Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 10Bears on May 30, 2003, 03:04:16 PM
-
The Bush administration focused on alleged weapons of mass destruction as the primary justification for toppling Saddam Hussein by force because it was politically convenient, a top-level official at the Pentagon has acknowledged
more (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=410730)
Oh so it was politically convenient... well that's cool...
Rumsfeld: Iraq May Have Destroyed Weapons
By RICHARD PYLE
Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK (AP) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction may have been
destroyed prior to the war.
While he asserted Tuesday that ``we don't know what happened,'' Rumsfeld said, ``It is also possible that they
(Saddam Hussein's government) decided that they would destroy them prior to a conflict.''
more (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-2724574,00.html)
Makes perfect sense.. destroy all your weapons days before your invaded by the worlds largest super power...
Hey Toad get that checkbook ready.. --suckah-- Had you looked into it a little more, like I did, you would've seen they were lying from the get go.
-
Iraq was a nation led by dictator openly hostile to the US which had developed AND USED chemical weapons, very surely had some bio's in stock (they are easier to make than chem's) and was dang well on the road to develop nuclear weapons. So:
How would you get rid of the threat of WMD's falling into the hands of those like bin laden (another whacko extremist openly hostile to the US and non-quran-thumping people)?
A: You find the source/likely source of WMD's that has a high probability of providing said WMD's to the likes of bin laden and you ELIMINATE said threat.
And the only way to eliminate the threat is not by demanding the destruction of the current stockpile of WMD's that they KNOW exist (as proven by their use on humans a few decades earlier) and relying on some love muffin international organization (UN) to make it happen. No, the threat is only eliminated by taking over their facilities and neutralizing their scientists. You can bet your wiener that dozens of those scientists found in Iraq are no longer breathing or if they are they are *very* well incarcerated in the US mainland.
And if you were Hussein, knowing that the most powerful military in the world is coming a-knockin' on your door after making a drama worthy of a 10 year long soap opera about how evil you are by having WMD's stockpiled up and you knew there was no chance in hell your pathetic conscripted 3rd rate military could stop them...
how do you win? Hussein is not stupid. The only victory he could pull was to bring down US credibility by destroying his WMD's and making it appear he was just an innocent little dictator swatted because chimpy in the white house wanted his oil. boohoo. Never mind it would also rattle all the other arab states and such.
So far, Hussein is winnning the Public Relations war, which is the only one the average citizen in the world with access to TV sees. The REAL war, the one to eliminate the threat of terrorrism, is so far being won by the US and its true allies.
Really 10bears, think.
-
*Belch*
-
From David Letterman:
Top Ten President Bush Excuses For Not Finding Weapons of Mass Destruction
10. "We've only looked through 99% of the country"
9. "We spent entire budget making those playing cards"
8. "Containers are labeled in some crazy language"
7. "They must have been stolen by some of them evil X-Men mutants"
6. "Did I say Iraq has weapons of mass destruction? I meant they have goats"
5. "How are we supposed to find weapons of mass destruction when we can't even find Cheney?"
4. "Still screwed up because of Daylight Savings Time"
3. "When you're trying to find something, it's always in the last place you look, am I right, people?"
2. "Let's face it -- I ain't exactly a genius"
1. "Geraldo took them"
-
Originally posted by OIO
blah ... blah blah
Anyone know how to translate "hors sujet" ?
-
its not 'hors sujet' (off subject?).
Its a copy/paste from another thread ;)
:D
-
Originally posted by OIO
its not 'hors sujet' (off subject?).
Its a copy/paste from another thread ;)
:D
That's why I didn't undertood !
naughty boy :)
-
yes, and the mobile weapons labs they found hidden the desert were really baby food factories.
-
Bush lied and exaggerated in making his argument for war, he spun the facts to sell his case, he betrayed the public trust, and he diminished the credibility of his office and our country.
What we lost in this will end up being far more important than what we gained.
It would be easy to lose sight of this issue, but it is critically important.
I can imagine no greater breach of public trust than to mislead a country into war.
A strong case might have been made to go after Hussein just because he posed a potential threat to us and the region, and because of his oppression of his own people.
But this is *not* the case Bush chose to make.
Truth in public life has always been in short supply. We expect campaigning politicians to spin.
Facts are gathered to support arguments and causes....convenient ones are trumpeted and inconvenient ones played down or ignored.
But when the President of the United States addresses the nation and the world, I expect the spinning to stop.
He represents not just a party or a cause, but the American people....or at least he's *supposed* to.
-
I think Weazel is 100% correct. This whole business is beginning to smell. I bought into the WMD argument even if I believed getting rid of Saddam was as good as reason as any.
As it happens I still believe the war was in some ways the lesser of two evils and in the end may be a catalyst for a better future. But then I'm an optimist.
OIO's and Rumsfeld's argument that Saddam may have destroyed all the WMD's sounds so much like an excuse, a feeble one at that.
This is all beside the point because is actually, as Weazel pointed out, a question of trust. Did Bush mislead the American people? If he didn't, who mislead him and what was their motivation? What does the fact that he was mislead say about him as a leader and a President?
Just who is running the country? The NeoCons?
This issue will run and run. I'm taking bets now on no second term for GWB.
Ironically I do think they will in fact find some WMD's, just not in the quantities we were all led to believe. They'll be hyped but I think the damage is done now.
On top of that, there are the beginnings of resistance to US occupation. Bombs and gun attacks. How many American soldiers have died during the 'peace', four this week, now 12 or more? Just how much of this will be tolerated and for how long?
-
Whatever....just remember, Clinton is a rapist and a murderer :)
-
Originally posted by weazel
Bush lied and exaggerated in making his argument for war, he spun the facts to sell his case, he betrayed the public trust, and he diminished the credibility of his office and our country.
What we lost in this will end up being far more important than what we gained.
It would be easy to lose sight of this issue, but it is critically important.
I can imagine no greater breach of public trust than to mislead a country into war.
A strong case might have been made to go after Hussein just because he posed a potential threat to us and the region, and because of his oppression of his own people.
But this is *not* the case Bush chose to make.
Truth in public life has always been in short supply. We expect campaigning politicians to spin.
Facts are gathered to support arguments and causes....convenient ones are trumpeted and inconvenient ones played down or ignored.
But when the President of the United States addresses the nation and the world, I expect the spinning to stop.
He represents not just a party or a cause, but the American people....or at least he's *supposed* to.
Holy wow!!
A rational Weazel with very good points.
-
The mobile labs had no trace of biological agent.
I'm willing to be patient. Let's say three months since the declaration of the end of the war. (pokes Toad :D)
The latest stuff around embellishment of intelligence reports and the departures from the considered opinions of the intelligence community concern me more.
-
Ahhh, who cares, we came we kicked prettythang!!!!!!! That is the lesson we should all take to heart. It's not how you play the game just so long as you win!
No really, the guy was a POS and needed to be dusted, even if they used the wrong reason (which they didn't).
When a country gets rid of it's WMD programs it is obvious (ie South Africa) If a country takes 12 years, 17 UN (another worthless POS) resilutions and still comes up with the same old balking and stalling, sorry, 17 strikes and your out!
-
I'm really curious to see if, ultimately, truth matters. I'm bracing myself for dissapointment, sadly. It's a big deal. A really REALLY big deal. It goes well beyond the scope of partisan bickering. In fact it goes beyond the government itself. It'll be about us. About who we are as a society and what we demand of the people who represent us. I can't even word this right. How we come out of this will almost be precedent setting in terms of how our leaders measure our expectations and act based on (or in spite of) them. Do we care? Yegads I really can't word this right. It's a huge deal.
-
Originally posted by medicboy
When a country gets rid of it's WMD programs it is obvious (ie South Africa) If a country takes 12 years, 17 UN (another worthless POS) resilutions and still comes up with the same old balking and stalling, sorry, 17 strikes and your out!
Compared to every other military on the planet, ours is a weapon of mass destruction.
-
if there were no wmd then why all the games with blix and his guys? the un attitude toward iraq was alot more friendly than with the first group of inspectors. what possible reason for the activity that iraq was involved in that pointed to wmd? and when that activity was shown to un by USA why didnt iraq refute it in detail on the spot? how can you discuss something when you ignore every lie and every action performed by one of the two parties involved? why in the hell did iraq screw around with un inspections for years if they had nothing to hide?
-
How do you hide something that doesn't exist?
How do you prove it?
-
``we don't know what happened,'' Rumsfeld said, ``It is also possible that they
(Saddam Hussein's government) decided that they would destroy them prior to a conflict.''
wasn't that the whole point of the conflict. "destroy your WMD or we will invade"
now rumsfeld says well they must have got rid of them before we invaded.
if what he says is true then he just said we had no justification
-
Rumsfelds speech gave me some chuckles, when he mentioned the iraqis might've destroyed their WMD's before coalition attacked.
Doesn't that mean they would've obeyed the UN resolution? :>
-
I can't even remember anymore what the reason was that the inspectors couldn't be given just a bit more time (ie. a month or two) as proposed by some to reach a middle ground between the camp that wanted indefinite inspections and the camp that wanted to invade immediately. Was it because the 'threat' was time critical, or was it more just because of the principle of it? Like I said, I can't remember - but it's sure looking silly in retrospect.
-
the threat is NOT the stockpile of weapons, its the know-how to make them.
that is my whole point if you didnt bother to read my first post.
-
So what does that mean? Countries should start killing off their scientists because the thought of them frightens the US? Where is the line between legitimate take-action threat and "too f&cking bad" territory? Anywhere ya want it to be, I suppose....
Nevertheless, I don't buy that rationale in the 1st place. It certainly wasn't articulated as such by Bush. It was "They have WMD"...not "Arrest and turn over your scientists".
-
Originally posted by OIO
the threat is NOT the stockpile of weapons, its the know-how to make them.
that is my whole point if you didnt bother to read my first post.
Oh well in that case, everything is alright then... nevermind..
-
Originally posted by OIO
the threat is NOT the stockpile of weapons, its the know-how to make them.
that is my whole point if you didnt bother to read my first post.
Not according to Colin Powell.
Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets.
Even the low end of 100 tons of agent would enable Saddam Hussein to cause mass casualties across more than 100 square miles of territory, an area nearly five times the size of Manhattan.
-
Let's get all the other countries that have WMD's...
-
....or don't have them, as it were.
-
Let's reiterate the point for the likes of Medicboy and OIO. The issue here is no longer whether or not there are WMD's or were WMD's or whether America is the greatest kick bellybutton country in the world or the war on terrorism.
No, the issue now is: Did the President lie to or mislead the people on the reasons for the war? That is the question. If he didn't who misled him?
What is going on here? Is Wolfowitz lying?
Where's Nuke and Grunherz, explain this little lot, why don't ya!
-
LOL.
I told you I'm a patient man.
If you recall... and I think the text is all still there... I had one heck of a time getting you to wager even a measley amount in support of your "absolutely certain" beliefs.
You must have been soooooooooooo confident! :D
Two bio lab trailers found so far.
I'm patient.
-
It's impressive that Wolfie and the War Party are confident enough to admit they were lying all along and think that there will be no repercussions. I recall a pundit saying that it wasn't the fact that Clinton got a blow job that caused him to get impeached or the fact that he lied about it...rather it was because he got caught lying about it. Americans hold their President to a higher standard than your average Joe, and rightfully so. When they get horny we expect them to do their wife (and if not then we expect them not to get caught)...when they have delusions of grandeur we expect them to keep their military guns holstered (and if not then we expect them to have an excuse that holds water)...when they are given bad advice we expect them to do something else (and if not then we expect them to fire the guy that gave them the bad advice).
So now the question is: will the rabid conservatives who blasted Clinton for lying be hypocrites or will they try to find someone who at least has enough moral fiber to not lie us into unnecessary wars.
The only thing I have left to say is: ALL HAIL PNAC!
-
LOL
The 1st bet you wanted to make was do we go in at all... At first I wanted to believe someone in the administration would have basic common sense.. Someone who would tell the President, “Hey wait a minute Mr. President.. this ain’t right.. maybe we better back off and let the inspectors do their job” I was wrong. No one said that so that was a bad bet to make.
The 2nd wager was a safe bet. Plenty of articles this past year how the different intelligence agencies trying to back off all this nonsense.
