes.
UNMOVIC asked for mere months to complete their inspections and confirm Iraq's disarmament. Of course such a result would not be popular in the United States of Regime Change. Your government wanted this war and they were prepared to stifle any peaceful solution. I trust the US government a lot less than even the UN. Hell, even evil dictators are more honest about their intentions.
This was was not about WMD. WMD was the excuse for war, the casus belli, and UNMOVIC was about to expose the lie. So you had the inspectors removed and invaded Iraq.
I hope you lose this war with so many casualties that hardly a family is left without experiencing the personal cost of war, and that war should never be taken lightly and should always be the absolute last resort. Aggressive warfare should never be allowed to succeed.
-
Originally posted by Viking
I hope you lose this war with so many casualties that hardly a family is left without experiencing the personal cost of war,
Im saving this for the future. You really are a class A retard.
-
Originally posted by Viking
UNMOVIC asked for mere months to complete their inspections and confirm Iraq's disarmament. Of course such a result would not be popular in the United States of Regime Change. Your government wanted this war and they were prepared to stifle any peaceful solution. I trust the US government a lot less than even the UN. Hell, even evil dictators are more honest about their intentions.
European countries openly opposed to military action in Iraq in March-April 2003: France, Germany, Belgium, Russia, Belarus, Greece.
Sweden and Norway had ambiguous positions, speaking in favor of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein by force, but then coming out against the invasion when an explicit UN mandate did not eventuate. Nonetheless, both countries made material contributions to the Coalition effort.
So once again, even though Norge made "material contributions to the coaltion effort", you and your country are somehow obsolved of any and all responsibility.
Your pot might not be as black as my kettle, but there is a little soot... just there... no, up a little... no, it's still there...
-
You know what. F1ck you Viking. Exactly who would benefit from the US losing the war except Islamic fundamentalists and smug european a1sholes like you? The Iraqis themselves sure as f1ck wont come out better off if the US packs up and leave. Neither will any other nation in the region.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Im saving this for the future. You really are a class A retard.
And we both know what you are, no need for me to repeat it.
-
Exactly who would benefit from the US losing the war except Islamic fundamentalists and smug european a1sholes like you?
Oh my, Hortlund thinks he is American or something. Someone break out the meds.
-
Originally posted by Viking
And we both know what you are, no need for me to repeat it.
Viking's high school debate coach:
(http://www.flavorfulgoods.com/Flavorfulimages/PeeWeeHerman-1.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
European countries openly opposed to military action in Iraq in March-April 2003: France, Germany, Belgium, Russia, Belarus, Greece.
Sweden and Norway had ambiguous positions, speaking in favor of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein by force, but then coming out against the invasion when an explicit UN mandate did not eventuate. Nonetheless, both countries made material contributions to the Coalition effort.
So once again, even though Norge made "material contributions to the coaltion effort", you and your country are somehow obsolved of any and all responsibility.
Your pot might not be as black as my kettle, but there is a little soot... just there... no, up a little... no, it's still there...
Nothing ambiguous about Norway's position. Norway would support an invasion if the UN Security Council found it legal and a resolution was successfully voted upon. It was not. Norway does not wage illegal wars. As for our "material contributions", you called in favors from WWII and our government at the time fell as a result. Now we have the worst possible socialist government thanks to you.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
You know what. F1ck you Viking.
:lol
-
Norway will suffer an Islamic invasion before America. The time will come when your people will be forced to bow down to them.
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Oh my, Hortlund thinks he is American or something. Someone break out the meds.
I think he's way past medical assistance. Loony-farm material.
-
Originally posted by Xargos
Norway will suffer an Islamic invasion before America. The time will come when your people will be forced to bow down to them.
Never going to happen.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Never going to happen.
I hope your right.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Nothing ambiguous about Norway's position. Norway would support an invasion if the UN Security Council found it legal and a resolution was successfully voted upon. It was not. Norway does not wage illegal wars. As for our "material contributions", you called in favors from WWII and our government at the time fell as a result. Now we have the worst possible socialist government thanks to you.
Tell me:
When someone does something he knows was morally wrong, and does it anyway in support of a friend, is that morally superior to someone who does something that he thinks is right but turns out to be wrong?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Tell me:
When someone does something he knows was morally wrong, and does it anyway in support of a friend, is that morally superior to someone who does something that he thinks is right but turns out to be wrong?