So we’re left with “motive”[/i]
Posters above talk about creditability. They to skert to ask the other question.. even Weazel ;).. If this was a big fat lie.. what is it about 911 that’s equally a big fat honker?
edit: Off topic Toad... I got $75 says Scott Peterson goes free..
You up for that?
-
Hey Toad - If I win the bet that you and I share, could you post here on the BBS what it is you write to... uhm.... whoever you're going to write to?
(there's still lotsa time left, I realize that)...
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
It's impressive that Wolfie and the War Party are confident enough to admit they were lying all along and think that there will be no repercussions.
Taken from Yahoo news:
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US decision to focus on Iraqi disarmament as the motive for war was made for "bureaucratic reasons," Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said in an interview.
Wolfowitz admitted to the magazine Vanity Fair that the weapons of mass destruction issue was never the United States' prime reason for launching a war on Iraq to overturn the regime of Saddam Hussein.
I see some moderate to heavy spin, some 'splainin' to a reporter, but I see no admission of lies. I think you may be a little premature.
They have searched 200 of 900+ sites and have yet to find anything other that the mobile labs that Colin told us about. When one plays the shell game, don't you want to look under all three shells?
In 1441, the UN Security Council voted 15-0 to require Iraq's cooperation on the WMD issue. Perhaps France was lying when it too agreed to the WMD presence in Iraq. WMD's that were against the rules of the original Gulf War cease fire agreement.
Time to realize the truth may be somewhere in between the Guardian and Rush Limbaugh.
Don't pile on the bandwagon just yet; the horses are not hitched up yet.
-
im not putting lying past anyone in political office. but i am honestly curious why iraq played cat and mouse games with un inspectors for so many years if they had nothing to hide. and cease fire was dependant on compliance with un inspectors if i remember it right.
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
LOL
The 1st bet you wanted to make was do we go in at all... At first I wanted to believe someone in the administration would have basic common sense.. Someone who would tell the President, “Hey wait a minute Mr. President.. this ain’t right.. maybe we better back off and let the inspectors do their job” I was wrong. No one said that so that was a bad bet to make.
The 2nd wager was a safe bet. Plenty of articles this past year how the different intelligence agencies trying to back off all this nonsense.
So we’re left with “motive”[/i]
Posters above talk about creditability. They to skert to ask the other question.. even Weazel ;).. If this was a big fat lie.. what is it about 911 that’s equally a big fat honker?
edit: Off topic Toad... I got $75 says Scott Peterson goes free..
You up for that?
What does Iraq have to do with 911?
-
No, the issue now is: Did the President lie to or mislead the people on the reasons for the war? That is the question. If he didn't who misled him?
well it's not such a big deal anyway. I mean even if he did lie to get us in a war, that would pale in comparison to someone lying about a blow-job, right?
-
10Bears, you were totally unsure initially over a mere $45 and you didn't want to double-down just a week or two ago was it?
So now you're painting yourself as "certain all along"?
Jeebus.. too funny.
Nash, if and when I personally decide that this was all a scam, I'll be writing to my State Reps, the House Committee on the Judiciary, the House Committee on Armed Services and the President himself initially.
If I said I'd post it, I will.
For now, I'm willing to give them a reasonable amount of time and I think one month is far short of "reasonable".
-
BTW, Peterson case? I haven't followed that at all. In passing I understand there's some doubt the prosecutors have the necessary evidence? Is that what's going on?
Couldn't begin to guess if he'll get off without reading up on the whole thing.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Taken from Yahoo news:
I see some moderate to heavy spin, some 'splainin' to a reporter, but I see no admission of lies. I think you may be a little premature.
Who are you trying to fool here...yourself?
Do you expect Bush to fess up...or will he ask what the definition of "is" is? ;)
It has been two months since the United States and Britain went to war against Saddam Hussein, and have yet to discover convincing evidence of the weapons programs that President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair said were its primary cause.
I wonder if anyone bothered to keep track of how many times Bush parroted "WMD" leading up to the war?
When Bush argued that Hussein possessed stockpiles of deadly weapons, he told Americans he was doing so on the basis of intelligence briefings and evidence that the public could not be allowed to see.
He asked the public to trust him, to trust his office, to trust that he was acting legitimately in our self-defense and Americas best interests.
That's something very different from engaging in a policy of attempting to remake the Middle East, or undertaking a humanitarian mission to end oppression.
Neither of these two justifications would have been likely to garner widespread public support. But national defense? That's an argument the President can always win.
A large part of the public trusted Bush, and unless something big develops on WMD soon it's obvious they were decieved by him.
Even *if* he was taken in by his intelligence and military advisers (and I'm not buying that argument, leaked CIA reports burn that straw man) he ought to be angry as hell, because ultimately he bears the responsibility.
It suggests a strain of zealotry in this White House that regards the question of war as just another political debate.
*It isn't*.
More than 100 Americans were killed in this conflict, dozens of British soldiers, and many Iraqis. Nobody gets killed or maimed in Capitol Hill debates over spending plans, or battles over federal court appointments.
War is the most serious step a nation can take, and it deserves the highest measure of seriousness and integrity.
I've been saying on this board for months that Bush lacks any integrity...the facts now bear this conclusion out.
Now, before anyone starts screaming "lefty-liberal" at me consider the following:
True patriots believe that if your country is wrong, you make it right.
If your government commits barbaric acts, you dissent.
If your government trumps up a war of aggression on the basis of untruths and spurious connections between unrelated evils, you protest.
If your government lies to you, you object.
If your country’s actions go against the ideals on which it was founded, patriots burn with the kind of shame and anger that prompts them to take action against the responsible parties.
Impeachment and prison is what Bush deserves.
Sadly, it will never happen.
The Democratic party now has at its disposal a devastating array of issues, foreign and domestic, moral and economic, and yet there it sits, frozen and impotent...and by their silence complicit in the crimes and outrages of the Bush administration.
The Republicans are firmly in the drivers seat.
Now is the time for all good Republicans to come to the aid of their country.
The crisis facing our republic transcends political partisanship. Each of the 51 Republican senators and 229 Republican members of the House took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States.
All of those individuals who allowed George Bush to lead us into an unjust war are in violation of that oath.
They can make restitution by reorganizing a Congress that will remove the Bush junta.
-
Rgr that Toad. Recall that it was you that wanted to include money into the bet. Your letter writing was all I wanted to have happen, so of course I'm interested in that aspect of it. (I kinda wish the money wasn't added - being as insignificant as it is). That being said, were I to lose the bet I'll be happy to pay you (and through extension, your squadmate).
Anyhow, I really don't win the bet until you concede that you've lost. By the sounds of it, you want to wait longer than the 3 months to come to a personal conclusion and start firing up the printer and stationary, correct?
-
Originally posted by weazel
Who are you trying to fool here...yourself?
No, just waiting for the dust to settle to allow the sun to shine thru.
Wait a minute! Two Months? and they haven't found Saddam Hussien? Son of a..... he never existed! Bush told me Saddam existed, and he lied about it!
-
Well, Nash, it didn't seem right that you'd be contributing to WpnX AH account monetarily and I only had to come up with a letter. Just fairness, is all. That's why I suggested you pick a charity.
IIRC, we sort of settled on the 6 months to a year time frame as reasonable. Let's just see how it goes. If the administration comes out with "well, the WMD aren't important anyway, we're going to quit looking and do some other important stuff", THAT would be the end of it for me.
They aren't slipping that sh t by me without maximum protest.
So, we'll see. I'm patient as I said. BTW, I don't recall if I said I'd post it here, but I'll send you a copy if you wish. Or if I said I'd post it, I will.
-
Weazel, that Congressional "reorganization" will have to wait till November of 2004. Since there's no rush to the polling place, please excuse me if I don't rush to conclusions on the WMD.
What, 30 whole days since the end of the combat phase was declared?
-
Saddam Hussein cannot hide its weapons of mass destruction from international inspectors without the cooperation of hundreds and thousands of Iraqis; those who work in the weapons program and those who are responsible for concealing the weapons. -George W. Bush
I wonder how many Iraqi it takes to hide WMD from the U.S. Army.
-
I am almost ready to start a thread(using quotes) about how certain AH BBS peoples like (Nuke,Ripsnort,Rude,Lazs etc..) said that once WMD was found in Iraq,all us other guys would be flippin sides on issues.
You are looking "Petulant" Lazs...
And Rude..Do YOU have the "Stones"..?
-
The lies are a big deal and I wish the moral compassionate right would stand up and deal with it.
The other important issue is still the precedent we have set. Striking because of a perceived threat. I think we have opened a Pandoras box with this.............
:(
PS ..... Clinton was never convicted of anything. Bush does have a record:}
-
Originally posted by Silat
PS ..... Clinton was never convicted of anything. Bush does have a record:}
ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE
"Chief U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright on Monday found President Clinton in contempt of court for giving "intentionally false" testimony"...
He was disbarred and fined slightly more than $90,000. sounds like a conviction to me...
Now, please back to the thread.
-
Best thing to happen is if John McCain ran as an independent, John Kerry as Demo and the greens all go for demo candidate this time.
If John McCain became President I’d be cool with that.. At least we get an honest guy.. He’d kick the sh*t outta some of these corporate MoFo’s.. these military industrial complex so an so’s.. McCain never liked all this corruption going on anyway.
You would think the merging of corporate interests with military might would raise a few more American eyebrows..
It sure would be nice if 16 Republican senators and 45 Republican congressmen got real pissed off .. ya know... talk about some Impeachable material.. some mighty high crimes and misdemeanors..
If this is true... and it’s looking more and more like it is true.. it would be the biggest lie in American history
-
"IIRC, we sort of settled on the 6 months to a year time frame as reasonable." - Toad.
Sure - that works for me. Like I said, I don't win unless you lose... if that makes any sense. :) You have to be comfortable with what constitutes that loss - so if it takes 6 months or more, it takes six months or more.
As far as posting it here, I can't remember if that was literally part of the bet or not (maybe I just always envisioned that without putting it into words). I can't recall. So I'm asking you as a personal favour. I'm sure there are others here besides myself that would be interested and may have something to gain by your insight and hearing what you say about the matter. I sure as heck would appreciate it.
-
Jack Straw and his US counterpart, Colin Powell, privately expressed serious doubts about the quality of
intelligence on Iraq's banned weapons programme at the very time they were publicly trumpeting it to get UN
support for a war on Iraq, the Guardian has learned.
Their deep concerns about the intelligence - and about claims being made by their political bosses, Tony Blair
and George Bush - emerged at a private meeting between the two men shortly before a crucial UN security council
session on February 5.
Oh-oh.. Colin had "deep concerns" and "serious doubts"
Mr Powell told the foreign secretary he hoped the facts, when they came out, would not "explode in their
faces".
The lady sheriff from "Fargo"..." Ah Geese"
The Waldorf transcripts are all the more damaging given Mr Powell's dramatic 75-minute speech to the UN
security council on February 5, when he presented declassified satellite images, and communications intercepts
of what were purported to be conversations between Iraqi commanders, and held up a vial that, he said, could
contain anthrax.
Evidence, he said, had come from "people who have risked their lives to let the world know what Saddam is
really up to".
.More (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,967548,00.html)
Yeah.. that Mark Gregeros fella gonna get Scott Peterson off you'll see... That's all they been showing on Fox lately
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
If John McCain became President I’d be cool with that.. At least we get an honest guy.. He’d kick the sh*t outta some of these corporate MoFo’s.. these military industrial complex so an so’s.. McCain never liked all this corruption going on anyway.
You would think the merging of corporate interests with military might would raise a few more American eyebrows..
It sure would be nice if 16 Republican senators and 45 Republican congressmen got real pissed off .. ya know... talk about some Impeachable material.. some mighty high crimes and misdemeanors..
If this is true... and it’s looking more and more like it is true.. it would be the biggest lie in American history
All good reasons...thats why he won't be president....
This morning I announced that Australia had joined a coalition, led by the United States, which intends to disarm Iraq of its prohibited weapons of mass destruction.
PM John Howard, when he committed us to the war.PM Parlimentary Speech (http://www.pm.gov.au/news/speeches/2003/speech2201.htm)
For me...the war was started for that reason, its ridiculous to claim otherwise...more so, to ignore it if none are found.