No. Not at all. But you assume your government actually thought what they were doing was right. I do not afford them such niceties, nor the government of Norway.
-
And you assume just the opposite. Your assumption is equally fallacious.
You seem to be quite the angry little fellow today. If your anger is indeed politically motivated, and not a chemical imbalance or some deep seated childhood / maternal conflict, then you should get together with all the other angry little men and change your government so that it can become one that angry little men can be proud of.
-
Originally posted by Viking
No. Not at all. But you assume your government actually thought what they were doing was right. I do not afford them such niceties, nor the government of Norway.
The Big Banks wanted the war, not the American people.
-
I'm not blaming the American people, but the American people is responsible for their government, and what that government do in their name.
-
Originally posted by Viking
I'm not blaming the American people, but the American people is responsible for their government, and what that government do in their name.
I'm not too sure about that anymore Viking.
-
Originally posted by Viking
I'm not blaming the American people, but the American people is responsible for their government, and what that government do in their name.
But Norwegians are not responsible for the govt of Norwegia, and what it does in the name of the Norwegians. Us Usains are.
Originally posted by Viking
Now we have the worst possible socialist government thanks to you.
-
Originally posted by Xargos
I'm not too sure about that anymore Viking.
May I ask why?
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
But Norwegians are not responsible for the govt of Norwegia, and what it does in the name of the Norwegians. Us Usains are.
Of course we are, and we did something about it. So did the Spaniards and Italians. We changed our governments. You didn't when you had the opportunity. In Norway's case it was a change for the worse I'm afraid, at least for us.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Of course we are, and we did something about it.
So when you blamed us for your present government that was just hollow rhetoric then.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
And you assume just the opposite. Your assumption is equally fallacious.
No. My assumption is based on a long history of governments and politicians abusing the trust and responsibilities given to them by the people. History shows us that anything politicians and men of power do serves their own needs and interests, not those of the people. If something good comes from their actions it is a byproduct and usually unintended. Until a government has proved its actions honorable I will not take anything the say or do at face value.
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
You seem to be quite the angry little fellow today. If your anger is indeed politically motivated, and not a chemical imbalance or some deep seated childhood / maternal conflict, then you should get together with all the other angry little men and change your government so that it can become one that angry little men can be proud of.
Lol, I'm not angry at all. :)
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
So when you blamed us for your present government that was just hollow rhetoric then.
Cause and effect. Our former government is guilty as well, but at least they were coerced. Your still current government started this out of their own free will. And the American people reelected them and thus are guilty as well.
-
"No. My assumption is based on a long history of governments and politicians abusing the trust and responsibilities given to them by the people. History shows us that anything politicians and men of power do serves their own needs and interests, not those of the people. If something good comes from their actions it is a byproduct and usually unintended. "
now this is perhaps the most astute thing I have ever heard schlotzie say...
It begs the question tho... Why would you want socialism? a bigger government? knowing what you do.
lazs
-
I don't want socialism. Never did. I'm a card carrying member of the most right-wing mainstream political party in Norway: The Progress Party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_Party_(Norway)
-
I don't know much about it.. do you have a link that is in english?
lazs
-
Just edited my previous post, but you could have Googled it (like I just did).
-
well... I just figured that you being a member and all would have a site I could look at that was a little more.. ah... fair... than wikie. a little more meat to it.
I like the description so far tho... wiki hates you so you can't be too bad.. they use "right wing" (one of their favorite terms) to describe a party that wants less taxes and more individual rights but don't explain what the awful right wing stance is? More controlled immigration? that doesn't seem too bad.... perhaps you guys want to build ovens to put the illegals in?
They also say that you guys want better relations with the US and Israel... Horror of horrors!!!! that is maybe the "right wing" they get so excited about?
lazs
-
Yeah, ironic isn't it? ;)
When you read "better relations with the US and Israel" you have to know what they're comparing FrP with. The socialists don't want anything to do with you and the Socialist Left (SV) don't even want to be in NATO.
As for the wiki link, I figured you just wanted the quick and dirty scoop. Here's a link to the FrP site in English:
http://www.frp.no/Innhold/FrP/Temasider/Flere_sprak/English/
-
Originally posted by Viking
I think we just might have avoided this whole mess if the US Government would have let the UN complete its job of verifying the "evidence" of these things. The whole war on terror might look entirely different now.
Saddam was very uncooperative with the UN inspectors for over 10 years. How much longer do you think we should have given the UN?