Tronsky
-
And now they are letting the UN weapon inspectors back in again?!?!? :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Maniac
And now they are letting the UN weapon inspectors back in again?!?!? :rolleyes:
Well, it's obvious that U.S. intelligence sources don't have a clue where the WMD is (if it truly does exist).
-
"If John McCain became President I’d be cool with that.. At least we get an honest guy.. He’d kick the sh*t outta some of these corporate MoFo’s.. these military industrial complex so an so’s.. McCain never liked all this corruption going on anyway."
And he would save the whales too... Jeesus 10Bears what are you, 12 years old or something? I like McCain, though he will never be President, but please get a grip on yourself - hes no populist superman hero some portray him as.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
And he would save the whales too... Jeesus 10Bears what are you, 12 years old or something? I like McCain, though he will never be President, but please get a grip on yourself - hes no populist superman hero some portray him as.
Is too!
-
lol :)
-
A long time ago i posted the following in a thread:
>Re: Do you like Bush?
>Bush? He's a little puppet. I dont like him but i feel no hate. I >rather have mercy with him ... at least.
>The persons that are much more important and i really dislike >are Cheney, Rice and Wolfowitz.
First i thought Wolfowitz made the one of the biggest faults addmitting that WMD's where not the issue for this war. But he still is a very insidious and contemptible person and i guess he had a distinct goal with this interview. Maybe he did it to get Rumsfeld out of his way.
The main thing is that ur fascist witch hunting on some of the members of our community and some of the anti war crowd in ur country now becomes a whole new thing. U guys are puppets in the hand of liars like Bush and u guys where acting as the ugly henchmen of ur dishonest government. When i now recall all the agitation, baiting and intoleration i really get angry about this.
Toleration other opinions is a high good of our western communities!
-
As said many times before: GWB and his Bunch of Liars betrayed the UN, the Nato, American people and the world.
They are the most big political terrorist organization of this world.
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous :D
-
My views are those posted by OIO in his first post in this thread.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
My views are those posted by OIO in his first post in this thread.
These views where proven wrong by Mr. Wolfowitz. BTW u cant win a war on terrorism. U must know it beet1e.
-
"BTW u cant win a war on terrorism."
Absoultely true! So lets do nothing, let there be peace in our times....
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Absoultely true! So lets do nothing, let there be peace in our times....
If this is the consequence what U read out of Wolfowitz statement ... why not.
Man Grunherz this is not an issue between left and right or democrats and republicans.
Blitz said "GWB and his Bunch of Liars betrayed the UN, the Nato, American people and the world." and he is right regardless if a war vs. Iraq was ok or not, regardless if they'll find any WMD.
They are liars thats all that counts and in liars i dont trust.
And here comes Mrs. Rice and begins to start the same thing with Iran. A country thats in a slow but steady process to evolve to a democratic nation. If I would post what i feal about these 3 persons (Rice Wolfowitz Cheney) i would get banned forever.
-
Yes must do nothing, if we stay quiet, weak and figuratively small (like europe) the bad people will leave us alone... Yes, yes they will - yep I'm sure of it!
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Yes must do nothing, if we stay quiet, weak and figuratively small (like europe) the bad people will leave us alone... Yes, yes they will - yep I'm sure of it!
Is this the answer on my post? Well ... :rolleyes:
-
10Bears, this thread is a bullchit LIE. I read the article... there was no admission by Wolfowitz saying anything close to what you claim.
Again, go to Iraq... a job as information minister awaits.
Here is the transcript, show me this admission or retract, LIAR.
TANENHAUS: Was that one of the arguments that was raised early on by you and others that Iraq actually does connect, not to connect the dots too much, but the relationship between Saudi Arabia, our troops being there, and bin Laden's rage about that, which he's built on so many years, also connects the World Trade Center attacks, that there's a logic of motive or something like that? Or does that read too much into--
WOLFOWITZ: No, I think it happens to be correct. The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but . . . there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. . . . The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it. That second issue about links to terrorism is the one about which there's the most disagreement within the bureaucracy, even though I think everyone agrees that we killed 100 or so of an al Qaeda group in northern Iraq in this recent go-around, that we've arrested that al Qaeda guy in Baghdad who was connected to this guy Zarqawi whom Powell spoke about in his U.N. presentation.
-
Originally posted by Duedel
First i thought Wolfowitz made the one of the biggest faults addmitting that WMD's where not the issue for this war.
From CNN:
According to a tape recording made by the Pentagon, the actual quote is, "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction, as the core reason."
After a brief pause to take another phone call, Wolfowitz continues, "There have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually, I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one, which is the connection between the first two."
I am shocked!...shocked! that a Vanity Fair reporter would quote out of context.
This after all is the profession where, while an airplane is still smoldering, the reporter will ask, "What caused the accident". Just after a child is found murdered, the reporter will ask the bereaved mother, "How do you feel upon hearing that your child was brutally slain?"
One should be wary of what one reads, especially immediately after an event. While we do not have conclusive evidence, tests have only recently been performed to lend credence to the foam damage theory of Columbia, and that is a much smaller fact-gathering project than what is required in Iraq.
6 or 8 weeks is much too short of a time span to come to any conclusions yet, and there are still close to 700 sites identified pre-war that need to be inspected, to say nothing of sites that are learned of during this present phase.
For those saying we haven't found WMD's and declaring victory in the debate, perhaps some discretion may be appropriate. You may be right, but in order to find out, it will take some time. Perhaps we should turn over 700 stones or so before making a judgment.
-
ah nm.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
From CNN:
I am shocked!...shocked! that a Vanity Fair reporter would quote out of context.
This after all is the profession where, while an airplane is still smoldering, the reporter will ask, "What caused the accident". Just after a child is found murdered, the reporter will ask the bereaved mother, "How do you feel upon hearing that your child was brutally slain?"
One should be wary of what one reads, especially immediately after an event. While we do not have conclusive evidence, tests have only recently been performed to lend credence to the foam damage theory of Columbia, and that is a much smaller fact-gathering project than what is required in Iraq.
6 or 8 weeks is much too short of a time span to come to any conclusions yet, and there are still close to 700 sites identified pre-war that need to be inspected, to say nothing of sites that are learned of during this present phase.
For those saying we haven't found WMD's and declaring victory in the debate, perhaps some discretion may be appropriate. You may be right, but in order to find out, it will take some time. Perhaps we should turn over 700 stones or so before making a judgment.
Didn't Powell in security council said they had overwelming proof of lots of iraq wmds?
And now they can't find a single 1. Roflmao
Regards P. Wolfowitz aka Blitz
-
Originally posted by Duedel
Is this the answer on my post? Well ... :rolleyes:
But waht kind of response do you expect when your suggestion is to do nothing... Hell what do they teach you about appeasement and ignoring a burgeoing threat in those German schools - or do they even cover the whole munich 1938 thing?
-
10Bears:
Now having read the actual interview transcript its obvious to me that you are either negligently careless in your research or wantonly dishonest and biased in your motives. Wolfowitz said no such thing as you suggested in the first post.
-
Huh?
10B's post quotes the 1st paragraph in the article verbatim:
"The Bush administration focused on alleged weapons of mass destruction as the primary justification for toppling Saddam Hussein by force because it was politically convenient, a top-level official at the Pentagon has acknowledged."
He might have taken some liberties with the title of the post, but it aint too much of a stretch. Other than that, again, 10B didn't say anything that the article didn't.
-
Keep laughing, WolfoBlitz. All they have to find is a few sites and they still have 700+ chances. I will withhold my judgment until we are a little farther down the road.
Iraq was proven to have used chemical against the Kurds, so I would bet they have some. And they did have some of the truck mouted stills Powell said they had.
-
At the beginning ALL was about WMD.
Steve and Holden sure u have a point here but as i said before Wolfowitz is a liar or at least unable: "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction, as the core reason..."
Lets assume there where always the three concerns. If so the Wolfowitz is saing that US government failed totally to make this transparent for the world and this caused by U.S. government bureaucracy - thats risible. This means ur are governed by cack-handed politicians what easely explains the inability to convince the (whole) world of the necessity of this war.
And the bad thing is some of u dont even scrutinize what those guys tell, they just follow.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
But waht kind of response do you expect when your suggestion is to do nothing... Hell what do they teach you about appeasement and ignoring a burgeoing threat in those German schools - or do they even cover the whole munich 1938 thing?
I dont suggest nothing and u dont know nothing about me. I'm against the neo conservative forces in ur country and against the silly followers thats it.
I'm in favor of preventive wars vs. dictatorships but I'm against a world ruled by one nation governed by sick humans that abuse their power.
-
Originally posted by Duedel
At the beginning ALL was about WMD.
Steve and Holden sure u have a point here but as i said before Wolfowitz is a liar or at least unable: ....
Or perhaps Wolfowitz honestly thought this would be the easiest case to make and prove.
It is possible he thought that. Lots of others did as well, after all if Hussien was not hiding weapons, why did he act as though he was? Why did he defy the UN? Why did he endure 12 years of UN sanctions, and the enormous lost profit potential from the lost oppurtunity to export oil?
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
wasn't that the whole point of the conflict. "destroy your WMD or we will invade"
now rumsfeld says well they must have got rid of them before we invaded.
if what he says is true then he just said we had no justification
If they had gotten rid of them, why did they insist on playing all those games with the U.N.? Why stall at every corner? If Iraq did destroy them, why didn't they show proof instead of "We don't have any, take our word for it." line they used prior to the war?
While those mobile labs didn't test positive for NBC weapons, it doesn't mean it was never used, just decontaminated recently. And why would they have a mobile lab in the first place? That alone was a violation of the U.N. resolutions, which they could have come clean on when they had the chance.
Ack-Ack
-
Originally posted by Duedel
I dont suggest nothing and u dont know nothing about me. I'm against the neo conservative forces in ur country and against the silly followers thats it.
I'm in favor of preventive wars vs. dictatorships but I'm against a world ruled by one nation governed by sick humans that abuse their power.
We just had a preventative war vs an evil dictator who was openly defying the international community with regard to his cease fire obligations while murdering thousands of his own citizens and contributing to the destabilazation of the region by supporting terrorism and paying $25,000 to familes of suicide bombers in Israel all with no real consequences to himslef over a span of 12 years - yet you are still complaining. The Iraq war was a good war, it was a neccesary war and it seems that it has now helped accelerate a change in Isreal/Palestenian relations by showing the region that America is dead serious in her attempts at cleaning up this mess.
You guys can whine and squeake and moan about it all you want but we are making progress and making things better..
You all think Bush is evil simply beacuse you disagree with him and his policies and beacuse you dont like him, this is no differnt than all the right wingers who thought Clinton was the devil incarnate. No different and just as useless as it was in the 1990s...
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
more (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=410730)
Oh so it was politically convenient... well that's cool...
Rumsfeld: Iraq May Have Destroyed Weapons
more (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-2724574,00.html)
Makes perfect sense.. destroy all your weapons days before your invaded by the worlds largest super power...
Hey Toad get that checkbook ready.. --suckah-- Had you looked into it a little more, like I did, you would've seen they were lying from the get go.
Spin Doctor.....report the WHOLE story, not just what suits your cause.
:)
-
Just to repeat yet again for the slow learners, like Grunherz. This is no longer about whether the war was the right thing to do.
The question is and remains: Did the President and the administration lie to the world about WMD's? About the intelligence they had? Or are they just incompetant?
The whole emphasis was on supposed rock solid evidence of WMD's. Sure only 200 sites have been inspected but you can be damm sure they were the most likely 200 sites. Yet nothing was found.
To interpret what Wolfowitz says, the emphasis was on WMD's not least because it was the only legimate reason Bush could use to invade Iraq. The other reasons, freeing the Iraqis and showing the big stick to other countries and terrorists are not legimate and are in fact illegal as all those anti war protesters kept pointing out. However laudable those reasons are.
I suspect they felt (hoped) WMD's would be found not least because of Saddam's antics and the whole thing could be justified. Without them the whole war is straightforward illegal invasion of a sovereign country. No country not even the USA has the right to invade another just because they don't like the regime no matter how vile that regime is.
So to sum up, Iraq was invaded illegally and the President of the United States either lied to the people or at the very least was economical with the truth. Or worse still he was lied to and manipulated by somebody else.