IF.....the UN had been able to do it's job, the war on terror might look very different right now.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
There was evidence of WMD's before the invasion, that evidence turned out to be false. I have already linked sources for Saddam's link to terrorists (note I did not say Al-Qaeda)
Yes there was evidence to say Saddam had WMD's however just as important there was plenty of evidence to show he no longer had them. Thew entire problem is Bush and co cherry picked the evidence to make his case for war.
That is called misleading us into war. He had options to verify data but he choose to ignore what the UN inspectors told him. Bush had his sites on war with Iraq and that's because he was the decider. Just not a very smart one..
Originally posted by Elfie
I don't recall that either. I do recall Bush saying Saddam had links to terrorists and that Saddam had given safe harbor to Al-Qaeda members. (One Al-Qaeda member that we know about.) From this folks have come to the conclusion that Bush linked Al-Qaeda to Iraq and from there to 9/11.
[/B]
I guess you didn't watch that video I posted.. I'll post it again..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7xyd_IRgGs
Originally posted by Elfie
Or it's there if that is all you are looking to see. People see what they want to see. After seeing all the evidence that is out there, I still say, maybe, maybe not. As Joe Americans it is not likely we will ever know the truth of the matter. Our grandkids might know someday when the government finally declassifies documents. We will be dead and gone by then most likely.
*edit* Much of the evidence that is out there is nothing more than allegations and speculation that people have taken as fact. [/B]
I think the proof has been put out there you just don't agree with it. BTW it's funny that both Rice and Powell speaking for the administration both agreed Saddam didn't have the ability to produce WMD's even in early 2001. Yet soon as they wanted to make the case for war.. they changed their minds.
How do you ignore that?
-
Originally posted by Viking
UNMOVIC asked for mere months to complete their inspections and confirm Iraq's disarmament. Of course such a result would not be popular in the United States of Regime Change. Your government wanted this war and they were prepared to stifle any peaceful solution. I trust the US government a lot less than even the UN. Hell, even evil dictators are more honest about their intentions.
This was was not about WMD. WMD was the excuse for war, the casus belli, and UNMOVIC was about to expose the lie. So you had the inspectors removed and invaded Iraq.
Exactly.. this is what the Bush supporters fail to see..or choose to ignore. The last part was rather ignorant though
-
Originally posted by Viking
Cause and effect. Our former government is guilty as well, but at least they were coerced. Your still current government started this out of their own free will. And the American people reelected them and thus are guilty as well.
No the American people didn't elect him.. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 which is the people's vote. He was voted in by the Electoral College (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College).
In 2004 hew also was voted in by the electoral college but I also think Kerry won the popular vote, but because Kerry conceded we will never know.
The majority of the people in this country did not vote for Bush.. The system failed in 2000 and it failed in the last election.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Saddam was very uncooperative with the UN inspectors for over 10 years. How much longer do you think we should have given the UN?
IF.....the UN had been able to do it's job, the war on terror might look very different right now.
We were very uncooperative with Iraq as well. It's no secret that Saddam played games, but I guess it's a secret that we also played games with him.
We routinely held up "approved" shipments into Iraq as a way to harass Saddam and in an attempt to cause disruption in his govt. Of course you will never hear about that on Fox news or CNN. Food and medicine were of the many things that we delayed shipments for.
You can read a little about it here or can do your own research..
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0401c.asp
But we are not blameless as we played games just as much as Saddam did.
BTW when Saddam kicked out the UN inspectors, it was because their info had been used to target sites in Iraq. We used info gained by the inspectors to attack Iraq which was in direct violation of the UN mandate.
Saddam kicked them out because of it. You think the USA wouldn't do the same thing nor any other country?
-
Yes I did watch that video you posted, it is a collection of cherry picked statements to show a particular viewpoint.(kinda like what Michael Moore does in his films) How you can derive conclusions from that without watching each individual speech so that the context of each statement is known is beyond me.
Yes there was evidence to say Saddam had WMD's however just as important there was plenty of evidence to show he no longer had them.
Even you make the statement that there was conflicting evidence. This is my whole point, you can't know for sure when you look at all of the evidence in and objective way. Even in Hans Blix report that Viking posted, there are areas that Hans Blix admits:
The second reflection is that with relevant witnesses available
it becomes even more important to be able to conduct interviews
in modes and locations, which allow us to be confident that the
testimony is given without outside influence.
While the Iraqi side seems to have encouraged interviewees not to
request the presence of Iraqi officials (so-called minders) or
the taping of the interviews, conditions ensuring the absence of
undue influences are difficult to attain inside Iraq.
In this statement, HB shows us that there are positives concerning the interviews being done, yet there is still concern that those being interviewed aren't entirely free of undue influences, which would make that testimony suspect.
However, even if the use of advanced technology could quantify
the amount of anthrax, said to be dumped at the site, the results
would still be open to interpretation.
More uncertainty. There is more in HB's report. There is also a lot of positive progress shown.
Several times in HB's report he mentions the phrase unilaterally destroyed in 1991. How can they know this is they if still need to verify this?
Obviously there is still doubt or the inspection team wouldn't have been there.
I think the proof has been put out there you just don't agree with it.
I don't agree that it is proof. Your video link for example for reasons stated previously in this post.
BTW it's funny that both Rice and Powell speaking for the administration both agreed Saddam didn't have the ability to produce WMD's even in early 2001.
The ability to produce is separate from still maintaining previous stockpiles of actual weapons and precursors. It is also separate from still storing manufacturing equipment so that it may be used later. Not saying Iraq did, just saying it's different.
Yet soon as they wanted to make the case for war.. they changed their minds.
Intelligence assessments change constantly as new information becomes available and is analyzed. Also, we get right back to the point that your video is nothing more than a collection of cherry picked sound bytes and without knowing the context these statements were made in basing conclusions off that video are not reasonable.
-
Originally posted by crockett
No the American people didn't elect him.. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 which is the people's vote. He was voted in by the Electoral College (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College).
In 2004 hew also was voted in by the electoral college but I also think Kerry won the popular vote, but because Kerry conceded we will never know.
The majority of the people in this country did not vote for Bush.. The system failed in 2000 and it failed in the last election.
Total votes from both elections. You are correct for 2000 and incorrect for 2004.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/president/
The system did not fail. The 2000 election does illustrate a fundamental flaw in the system itself imo. Whoever gets the most votes should win and I'm not talking about some dork from the Electoral College voting. I'm talking about Jane/Joe American's votes. The 2000 election is a perfect illustration of why Jane/Joe American's votes do not count because ultimately, it is the Electoral College and not us that vote in the president.
-
We routinely held up "approved" shipments into Iraq as a way to harass Saddam and in an attempt to cause disruption in his govt.
Of course we did. Even the Clinton administration had a policy of regime change in Iraq. They just went about it in a different way.
-
I hope you lose this war with so many casualties that hardly a family is left without experiencing the personal cost of war,
Some of us here have family members in Iraq. Pretty sad to think that you wish this upon us. If this is truly how you feel, understand that sometimes things are better off left unsaid.
-
Originally posted by crockett
No the American people didn't elect him.. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 which is the people's vote. He was voted in by the Electoral College (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College).
In 2004 hew also was voted in by the electoral college but I also think Kerry won the popular vote, but because Kerry conceded we will never know.
The majority of the people in this country did not vote for Bush.. The system failed in 2000 and it failed in the last election.
ALL presidents are "voted in" by the electoral college, you obviously don't know how the US elects it's presidents.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Some of us here have family members in Iraq. Pretty sad to think that you wish this upon us. If this is truly how you feel, understand that sometimes things are better off left unsaid.
Yeah I know, it's a terrible thing to wish upon anyone. However, you wouldn't be the first nation that had to learn the hard way that war is not something you embark on for profit or glory. Germany had to learn it twice, so did the French in their time, and it took 50 million lives to teach Germany that lesson the second time. Many of those lives were American. Aggressive warfare must not be allowed to succeed no matter what the cost. Lets hope that your education is less costly.
-
However, you wouldn't be the first nation that had to learn the hard way that war is not something you embark on for profit or glory.
That is merely your opinion.
-
Of course it is. Everything I post is merely my opinion unless I quote someone/something else.
-
Originally posted by john9001
ALL presidents are "voted in" by the electoral college, you obviously don't know how the US elects it's presidents.
You obviously didn't understand what I said.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Total votes from both elections. You are correct for 2000 and incorrect for 2004.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/president/
The system did not fail. The 2000 election does illustrate a fundamental flaw in the system itself imo. Whoever gets the most votes should win and I'm not talking about some dork from the Electoral College voting. I'm talking about Jane/Joe American's votes. The 2000 election is a perfect illustration of why Jane/Joe American's votes do not count because ultimately, it is the Electoral College and not us that vote in the president.