It's not hard to understand the implications of this.
-
This is a funny rhetoric filled thread. One side actually believes they are right and the other is wrong.
MiniD
-
This whole pre-emptive invasion doctrine was Dick Cheney's idea..going back some time too with this plan of his(long before 9/11).
Along with Rums...Very frightening individuals in positions of unbeleivable power.
I feel sorry for Powell as he had a bright future in politics before he got sucked into this vortex of lies.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
We just had a preventative war vs an evil dictator who was openly defying the international community with regard to his cease fire obligations while murdering thousands of his own citizens and contributing to the destabilazation of the region by supporting terrorism and paying $25,000 to familes of suicide bombers in Israel all with no real consequences to himslef over a span of 12 years - yet you are still complaining. The Iraq war was a good war, it was a neccesary war and it seems that it has now helped accelerate a change in Isreal/Palestenian relations by showing the region that America is dead serious in her attempts at cleaning up this mess.
You guys can whine and squeake and moan about it all you want but we are making progress and making things better..
You all think Bush is evil simply because you disagree with him and his policies and beacuse you dont like him, this is no differnt than all the right wingers who thought Clinton was the devil incarnate. No different and just as useless as it was in the 1990s...
Yes Grunherz we had a whatever war but when i talk about preventative war i mean first we need a new world order (the UN as it is now is too weak and has no legitimation to do this). A new world order where those nations play the main role that have a democratic form of government (i.e. not China).
The problem i have with the USA here is that at the moment the USA is governed (in the backgrund) by persons which have fundamental views regarding their religion and those persons want to make sure that the USA is the only super power in the world.
-
If Saddam had no WMD capability why keep the show on his end and thus give the UN cause to keep the sanctions regime ongoing. That cost him billions in oil revenues...
We have allready found mobile WMD labs like Powell told the UN about - of course they dont count according to our Saddam lovers, and anything that does count will have been planted by the CIA or PNAC.
And this decision to push the WMD is merely a reflection on what the administration team could agree on the most strongly - this is a perfectly sound and rational way to run an oraganization. Discuss the issue, let all viewpoints in and agree on on the most suitable course of action.
But of course this int good enough, it must be some sort of jew zionist conspiracy by wolfowitz...
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Furious
Holy wow!!
A rational Weazel with very good points.
It's not, it's a plagerized column by Mark Bowden.
-
I'm a patient man too Toad. I'm not expecting quick results - I advocated letting Blix have until the autumn - but this can't go on indefinitely.
-
Duedel is right. You cannot win against terrorrism using military force.
HOWEVER, military force is necessary to keep stuff as powerful as WMD's from said terrorists.
My first post was just to illustrate that those who cling so hard to the notion that WMD's have to be found for the invasion of iraq to be justified are thinking small. Really, really, really, small.
Invading iraq was a very important step towards preventing an even bigger disaster than 9/11 from occurring, not only in the USA but in other nations around the globe.
NK is next. Dont doubt it. It may not be today, tomorrow, next week, next year. But it will happen within a decade from now ; a nuclear korea, which has openly stated they will sell the tech to the highest bidder (*cough*) is completely unaceptable and will be dealt with with the same terminal results as Hussein's WMD programme.
-
Originally posted by OIO
My first post was just to illustrate that those who cling so hard to the notion that WMD's have to be found for the invasion of iraq to be justified are thinking small. Really, really, really, small.
Your first post was so full of errors, logical leaps of faith, left-field rationalizing, omissions and dubious inclusions that it's hard to know where to begin...
-
Colin Powell’s February presentation to the UN
Resolution 1441 gave Iraq one last chance, one last chance to come into compliance or to face serious consequences. No Council member present and voting on that day had any illusions about the nature and intent of the resolution or what serious consequences meant if Iraq did not comply.
And to assist in its disarmament, we called on Iraq to cooperate with returning inspectors from UNMOVIC and IAEA. We laid down tough standards for Iraq to meet to allow the inspectors to do their job.
This Council placed the burden on Iraq to comply and disarm, and not on the inspectors to find that which Iraq has gone out of its way to conceal for so long. Inspectors are inspectors; they are not detectives.
I asked for this session today for two purposes. First, to support the core assessments made by Dr. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei. As Dr. Blix reported to this Council on January 27, "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it."[/b]
Later on he said:
Saddam Hussein has never accounted for vast amounts of chemical weaponry: 550 artillery shells with mustard, 30,000 empty munitions and enough precursors to increase his stockpile to as much as 500 tons of chemical agents.
If we consider just one category of missing weaponry, 6500 bombs from the Iran-Iraq War, UNMOVIC says the amount of chemical agent in them would be on the order of a thousand tons.
This was weaponry declared after 1991 and not accounted for by 2003. Saddam’s people themselves told the UN that they had banned weaponry (banned by the ‘91 ceasefire to which they agreed)
This is why I will allow some more time to accrue before I jump one way or the other. Now the Iraqi government is not interfering those who are searching, and the number of searchers is ramping up. The truth will come out.
-
Originally posted by weazel
Now, before anyone starts screaming "lefty-liberal" at me consider the following:
True patriots believe that if your country is wrong, you make it right.
Weazel, (and 10Bears)
Please don't try to push yourself off as some kind of "True Patriot" I almost fell out of my seat when I read that one. What have you (and 10bears) done to support your country? Have you "True Patriots" even served a day in the military to support this country? Personally, I don't think you'd have the balls to fight for something you believed in, you're too comfortable sitting behind your computer screen insulting America. Let me tell you something, you both are about as far from being a patriot as you can get.
As far as hiding WMD, have you ever been to the Iraqi desert? I didn't think so. You can drive for hours without seeing a living thing. The coalition military and all of the U.N. weapons inspectors could search for a thousand years and never find WMD out there. It really isn't very difficult to hide. Did Iraq recently have WMD?Without a doubt, yes.
Just like Holden said "Two Months? and they haven't found Saddam Hussien? Son of a..... he never existed! Bush told me Saddam existed, and he lied about it!"
By the way, I'd love to hear what you geniuses think we should do about the dangers threatening free countries around the world (Terrorism for one). Maybe if you close your eyes and deny there is any danger it will all just go away by itself.
-
The fact of the matter is that all the Bush haters here would be singing the praises of the President who rid the world of a dictator and his brutal regime.......if it was a democratic president.
-
Originally posted by Sox62
The fact of the matter is that all the Bush haters here would be singing the praises of the President who rid the world of a dictator and his brutal regime.......if it was a democratic president.
The fact of the matter is that statement is nothing more than an opinion.
Because it's an opinion, I'll not comment on the correctness of it. I'll just disagree.
-
Originally posted by Sox62
The fact of the matter is that all the Bush haters here would be singing the praises of the President who rid the world of a dictator and his brutal regime.......if it was a democratic president.
Weazel, (and 10Bears)
Please don't try to push yourself off as some kind of "True Patriot" I almost fell out of my seat when I read that one. What have you (and 10bears) done to support your country? Have you "True Patriots" even served a day in the military to support this country? Personally, I don't think you'd have the balls to fight for something you believed in, you're too comfortable sitting behind your computer screen insulting America. Let me tell you something, you both are about as far from being a patriot as you can get.
How old are you boy?
I was serving while you were probably still ****ting green.
Being a patriot means supporting your country, not the pResident...especially when he's wrong.
-
Weaz, Wep is serving now, with distinction.
I doubt either you or I had a job even remotely like his in that respect.
-
Originally posted by weazel
I was serving while you were probably still ****ting green.
.
I was ****ting green last nite.... friggin' broccoli.:mad:
-
He deserves a salute for a job well done..but if I was sent into combat for spurious reasons I would be a little pissed off at the liar in the White House.
Wouldn't you be?
Originally posted by Toad
Weaz, Wep is serving now, with distinction.
I doubt either you or I had a job even remotely like his in that respect.
U.S. Insiders Say Iraq Intel Deliberately Skewed
(America catches up to what the rest of the world always knew.
Bush's good puppy press tied up in knots - how can they protect Bush?)
Excerpt:
A growing number of U.S. national security professionals are accusing Bush of slanting the facts and hijacking the $30 billion intelligence apparatus to justify its rush to war in Iraq.
Patrick Lang said the CIA had "no guts at all" to resist the allegedly deliberate skewing of intelligence by a Pentagon that he said was now dominating U.S. foreign policy.
Anger among security professionals appears widespread. Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, a group that says it is made up mostly of CIA intelligence analysts, wrote to Bush May 1 to hit what they called "a policy and intelligence fiasco of monumental proportions."
Full Article (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030530/ts_nm/iraq_intelligence_dc_2)
The article above indicates the pre-war CIA leaks regarding their doubts about Saddams arsenal of "WMD" were correct...and the Bush Junta chose to marginalize the CIA and DIA when they didn't toe the party line.
How about his grand standing in Poland?
Bush arrived in Poland and brought personal thanks to the country for standing up as a wartime ally in Iraq , making no effort to hide that he harbors a deep grudge toward France and Germany for opposing the U.S.-led campaign against Saddam Hussein. Bush defended Poland against criticism of its war support.
"I think it's unfortunate that some of the countries in Europe will try to bully Poland for standing up for what you think — what they think is right." (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&e=1&u=/ap/20030530/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_summit)
Can you believe the biggest bully on the planet calls other people a bully?
Spurious George, the blood-thirsty psychopath who rapes and murders smaller nations on the slightest of fabricated whims thinks that bullying other countries is the wrong thing to do.
Over the past two years your one of the guys that has continually shot me down when it wasn't possible to confirm speculation about Bush's character and lack of integrity...isn't your butt beginning to hurt from sitting on the fence yet? :p
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I see some moderate to heavy spin, some 'splainin' to a reporter, but I see no admission of lies. I think you may be a little premature.
Quite right. BTW, the full transcripts are available on the DoD website:
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030509-depsecdef0223.html
Here is the unedited version of the relevant section:
Q: Was that one of the arguments that was raised early on by you and others that Iraq actually does connect, not to connect the dots too much, but the relationship between Saudi Arabia, our troops being there, and bin Laden's rage about that, which he's built on so many years, also connects the World Trade Center attacks, that there's a logic of motive or something like that? Or does that read too much into --
Wolfowitz: No, I think it happens to be correct. The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but -- hold on one second --
(Pause)
Kellems: Sam there may be some value in clarity on the point that it may take years to get post-Saddam Iraq right. It can be easily misconstrued, especially when it comes to --
Wolfowitz: -- there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. Sorry, hold on again.
Kellems: By the way, it's probably the longest uninterrupted phone conversation I've witnessed, so --
[/b]
It is hard to say if the interruption along with the insertion by another DoD official between the answers Wolfie gave may have contributed to the "misquote". The reporter seems too intelligent to have made that kind of mistake, however.
BTW, I noted that several Senators from both sides of the aisle are calling for an investigation of the WMD intelligence that the Administration relied upon. I was certainly surprised by that kind of bi-partisanship.
-
" I was certainly surprised by that kind of bi-partisanship."
Call it oversight.
edit - oops... I read yer post too quick. My reply makes no sense. :)
-
Well, Weaz, probably so.
But, like most people with a lick of common sense, he's probably also smart enough to realize that 30+ days is way to early to be making "liar" charges.
Especially since he's intimately familiar with the Iraqi desert, Iraqi deception maneuvers and undoubtedly knows some stuff he isn't posting here.
:D
-
The Bush Junta has approximately 50% of the Iraqi regime in custody, (remember the deck of cards) most who will end up being tried for war crimes. Some of those people would sing like canaries for consideration of a lighter sentence.
I wonder why they're not talking...it's not like they have to worry about repercussions from Saddam anymore? ....Oh wait a second, just like WMD and OBL...the Bush Junta can't find Saddam either.
Either way, I can't buy the argument that WpnX knows where the WMD are stashed...it would be all over the headlines if any were found. ;)
Originally posted by Toad
Especially since he's intimately familiar with the Iraqi desert, Iraqi deception maneuvers and undoubtedly knows some stuff he isn't posting here.
:D
-
And you're intimately familiar with what he's intimately familiar with, Toad? :D
I'd call that a breach in security. Someone better get Langley on the phone, on the double. This trail of treachery and deceit must be followed up and those responsible punished!