Yes that's the point I was getting at. That the majority of the American people didn't vote for Bush in 2000. But because we use the Electoral College Bush still won. That is IMO a flaw in the system and it failed the majority of the people in this country.
When I talked about 2004 I meant if Kerry had contested the election counts, I think he would have won the majority of the people's vote. I realize as it now stands Bush won the majority, but I think it would be a bit different had their been a recount. I blame Kerry for not demanding a recount.
I myself am aware of the BS that went on in the 2000 election, because my vote didn't get counted. The Republican party had lawyers at the voting booth's challenging people's right to vote.
I had moved, and there was a mix up on my address, even though I had sorted it out prior to the cut off date and was assured
I would have no issues. My vote in 2000 was still challenged and thrown out because of the Republicans lawyers. I was given no say or ability to prove anything, in fact I didn't find out my vote didn't count until about 4 weeks after the election was over.
While I was there 8 other people's right to vote was also challenged by Republican lawyers. I was there about 30 mins, so who know's how many people lost their right to vote, due to Republican lawyers.
Democrats weren't pulling the same BS in 2000 at least not at my polling station. So yea I do believe Al Gore won in 2000 and it was stolen. and I believe it was likely the same in 2004.
If you want to watch a very good documentary on the voting fraud watch "Hacking Democracy" it was produced by HBO.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-365586126885215066&q=Hacking+Democracy&total=62&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
btw don't want to run this topic off track anymore.. so we can carry it on in another topic if needed..
-
When I talked about 2004 I meant if Kerry had contested the election counts, I think he would have won the majority of the people's vote.
Probably not, Bush won by over 3 million votes. (popular vote)
-
Originally posted by Elfie
There was evidence of WMD's before the invasion, that evidence turned out to be false. I have already linked sources for Saddam's link to terrorists (note I did not say Al-Qaeda)
A "link" to terrorism isn't a big deal, the US has plenty.
The US has engaged in, and is linked to terrorists attacks / activities in Iran and Nicaragua. The US assisted one leader via intelligence to use WMDs (gas) against an enemy. On top of that the US has toppled a democratically elected gov and installed a puppet who sold out 40% of that countries natural resource business to US companies.
Oh yea Saddam tortured people, wait.. under Bushs current definition of torture, Saddam didn't really torture anyone, just rough treatment... a no brainer dunk in the water... like the good times at Abu Ghraib.
And more recently the US has invaded, devastated and bombed a once viable country into the stone age causing a humanitarian disaster... paid much attention to the UNs report of the horrific death and suffering directly related to the war?
The US has links to terrorist attacks, invaded a country that didn't attack, or cause ONE innocent US citizen death by "terrorism", has denied due process to the accused, tortured / kidnapped a few folks... an invasion based on a pile of bogus lip service, mostly totally false.
Why is Saddam a bigger dick for having terrorist links, invading a country that didn't attack him based on BS, using WMDs, tortured / kidnapped people, denial of habeas corpus and all that.. when our leaders haven't acted much different over the years?
-
Some of the vitrol I read in this and other threads....makes me wonder. Lets see....Senate votes for the war.....hmmm
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 )
Vote Number: 237 Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Joint Resolution Passed
Measure Number: H.J.Res. 114
Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Vote Counts: YEAs 77
NAYs 23
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State
Alphabetical by Senator Name Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Campbell (R-CO), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Nay
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Corzine (D-NJ), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Nay
Gramm (R-TX), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Helms (R-NC), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Hutchinson (R-AR), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Jeffords (I-VT), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-NH), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thompson (R-TN), Yea
Thurmond (R-SC), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wellstone (D-MN), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay
House? lets seeeeee...hmmmmm
FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 455
(Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic; Independents underlined)
H J RES 114 YEA-AND-NAY 10-Oct-2002 3:05 PM
QUESTION: On Passage
BILL TITLE: To Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
Yeas Nays PRES NV
Republican 215 6 2
Democratic 81 126 1
Independent 1
TOTALS 296 133 3
---- YEAS 296 ---
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clement
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Etheridge
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Moore
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pascrell
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sandlin
Saxton
Schaffer
Schiff
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Sullivan
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
---- NAYS 133 ---
Abercrombie
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett
Becerra
Blumenauer
Bonior
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Houghton
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Maloney (CT)
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Woolsey
Wu
-
This thread isn't really about those subjects xmarine. ;)