-
Originally posted by weazel
Either way, I can't buy the argument that WpnX knows where the WMD are stashed...it would be all over the headlines if any were found. ;)
Weazel,
I have never said that I know where the WMD are stashed.
And Dowding,
Don't ever accuse me of a breach of security. That is a very serious accusation and it pisses me off that you would suggest it! You need to re-read Toad's post, you are twisting his words just like you twist the President's and anyone else's who won't see things your way. Where in his post does it say I told him where WMD are located like you implied.
-
That was a joke. I obviously wasn't seriously implying you were a traitor or Iraqi spy or that Toad was your handler.
Also point to where I 'twisted the President's words'. Thanks.
-
Dowding,
I'm not laughing. I don't mind that you disagree with my views and I think it's great that we all have different views and are free to express them; that's what makes this country great. Hell, I don't agree with everything weazel posts but I would drink beers with him and we would probably get along great. But, implying, even as a joke, that I said something that I didn't is B.S. and it pisses me off! It's one thing I take pretty serious.
If you want to discuss it as intelligent adults drop me an email. I won't take up any more space on this board with something that only involves you and I.
-
So says Colin Powell (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030531/wl_mideast_afp/us_iraq_powell&cid=1514&ncid=1480)
So just what is the definition of "is"? :D
Many of you guys are losing sight of the real issue here...the real issue here is lying and spinning by the administration in order to go to war.
To illustrate the double standard the PC crowd is displaying:
"Substitute Bill Clinton for Bush over the past six months. What would TV talking heads be saying today?
William Kristol, Sean Hannity and the others would be demanding Clinton's impeachment. They would be screaming that there were no weapons of mass destruction and Clinton knew it. He lied to the U.N., to the American people, and he deliberately and unnecessarily placed American troops in harm's way."
Ed Garvey, The Capital Times (Madison, WI), May 13, 2003
-
Originally posted by weazel
The Bush Junta ...blah blah blah
Oh lookie...weazel is back...
-
That was a joke. I obviously wasn't seriously implying you were a traitor or Iraqi spy or that Toad was your handler.
Originally posted by WpnX
Dowding,
I'm not laughing. I don't mind that you disagree with my views and I think it's great that we all have different views and are free to express them; that's what makes this country great. Hell, I don't agree with everything weazel posts but I would drink beers with him and we would probably get along great. But, implying, even as a joke, that I said something that I didn't is B.S. and it pisses me off! It's one thing I take pretty serious.
If you want to discuss it as intelligent adults drop me an email. I won't take up any more space on this board with something that only involves you and I.
Uh oh...careful Dowding old boy sounds like you may have stumbled onto something...,but then you're about to get a banging on the door...and then a rush of footsteps...
And then it'll be like you never existed :D
Tronsky
-
Let's wait the six (or was it nine or twelve) months that the weapons inspectors wanted. They didn't have to do it while under fire or while trying to rebuild a country either.
-
Yeah, it's so much harder now Puke...
Nothing like having absolute free reign of the country with access to all the scientists you could ever want to interview to make things more dificult than the previous inspectors had it...
Unless by "rebuilding the country" you're suggesting that the current inspection teams have to divide their time between checking suspected sites then making the rounds at the food distribution centers. I kinda doubt there's that degree of multi-tasking going on. ;)
"Under fire"... heheh.
But fine, not only do the current inspectors get the 6, 9, 12 months you're so graciously calling for only now (I don't think the previous inspectors were even asking for that much time)... but now they get all the time in the world. Yet it hardly goes unnoticed that you're asking for that time only after you refused it to the previous inspectors and invaded instead.
But there was a reason for that, right? Maybe the Iraqis were critically close to lighting up the world with their stockpiles of WMD - and a quick intervention was humanity's only hope. And I suppose someone somewhere thought they could do a better job... find them quicker... what with all the great intel they had. I always wondered why they didn't just share that intel with the inspectors. I don't wonder that so much anymore....
-
Weak?
Here's what's weak:
The "give the inspectors six-eight-twelve more months" crowd suddenly deciding that 30 days is all that is necessary.
THAT is weak.
Babble on. I'm out.
Sorry Wep. Should have known they'd twist a simple "the guy is an experienced active combat soldier just home from Iraq" into this BS. My apologies, again.
-
Nash,
I never said the inspectors had free-reign.
I never said that the inspectors are rebuilding the country personally.
Yes, the inspectors requested 6 more months (I think it was longer) as one last effort before war.
Still, it's not really any easier now and there are considerable hurdles to making inspections and finding these things. Some of it may be under rubble or may in fact be out of the country or hidden very well. Or, Saddam never had any. But I think we need to give the guys on the ground over there some time. Yes, they are under fire over there, believe it or not. It is a very dangerous place for inspectors...more now than it was one-year ago.
Yeah, it's so much easier now, Nash.
-
The whole "where are the WMDs" question is a bit of a no brainer really. IMO Bush would never have invaded Iraq if US intel thought for a second that the Iraqi army had usable WMD. It would lead to unacceptable US casualties and a long, drawn out, messy conflict. Post-Vietnam, that is tantamount to committing political suicide and Bush is running for a second term. So really the only conflicts the US is politically willing to indulge in these days are reminiscent of the old British Empire fights: state-of-the-art weaponry vs. naked guys armed with sharp fruit.
-
Yes dead just like we went into the first Gulf War only 12 years ago when Iraq was widely considered one of the most potent military forces in the world and there was NO dispute anywhere as to whether they had WMD... :rolleyes:
-
(http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/WhereWMD/WMDsWhereGIFS/pladfte.gif)
-
The UN of course a paragon of credibilty!
-
Well, Toad if you can't tolerate a blatant leg-pull once in a while then I'm surprised you've lasted the distance around here.
Weak? Wouldn't you also agree this is weak:
Don't give the inspectors another second, but give all the time in the world to Bush et al to come up with goods.
And Wpnx - that you would be so sensitive to a little horseplay was something I couldn't have guessed at. I apologise for any offence caused, of course.
-
Oh lets be fair....
"Sorry Wep. Should have known they'd twist a simple "the guy is an experienced active combat soldier just home from Iraq" into this BS." - Toad
Was actually:
"Especially since he's intimately familiar with the Iraqi desert, Iraqi deception maneuvers and undoubtedly knows some stuff he isn't posting here." - Toad
You're saying here that he, without a doubt, knows something that we don't. Making it sound as if there's more to it than what meets the eye... what with "deception manuevers" :eek: and all. So Dowding picks up on that and cracks a joke about breach of security... and y'all take him seriously?? Even get pissed over it? I suggest reading it again. Sheesh...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Yes dead just like we went into the first Gulf War only 12 years ago when Iraq was widely considered one of the most potent military forces in the world and there was NO dispute anywhere as to whether they had WMD... :rolleyes:
Oh yeah I forgot the US and the UK invading Iraq unprovoked and without world backing is exactly the same scenario as UN forces ousting the Iraqi forces that had invaded Kuwait, with the world backing them.
-
What does that have to do with your flawed initial argument?
-
war is bad, sex is good..
all the rest is just to kill time until ya die :)
-
US Senate opens Iraq weapons probe (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2958138.stm)
Again...Bush and company *claimed* they had the evidence, now it's time to cough it up.
-
But, but, but I thought Bush as Hitler would never let such a thing happend..
Lemme guess if the Senate finds nothing wrong then you will say it is proof the Bush/Hitler regime pressured them to be quiet?
-
So your response to the news that there is going to be an investigation is the same tired old line about everyone believing 'Bush is Hitler'?
-
But surely Bush the dictator would never allow it, what went wrong?
-
WOOT!
"The inquiries, launched by both Republican and Democratic politicians, will include public hearings that will be televised live."
"This is the first serious domestic pressure on the Bush administration to give a detailed explanation of its pre-war claims about weapons of mass destruction."
"Senator John Warner, the Republican chairman of the armed services panel, said he had ordered the inquiry because of the depth and seriousness of the issue."
""The situation is becoming one where the credibility of the administration and Congress is being challenged," he said."
"It is likely that senior officials such as Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell will be summoned before Congress."
-
Weazel's remarks, not Dowdings.
Note it is a REPUBLICAN that opened the hearing. :D
I have no problem with investigating it.
However, for all the BBS pundits, I'll still say 30 days is premature.
-
10bears, your ability to land the big one is uncanny(spell?)
-
Dont let a few diehard Clinton retreads get yer dander up.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Dont let a few diehard Clinton retreads get yer dander up.
Too late, in this land of flounder fisherman, he has landed a marlin.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Note it is a REPUBLICAN that opened the hearing. :D
I have no problem with investigating it.
However, for all the BBS pundits, I'll still say 30 days is premature.
I absolutely agree with Toad on this. 30 days is too short. Hans Blix's weapons inspectors were given longer...about three months. Given the unfettered nature of the current search and the army of folks engaged in the hunt, it is reasonable to give the Administration the same amount of time to prove it's pre-war allegations before those of us who opposed the war should cry foul.
I do think it is appropriate to investigate what the Administration was using as "solid sources" in order to justify the war as it seems there is some backpedaling going on to rationalize why WMDs were not used as expected and have not been found after a mere 30 days of searching. It gives the appearance that the sources were not all that solid after all...I'm sure the reliability of those sources was used to convince fence-sitters in Congress to vote for the war resolution. I'm very pleasantly surprised that the 'Pubs opened the investigation...maybe the Bush hegemony had been broken (I got to use that word again Toad ;) ). It should be interesting to hear Graham's questions since he is a presidential candidate.
-
I just snipped and included the part talking about the Republican's opening of the investigation (I thought it would be more legit for you Repubs); there's actually two investigations opened by both the Repubs and the Dems.
I too am please the Republicans are taking the initiative on this.
-
CIA Investigates Accuracy Of Administration's Accusations That Led To War (http://www.theomahachannel.com/helenthomas/2238950/detail.html)
Whoopsie...looks like the CIA is making sure they aren't the fall guys for the Bush junta.
Ya gotta love Helen thomas.....:D
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
What does that have to do with your flawed initial argument?
If you're looking for a flawed argument try "Iraqi WMDs pose a real and immediate threat to the US, and we have concrete proof that they have them, so we have to invade" - if it was such a great threat why didn't Hussein use them when the US & the UK invaded? What was he afraid of? His homeland being invaded? And if the proof was so concrete why are the WMDs nowhere to be found?
I digress - in answer to your question: as I see it, no one is going to use WMD to defend somewhere they only just invaded mostly for economic reasons. However they are likely to use WMDs in defence of their homeland.
For example: Would the US protect Iraq from an UN "liberation" with nukes? Highly improbable. Would the US use WMD to protect the US homeland? Yes - indeed it can be argued that the promise of nukes being used is the cornerstone of any credible "nuclear deterrent".
The other point is that the liberation of Kuwait was a UN gig, and most countries supported the Iraqis being kicked out of Kuwait, so if the Iraqis get beaten (a foregone conclusion against a UN coalition that includes a contigent of the world's richest and second largest army), the Iraqi leadership can live with it - they're still in power. Hussein's not really in much of a corner - no need for the WMDs. And he doesn't want to anger anyone past the pre invasion borders. Indeed there's some evidence Hussein only invaded Kuwait after he thought the US wasn't fussed enough to intervene (see the Glaspie-Hussein meeting - although I'm unsure as to the veracity of the transcripts on the 'net).
Net result is that the risk of WMDs being used is very low.
The 2003 Invasion of Iraq on the other hand is not backed by the UN or world opinion, is unprovoked and has as its stated goal the removal and incarceration of the leadership of Iraq. It's corner time for Hussein - and on the opposite side, the US & UK are out on a limb - if WMDs are used, it would be much more palatable to many countries. Besides which, given the goal of the invasion, Hussein has very little to lose if he does use WMDs: he will definitely lose if he does not use them, but he might possibly outlast the US public's support for the invasion if he does use them in defence of his own turf. WMDs will likely also get rid of a lot of enemy troops and gum up the logisitics side with casualties. He has used exactly these tactics against the numerically superior Iranian army. IMO the risk of WMDs use in an invasion is extremely high - from a US presidential point of view, if you're looking to run again, unacceptably high. An unprovoked invasion that lacks UN or world support and with very high casualties is not going to get you reelected - it's definitely a second term action.
Unless, of course, you know for a fact that Iraq really doesn't have any WMDs. Then it's a cakewalk - it's a vote-winner because nothing soothes an electorate better than a quick easy victory with all the attendent missile videos, flag-waving, back-slapping and other patriotic nonsense to keep the plebs happy and distract them from the rough economy at home. It also frees up a lot of oil from the hands of an abrasive leadership, to do with as you will - although I'm sure that wouldn't interest the current US leadership who are of course not connected with the oil industry. It opens up a new potential military base near Iran, Syria, Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and lessens dependence on the Saudis. It also gets the pressure off Israel (another perceived vote winner and perhaps a bargaining chip for the peace talks). Last, but not least, it boosts the ailing economy with all the munitions expended and the free advertising of US firepower superiority can't exactly hurt the world's largest arms exporter - especially in the world's largest arms market, the Middle East. In fact wars and defence spending seem to be the preferred methods for Republican governments to massively increase public spending to boost the economy whilst continuing to pay lip service to reducing government expenditure - no one ever seems to question a defence budget increase.
To summarise - same players, yes - but entirely different conflicts, with different risk levels.
-
Well, Dead has it pretty much covered. What fascinates me about this whole thread is the lack of input from the likes of Lazs and Nuke. Only poor old Grunherz and a few others are here down to their last few rounds and illusions to protect them.
I now believe that we were conned about WMD's. I do think Bush and Blair et al 'hoped and prayed' there were really WMD's in Iraq even though their evidence is flawed.
We can see now that other politicans and even the CIA moving to protect themselves from the backlash this can bring to the perpretrators. Like it or not without WMD's this war was an illegal act of aggression against a sovereign country. Whether or not it was a good thing. Even that is looking shaky. Increasing Iraqi unrest, the fact of troops not coming home and having to be reinforced. How many have died now since the war ended. I seem to remember 29?
Reports of Saddam hiding in Libya waiting to make a triumphant return, however unlikely that is.
It's in danger of becoming an exceedingly bad mess. I'm annoyed because I bought the lie and derided anti war protestors when it now looks as if they were actually right all along.
Now that really p****S me off.
-
Well, Dead has it pretty much covered. What fascinates me about this whole thread is the lack of input from the likes of Lazs and Nuke. Only poor old Grunherz and a few others are here down to their last few rounds and illusions to protect them.
I now believe that we were conned about WMD's. I do think Bush and Blair et al 'hoped and prayed' there were really WMD's in Iraq even though their evidence is flawed.
We can see now that other politicans and even the CIA moving to protect themselves from the backlash this can bring to the perpretrators. Like it or not without WMD's this war was an illegal act of aggression against a sovereign country. Whether or not it was a good thing. Even that is looking shaky. Increasing Iraqi unrest, the fact of troops not coming home and having to be reinforced. How many have died now since the war ended. I seem to remember 29?
Reports of Saddam hiding in Libya waiting to make a triumphant return, however unlikely that is.
It's in danger of becoming an exceedingly bad mess. I'm annoyed because I bought the lie and derided anti war protestors when it now looks as if they were actually right all along.
Now that really p****S me off.
-
Well, Dead has it pretty much covered. What fascinates me about this whole thread is the lack of input from the likes of Lazs and Nuke. Only poor old Grunherz and a few others are here down to their last few rounds and illusions to protect them.
I now believe that we were conned about WMD's. I do think Bush and Blair et al 'hoped and prayed' there were really WMD's in Iraq even though their evidence is flawed.
We can see now that other politicans and even the CIA moving to protect themselves from the backlash this can bring to the perpretrators. Like it or not without WMD's this war was an illegal act of aggression against a sovereign country. Whether or not it was a good thing. Even that is looking shaky. Increasing Iraqi unrest, the fact of troops not coming home and having to be reinforced. How many have died now since the war ended. I seem to remember 29?
Reports of Saddam hiding in Libya waiting to make a triumphant return, however unlikely that is.
It's in danger of becoming an exceedingly bad mess. I'm annoyed because I bought the lie and derided anti war protestors when it now looks as if they were actually right all along.
Now that really p****S me off.
-
Well, Dead has it pretty much covered. What fascinates me about this whole thread is the lack of input from the likes of Lazs and Nuke. Only poor old Grunherz and a few others are here down to their last few rounds and illusions to protect them.
I now believe that we were conned about WMD's. I do think Bush and Blair et al 'hoped and prayed' there were really WMD's in Iraq even though their evidence is flawed.
We can see now that other politicans and even the CIA moving to protect themselves from the backlash this can bring to the perpretrators. Like it or not without WMD's this war was an illegal act of aggression against a sovereign country. Whether or not it was a good thing. Even that is looking shaky. Increasing Iraqi unrest, the fact of troops not coming home and having to be reinforced. How many have died now since the war ended. I seem to remember 29?
Reports of Saddam hiding in Libya waiting to make a triumphant return, however unlikely that is.
It's in danger of becoming an exceedingly bad mess. I'm annoyed because I bought the lie and derided anti war protestors when it now looks as if they were actually right all along.
Now that really p****S me off.
-
Well, Dead has it pretty much covered. What fascinates me about this whole thread is the lack of input from the likes of Lazs and Nuke. Only poor old Grunherz and a few others are here down to their last few rounds and illusions to protect them.
I now believe that we were conned about WMD's. I do think Bush and Blair et al 'hoped and prayed' there were really WMD's in Iraq even though their evidence is flawed.
We can see now that other politicans and even the CIA moving to protect themselves from the backlash this can bring to the perpretrators. Like it or not without WMD's this war was an illegal act of aggression against a sovereign country. Whether or not it was a good thing. Even that is looking shaky. Increasing Iraqi unrest, the fact of troops not coming home and having to be reinforced. How many have died now since the war ended. I seem to remember 29?
Reports of Saddam hiding in Libya waiting to make a triumphant return, however unlikely that is.
It's in danger of becoming an exceedingly bad mess. I'm annoyed because I bought the lie and derided anti war protestors when it now looks as if they were actually right all along.
Now that really p****S me off.
-
Blue1...was that deja vu or a glitch in the Matrix?
-
But youre cahnging the subject yet again dead, your assertion that the USA only attacks when there is no WMD threat is plainly wrong....
-
I don't want to be the one to say I told ya so, but . . . . . . . . . . .
I TOLD YOU SO!!!
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
Blue1...was that deja vu or a glitch in the Matrix?
I just had to make my point, make my point, make my point.
It must be a glitch in the matrix. I have to relog to the board when posting on this PC several times. So I multiple click to post anything. Now I can't get rid of them aaaaaaahh! I managed to delete two but the others will have to stay.
The thirty second rule should have stopped that happening.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
But youre cahnging the subject yet again dead, your assertion that the USA only attacks when there is no WMD threat is plainly wrong....
Nope - I'm saying there was an extremely low risk (to the point of it being worth the tiny risk) in war 1, and IMO absolutely no risk in war 2. I am also implying that any prudent army would not invade a country armed with WMDs and I'm guilty of assuming that the US army and leadership are prudent - you appear to be arguing that the US army/government are foolhardy and reckless gamblers. Shome mishtake shurely?
WMDs are a significant deterrent to any invasion: it's part of their job. Or do you reckon the doctrine of WMD deterrence is fundamentally flawed? In which case why did the US, USSR etc etc. bother with all those expensive and dangerous nuclear biological and chemical weapons? If the US doesn't care about the presence of WMDs why didn't the US invade Eastern Europe and Russia? Why the fuss over the Cuban missiles? And why not invade Cuba? Why opt for a cold war all those years - just couldn't be bothered to invade? And if memories serves over all the years since ww2, and all the invasions, incursions and whatnot the US has staged, only Iraq has had a hint of WMDs, and I posit - war 1 posed a tiny "calculated" risk, war 2 none whatsoever.
Furthermore - if your position is correct and Iraq really did have credible, deployable WMDs, then you have to live with the notion of Bush being a totally reckless and/or stupid almost to the point of brain death president who's willing to gamble the lives of thousands or millions of US/UK soldiers and innocent civilians - not to mention all the serious diplomatic fallout - on the vague hope that a mad evil dictator who's used WMDs before on his own people and his enemies will not use them on an enormous invading army who's expressed intent is to get rid of said mad dictator and which will definitely win if he doesn't use the WMDs. Pretty high stakes on very bad odds - and to achieve ... what? I'm sure you don't buy any of the oil stuff or any of the other sane but cynical reasons for invading - Do you buy the "to secure the poor Iraqis' freedom from a nasty man (that the US propped up for over 20 years)" line, or do you subscribe to the "to stop a guy we can't find from selling some weapons we can't find to another guy we can't find who recently proved in no uncertain terms that he doesn't need them" spin? I'm surprised Bush isn't frothing or drooling at the mouth most of the time if your version is true.
You also have a question that begs an answer - why didn't Hussein - the madman who is such a threat that the US had to invade right away - use them?
My scenario does require some politicians to lie to the electorate, manipulate the media and invade a country that they know poses little to no risk to their armies for cynical, self-serving, materialistic reasons: economic and political gain. I realise all that's pretty far-fetched stuff on planet Grunherz, but it also requires the US government, president and military to be much much saner and more intelligent than your version.
-
So your agument is based on appeasing threating dictators and not confronting them because if we did then they could kill pour soldiers - why didnt you say so in the begining?
-
Gruny, you're getting like Bagdhad Ali, unable to face the truth. Perhaps you should get like Nuke and Lazs and retreat in the face of the overwhelming forces of reality.
Appeasing dictators is a long standing US policy, nay Western and European policy.
If war was about doing the right thing, Mugabe would be facing the final assault on Harare by the Marines by now. You don't appease dictators you supply them with weapons.
Saddam didn't play the game, he wanted to play Stalin. If he had tried to be a Hitler he would still be in power.
You understand?
-
Only poor old Grunherz and a few others are here down to their last few rounds and illusions to protect them.
=====
Amazing. You people must be too young to see how regular all this political crap is.......
If you believe there are no WMDs now then you never believed it in the first place which in and of itself draw serious red flags all about your smug mugs. You are obviously Clinton (sic) people.
At this stage of the game, like Toad (and just about anyone with any decent, workable state of mind) said, its way too early to draw a no WMD conlusion and will be for at least a year and arguing with you dolts is a waste of life energy.
Also, if you think an investigation demonstrates some sort of (perverted) success then you really are just a bunch of saddomites.
In the end summary: Just a bunch of Clinton dead head retreads. Like AGWs MG, no doubt just hoping for american failures because you hate the CiC. Plain and simple.....tards and dolts all gathered in the 10bears hall of shame thread.
-
Originally posted by blue1
What fascinates me about this whole thread is the lack of input from the likes of Lazs and Nuke. Only poor old Grunherz and a few others are here down to their last few rounds and illusions to protect them.
Heh, you dont think that has more to do with the fact that most of us cant be bothered to wade through yet another "oh the war was so wrong"-BS thread?
I mean STFU already and stop squeaking. No one cares about all your pet theories on Iraq and WMDs. As far as I'm concerned the WMDs already recovered from Iraq was reason enough to go in.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
No one cares about all your pet theories on Iraq and WMDs. As far as I'm concerned the WMDs already recovered from Iraq was reason enough to go in.
Excerpt:
Enough already. Where are the weapons of mass destruction? (http://slate.msn.com/id/2083760/)
Rumsfeld appeared at the Council on Foreign Relations last Tuesday and, during the question-answer period, made the usual excuses for why his team of biochem-weapon hunters hasn't yet found any. "We've only been there seven weeks," he exclaimed. "It's a country the size of California -”it's not as though we've managed to look everywhere," he added.
Horsetoejam!
When the Bush Junta had their war hard-on raging, they said they knew exactly where they were.
They said they were in Tikrit and Baghdad, and that they had pictures, remember?
And the whole reason we couldn't wait another 30 days is because Saddam was poised to strike.
Not all of us have short term memory loss. :D
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Grun, this is getting ridicolus, or rather you are. Blue1 makes perfect sense.
No it doesnt - it only makes sense if you are into appeasement. For gods sake look at what he wrote - he baiscally says that in the future we must never attack any country that can put up a fight and actually kill our soldiers. He is advocating appaeasement plain and simple.
-
Originally posted by blue1
Gruny, you're getting like Bagdhad Ali, unable to face the truth. Perhaps you should get like Nuke and Lazs and retreat in the face of the overwhelming forces of reality.
Appeasing dictators is a long standing US policy, nay Western and European policy.
If war was about doing the right thing, Mugabe would be facing the final assault on Harare by the Marines by now. You don't appease dictators you supply them with weapons.
Saddam didn't play the game, he wanted to play Stalin. If he had tried to be a Hitler he would still be in power.
You understand?
So we are now finding the exact sort of mobile labs Powell described at the UN and thats the reality..
Stalin was much more careful than Hitler and he never faced the sort of international challenges as Hitler. Although Stalin was his idol saddams position was much more like Hitlers - trying to build and maintain certain armed forces despite international restricions imposed by a cease fire after a defeat. He lost.
-
Which mobile labs Hort and Grun.... These?
"White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said the discovery last month of two tractor-trailers -- fitted for high tech laboratory work -- proved they could be used to produce illicit weapons for germ warfare. No such products were found in the trucks."
-
The report also notes that, in order to produce biological weapons, each trailer would have to be accompanied by a second and possibly a third trailer, specially designed to grow, process, sterilize, and dry the bacteria. Such trailers would "have equipment such as mixing tanks, centrifuges, and spray dryers"—none of which were spotted in the trailers that were found. The problem, the CIA acknowledges, is that "we have not yet found" these post-production trailers. Question: Is it that they haven't been found—or that they don't exist?
It could well be that the CIA is right about its inferences. Either way, these trailers—simply by being capable of producing biotoxins—constituted violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions barring such technology. However, we're beyond U.N. resolutions at this point. We're looking for evidence that Iraq actually did produce such weapons. From what we know so far, the trailers constitute less than airtight proof.
-
So now you are saying no first term president should enage in a serious war... Is that why AlQeada waited till after the election so they couldnt be attacked? :rolleyes:
-
Grun...you are the straw man king bud! :D
-
Saddam had WMD and used them in the Iran, Iraq war and on his own people. Why would he not have them today? Why would he let Iraq be invaded and put himself on the run if he didn't have anything to hide?
Where is all the stuff Saddam had? We need to know where it is today!
-
"Saddam had WMD and used them in the Iran, Iraq war and on his own people. Why would he not have them today?"
Just try, momentarily, to apply some intellectual flexibility here... Just for a second. And after this little exercise you can go back to regurgitating old 'facts' that have since been proven false yet that somehow have escaped your notice. I'm talking in the general 'you'... not you specifically Oz.
Just consider that maybe, just maybe, Hussein really DID disarm.
Despite the initial arms inspectors getting thrown out of Iraq in 1997 or 1998, they inspected, monitored and destroyed tons of Hussein's toys.*see below.
"Writing in the journal Arms Control Today (2000), Scott Ritter, former weapons inspector and chief of the “concealment unit” for UNSCOM (the inspections organization created as a result of the cease-fire) claims that by 1997, Iraq was effectively disarmed."
You might dismiss this, and it might very well be a bunch of bunk. However, it could actually be the explanation for what is starting to become evident - that there just doesn't seem to be any WMD in Iraq. Whether it's true or not - we don't yet know - but it IS within the realm of possibility.
So you're asking why he doesn't have them today? There's one explanation. Keep in mind, the only reason many today believe differently is simply because Bush is telling us otherwise - an assertion that is not bearing itself out, and one that the intel community seems to be distancing itself from.
Next question:
"Why would he let Iraq be invaded and put himself on the run if he didn't have anything to hide?"
I'm not sure what you mean. He said he didn't have anything to hide. The UN asked him to open up to inspections to demonstrate that. He did so. But that wasn't enough for the Bush administration - they cut the inspections short... ostensibly because the threat posed by Iraq's WMD program was such that they couldn't afford to wait for the inspections to conclude. The threat grew daily; the obvious implication.
So (a) he wasn't hding, and (b) he could do nothing more than he did (which was everything the UN asked) to prevent the invasion.
"Where is all the stuff Saddam had? We need to know where it is today!"
I won't mention the fact that Bush et al professed to "know where it is today"... Oops I just did. :)
But one explanation is simply that it just aint there.
-----------------------------------------------
*"During the weapons inspections of the nineties, there were 7,800 site inspections; 340 locations regularly monitored, including surprise visits; over 130 cameras installed in another 30 locations; air-sampling devices used that can detect minute traces of chemicals; the destruction of a key laboratory and tons of chemicals; and the destruction of 817 of 819 missiles purchased from Russia.
Writing in the journal Arms Control Today (2000), Scott Ritter, former weapons inspector and chief of the “concealment unit” for UNSCOM (the inspections organization created as a result of the cease-fire) claims that by 1997, Iraq was effectively disarmed. In other words, Iraq’s capacity for building chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, as well as key delivery systems such as ballistic missiles had been destroyed as a result of inspections.
-
Nash if you belive that Hussein really did dusarm and was honest about disarming in the past 12 years then why did he not make that case clearly to the UN, why did he foster conditions in Iraq that forced the UN insperctors out, why did they consistentlty lie about the satus of varius WMD items? And he did this even though it was costing him billions and billions in oil revenues due to the embargo put in place so he would disarm....
Tell me why would a truly disarmed Saddam Hussein continue to forego billions in oil revenues by acting in a way that he knew would prolong the sanctions and embargo and increse losses of oil revenues indefintely?
All he had to do was state plainly that he was disarmed and allow the inspectors 100% free access to any facility or personell of interest. He never did that, not even close, not before 1998 and not in last round of inspections.
-
Good question Gruny, why did he? It's a genuine imponderable. Only he can answer and maybe when (if) he's caught. He might tell us.
Possibly like many a dictator he was increasingly out of touch with the reality on the ground. Maybe sanctions suited him in that the suffering of the people could be blamed on the UN or America or Israel or whoever. Maybe he believe it didn't matter and that any attack would either be repelled or suffer heavy casualties. Maybe he had illusions that Bagdhad would be like Mogadishu in 'BlackHawk Down' Whatever the reason he badly miscalculated.
But meanwhile it's become increasingly obvious that he had little or no WMD's whatever he and the rest of us believed or were led to believe. I still believe there must be some there. But I also now believe that we were lied to about the extent of it.
The real reason for the war was NOT WMD's but to remove Saddam and realign the current situation in the Mid East. Now I personally think that is a good reason but it's not a legal reason to invade another country.
I got back to my original point though. This is no longer about whether the war was good or bad, legal or not.
The question is whether or not the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Great Britain started a war on the basis of a lie.
Right now Tony Blair is in big trouble at home on this issue and I suspect that unless WMD's are found soon his career is over. Ditto for Bush at some point in the future.
Yeager, what on earth is this constant evocation of Clinton. He is the ex president, off playing golf no doubt. He had nothing to do with this. He had his failings but he didn't invade any country during his tenure.
Maybe it's all the Gore supporters moaning, you remember him? He's the canditate who got more votes than GWB in that election.
-
Blue I think that uncertainty of why he acted the way he did is what leaves room for WMD to be found.
But it is perfectly clear that he was in touch with reality enough to want the sanctions and embargo lifted because he would greatly benefit from that both financially and politically.
But for 12 years he did not want to be honest about it and defied the winners of the war by not keeping up his disarmament agreements - both of these are facts.
That alone was enough to be a politicaly expedient cause to start this war.
IMO this war was obviously not only about WMD even if that was the most used justification, it was about many things including the general stability of the region and peace and yes about long term oil issues - but remember if we just wanted the oil the USA had the influence on UNSC to drop embaro/sanctions in a second. I think that the removal of Hussein is what has enabled the current move towards renewed peace talks in Israel/Palestine - it showed the world that the USA was dead seriois about tackling regional issues seen as a threat to our country and allies.
Im very happy with the outcome and I think it was the right thing to do and a good opportunity to take for starting a process in solving larger regional issues.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Just consider that maybe, just maybe, Hussein really DID disarm.
Or try this possibility. As we have yet to find a dictatorial leader since the fall of Baghdad, Hussien did not exist at all. He was a affectation of Industrial Light and Magic under contract with the Bush junta and the CIA.
Sure are a lot of people that know the truth on this BBS.
Perhaps we should let all the chips fall before we see where they lay. Last I heard, 700+ sites, known of before the war have yet to be inspected. Lots of shells under which to hide a few peas.
-
Lol Holden. :)
Hey... I'm just saying it's a *possibility*. Because it is. More time needed? Absolutely. But there will come a time when this may wind up to be the only possible explanation. We'll see. I mean, because we really will see. And if you're ruling this out, already, then I guess you're prepared to accept anything even if that anything bears little resemblence to the truth. A common affliction.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Hortlund, do you accept my apology?
Of cource I do. And please accept mine too, and lets leave it behind us.
-
Weazel, Nash, et al. Please dont put words in my mouth.
I was talking about this nuclear material. Stored in Iraq..protected by a mighty IAEA-seal.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,934503,00.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0520-05.htm
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L19209307.htm
One of the sources stored at Tuwaitha is caesium 137, a highly radioactive powder that would be especially dangerous in a dirty bomb. In 1987, a canister of caesium powder found in a Brazil junkyard exposed 249 people to radiation, killing four.
Kinda weird that no one told us before the war that there was nuclear material in Iraq, allowed by the IAEA, dont you think?
-
Yes I found it hillarious how the UN secured nuclear materials in Iraq - just sealed of with some sort of super secret UN duct tape.... Very safe...
-
Grun - those are really interesting questions. I don't know the answer to them.
They require speculation though because there's simply no way you or I... or anyone besides Hussein himself can know why this man behaved like he did. Besides just guesses as to his motivation, there's no way to answer them.
So on the one hand you've got what may look to you like exculpatory evidence based on nothing more than speculation ("he must be hiding them because otherwise he wouldn't have done yada yada...")
And on the other hand you may have a situation where the WMD and related weapons programs just never.... ever.... turn up.
Lets say that happens. That WMD never turns up...
We've now got these two conflicting things. So the question is, will our foray into the mind of Hussein and the attendant "would he haves" and "why didn't he's" trump the simple absence of the material he's charged with having? No way.
Basically in a nutshell my friend I'm saying that yer questions are moot. :) It doesn't matter what the answers are. If WMD turns up in some warehouse next month, okay. If they never turn up, Hussein's behavior leading up to the invasion doesn't matter, and doesn't make him guilty of having something that isn't there.
-
"Weazel, Nash, et al. Please dont put words in my mouth." - Hortlund
Huh? You've lost me. Where?
-
It does give us cause to look for them and I dont belive that was possible with the insperctors setup and Saddams interfearence. According to UN resolutions and the cese fire agreement military force was always an option in case of non compliance - we elected to exercise that option in march after 12 years of giving Saddam more and more chances to come clean.
Find WMD or not, Saddams factual noncompliance is sufficient legal justifucaton for the war.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Which mobile labs Hort and Grun.... These?
"White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said the discovery last month of two tractor-trailers -- fitted for high tech laboratory work -- proved they could be used to produce illicit weapons for germ warfare. No such products were found in the trucks."
Here.
-
Oh I see.
Weazel *asked* if you were referring to the mobile labs... so he didn't put words into your mouth. I kinda did, because I just assumed he was right as by the time I got there Grun had picked up the ball and was running with it. And, I asked too, in a way. I take it the answer is an emphatic "no". :) Fair 'nuff and noted sir. My apologies.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Yes I found it hillarious how the UN secured nuclear materials in Iraq - just sealed of with some sort of super secret UN duct tape.... Very safe...
Recall that Blix believed that he would have more than the 3 months he was given. His team was concentrating on locating violations. Once they were located and inventoried they could come back later for disposal. If the inventory at the time of disposal did not match the count at the time of discovery they would know the Iraqis did something with the material.
But I agree, it was not the safest course of action. Disposal teams should have begun work immediately.
It does give us cause to look for them and I dont belive that was possible with the insperctors setup and Saddams interfearence. According to UN resolutions and the cese fire agreement military force was always an option in case of non compliance - we elected to exercise that option in march after 12 years of giving Saddam more and more chances to come clean.
Find WMD or not, Saddams factual noncompliance is sufficient legal justifucaton for the war.
Yes, military action was a UN alternative to Saddam's noncompliance with UN resolutions. However, the UN did not sanction using that alternative. Therefore, the US did not act in accordance with the UN resolutions when we invaded, we specifically violated 1441, and that alone made it an illegal action in the world community.
-
All you all that think we were dupped, can't have it both ways.
For you to be correct, Bush and Blair had to be part of a dastardly conspiracy to commit troops to battle based upon known false evidence, i.e. they knew there were no WMDs but said there were in order to get public support behind the war.
Okay, let's assume for the sake of argument that they did do that.
That obviously makes them dastardly but nevertheless skilled political operatives. Assume that you are right and that Bush and Blaid know how to manipulate public opinion with lies.
Given that, for the sake of argument, does it not also follow that if this huge conspiracy were to have been put into place, it would also include a plan to "plant" irrefutable evidence of WMDs. Obviously they know that whatever is found will be denied and they will be accused of "planting". But, just as obviously, they didn't plant anything that has been reported as a WMD, or, one presuumes it would have been "found" already.
So, for you guys to be right about our being duped, they were smart enough to orchestrate this grand bluff in front of the whole world, but were too dumb to complete the charade with irrefutable evidence.
I just don't buy it. Sorry.
I surely don't know about the WMD stuff, but, given the heisenberg uncertainty principal, that, all things being equal, the simplest solution is usualy the correct one, I am much more inclined to believe that the WMDs that were there, (even Clinton said they were there in 1998) were shipped off to Syira or Lebanon where to Oil-for-food money was used to bribe people to safeguard the WMDs.
I suspect that time will tell.
Thanks for reading!
:D :D :D
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
Yes, military action was a UN alternative to Saddam's noncompliance with UN resolutions. However, the UN did not sanction using that alternative. Therefore, the US did not act in accordance with the UN resolutions when we invaded, we specifically violated 1441, and that alone made it an illegal action in the world community.
I am sorry but I I don't know where in resolution 1441 there is a requirement that enforcement of 1441 by military action must have been further "sanctioned" by the UN. Is it not the case that a resolution carries with it an implied threat of punishment if it is not followed. Doesn't 1441 clearly state that "serious consequences" would result for Iraq's failure to comply. But, I just looked again and I can't find where it said thart further UN sanction was required before the "serious consequences" were put into effect. Perhpas there is some UN rule that requires this?
Perhaps You can enlighten me?
-
I want GW held accountable just like any other US President, Republican or Democrat. If it's found he intentionally decieved the American public, then I would support his impeachment.
Having said that, those of you who think Saddam had no WMD's prior or during our dance in the UN are dishonest.
The truth of the matter is you simply don't like Bush...you don't like how he became president and like a grade school child, you rant and whine about all he does or ignore any positives which are good for the US and the World as a whole as a direct result of his actions.
Oh....and for my friends outside the US borders....get used to not having your arse kissed like Clinton was so fond of doing for you....the fact that you dislike Bush and his actions matters not in the least to me....the fact that you vent your crap on a US owned and operated BBS is ironic.
I'de cancel all of your whiney hineys accounts and let you bash the US and her President on foreign BBS....as to my American counterparts like Weazel, let her rip...you've earned the right to speak your mind and frankly although I disagree, I respect the effort.
So there!
-
Originally posted by GScholz
No that's not what he's saying, and I'm surprised you don't see that. He's saying no first-term US President would order an attack on a country that could cause a high number of US casualties because it would be political suicide. His conclusion is that the Bush administration would not have ordered the invasion of Iraq unless they knew Iraq was a non-threat, in contradiction to what they told the world.
Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! Show us what he's won, Marty..... ;)
-
think the "war" has any bearing on the Road to Peace btwn the Pals and Israelies?
think the "war" has any bearing on NK and Iran's future course of action?
If some needed an "excuse" to kick his crazy ass, they got it - I didn't. Let's roll on to the other Axis', what are we waiting for???
wtg GWB!
-
Syzy, you assume that this requires some giant "conspiracy." In fact, it's just business as usual (for both parties), perhaps carried a bit farther and based on some false assumptions in this case. In fact, none of these current accusations were secrets until now -- they were just underreported by career beltway journalists (don't want to ask the tough, unpopular questions and lose access to high ranking figures or face a career threatening public backlash for not being “patriotic”) and unopposed by cowardly Democratic legislators. The Washington Post, Frontline and Helen Thomas reported on this well before the war started but they were about the only ones.
I'm not a beltway insider, but I do regularly deal with national policy issues as a journalist covering the petroleum field. I regularly deal with lobbyists, congressional staffers and Washington agency officials (primarily EPA, DOE, EIA and in the past FEMA) and sadly this is just business as usual. For example, do you think that ethanol is being mandated in gasoline to provide "clean air" or "reduce the dependence on foreign oil?" Guess again. In fact, most people probably don't know that each gallon of ethanol used in gasoline takes $.55 out of our highway funds in the form of a subsidy to make it economical in the first place. Ethanol is good for ADM, good for farmers (at least until biomass comes on line, then they might be surprised) and good for "corn belt" senators who cannot force such legislation through, but who can block other legislation to leverage their way on this and similar issues. Even "big oil" supports this (and ethanol is a squeak work with) as a compromise related to other pork barrel legislation that favors the industry.
A similar situation exists with ANWR drilling and large portions of the current energy policy legislation, and many other less public issues. The same held true in other public issues I've encountered related to other industries during the past decade.
I have also worked in public relations for an international trade association. For those of you unfamiliar with marketing, public relations, advertising and propaganda there are books filled with case studies on media campaigns where the audience was "sold" an issue. Entire college curriculums up to the graduate level teach people how to do this. It's as American as apple pie and Chevrolet. It's universal. And if you have any skills or experience in the field, it's obvious when you see it in action. It’s actually amusing to watch the message development and the media campaign. I laughed when Bush went off-message at his last press conference before the war and said “Al Queada-like organization” referring to that group operating in Kurdish territority (he really is bad at this type of stuff). I cringed in the same[?] speech when he put “Do not destroy the oil fields” first on his list of warnings to Iraqi field commanders (above using WMD against the troops, for example) -- the speechwriter should have got his bellybutton kicked for that basic mistake.
Even though we were technically justified to undertake this action, it was never about (except in a broad metaphorical sense):
1. Al Queada. However, 40 percent of New Yorkers believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. Talk about case studies, this is a glowing success.
2. WMD. Frankly, it's surprising he doesn't have any, but his WMD threat was always a regional threat particularly given the dynamics of his secular regime.
3. Liberating the Iraqi people. A nice fall back when 1 and 2 either failed to gain traction or failed to materialize.
It's about a modern bunch of McNamaras finally getting a golden opportunity to move think tank concepts into the real world to "reshape" the Middle East, and, interwoven, securing and leveraging Iraq's oil against a shaky Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately, as PR 101 tells us (remember that Goering quote posted previously on the BBS - disturbing but totally accurate), these issues are too complex, esoteric and less emotionally appealing to the general public than pushing emotions like revenge and fear. It's not a mystery, and not a surprise. But it is disgusting that it is used when our soldiers’ lives are on the line. That’s why I left PR for the high paying :) field of journalism.
Charon
-
Originally posted by OIO
Iraq was a nation led by dictator openly hostile to the US which had developed AND USED chemical weapons, very surely had some bio's in stock (they are easier to make than chem's) and was dang well on the road to develop nuclear weapons. So:
Facts please.
Used?
When, where, against whom?
Against Islamic Republic of Iran? Sponsored by United States of North America?
Facts, please. No "everyone knows" bullsh|t please. Leave that to mr. Radio Toad.
And no "human rights" crap too, please. That "HR" freaks are fed by CIA.
-
Originally posted by Charon
Syzy, you assume that this requires some giant "conspiracy." In fact, it's just business as usual (for both parties), perhaps carried a bit farther and based on some false assumptions in this case. In fact, none of these current accusations were secrets until now -- they were just underreported by career beltway journalists (don't want to ask the tough, unpopular questions and lose access to high ranking figures or face a career threatening public backlash for not being “patriotic”) and unopposed by cowardly Democratic legislators. The Washington Post, Frontline and Helen Thomas reported on this well before the war started but they were about the only ones.
Charon
Cahron:
You make salient points but they still don't answer my question which was posed to those who suggest that we were intentionally duped. It sure seems like if the administration was "smart enough", not just in the U.S. but the the U.K. too, to dupe the populace, especially in light of the Post, Frontline, and Helen Thomas pressure on the WMD issues as well as the considerable opoisition to the war in the UK and worldwide, then why weren't they "smart enough" to "plant" irrefutable evidence.
Also, these are the same people who said it could take the inspectors months, and even more than a year to find WMD violations, so why are they screaming now, only less than 8 weeks after the fall of Bahgdad, that there are obviosuly no WMDs to be found and this administration just lied to pump up support for the war. The logic escapes me.
I don't suggest that I know the answers but that type on intellectually dishonesty is bothersome, don't you think?
:D
-
Originally posted by Syzygyone
I am sorry but I I don't know where in resolution 1441 there is a requirement that enforcement of 1441 by military action must have been further "sanctioned" by the UN. Is it not the case that a resolution carries with it an implied threat of punishment if it is not followed. Doesn't 1441 clearly state that "serious consequences" would result for Iraq's failure to comply. But, I just looked again and I can't find where it said thart further UN sanction was required before the "serious consequences" were put into effect. Perhpas there is some UN rule that requires this?
Perhaps You can enlighten me?
The relevant paragraphs are (highlights are mine):
4. DECIDES that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the council for assessment in accordance with paragraph 11 AND 12 below;
11. DIRECTS the executive chairman of UNMOVIC and the director-general of the IAEA to report immediately to the council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;
12. DECIDES to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;
13. RECALLS, in that context, that the council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
Clearly the intent as highlighted in paragraph 4 and 12 indicates that the UN would meet to consider what action was to be taken should Iraq be found to be in noncompliance. The US acted without the UN's consideration as specified in paragraph 11 nor was there a recommendation from the UN to use force to ensure compliance.
UN1441 is written as a legal document, and as any attorney will tell you, lack of specificity in paragraph 13 relating to "serious consequences" does not immediately equate to the use of military force.
By agreeing to use the UN as an agent for monitoring and punishing Iraq (ie the policing agent), the US agreed that the UN was the appropriate authority to deal with Iraq. Acting on a UN resolution without having been given UN authority to do so makes our action without UN legal basis and therefore illegal in the eyes of the UN. The US acted in much the same way a vigilantly would...they suspected wrong-doing (and maybe even had some evidence to support that position) however by acting without UN authority (the agreed policing agent) our actions can be construed as criminal.
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
The relevant paragraphs are (highlights are mine):
delted to save space
Thanks for the insight Crow, I appreciate not only the info but the manner of presentation. Now though, I would respectfully suggest that your interpretation, albeit very logically presented, is not the only possible logical interpretation of those and other UN resolutions and that many minds, all quantum levels greater than mine, have considered your interpretation, as well as other relevant international law, and found coaltion actions to be legally defensible. It is a question for the ages I think, and one that will be the subject of international law study for decades to come.
But, without belabouring that issue, let me pose two other related and sequiturial questions:
a) If this was a matter of interpretation, who or what entity is to be the judge of the "proper intepretaion" The World Court? The U.N. GA and/or the SC, neither of which are legal institutions?
b) Now that the UN SC has approved UN Resolution 1483, 14-0 with Syria missing the vote, does that somehow provide an ex post facto UN approval of the use of military force? The UN has never before, given the winning military coaltion countries the right to control what goes on after the combat is over.
Mind you, I'm not trying to be testy here. Just very curious
-
Originally posted by Syzygyone
Now though, I would respectfully suggest that your interpretation, albeit very logically presented, is not the only possible logical interpretation of those and other UN resolutions and that many minds, all quantum levels greater than mine, have considered your interpretation, as well as other relevant international law, and found coaltion actions to be legally defensible. It is a question for the ages I think, and one that will be the subject of international law study for decades to come.
Agreed...it is a question that will never have a final determination. And no doubt there are other opinions and interpretations...the purpose of legal advocates is to find relevant justification for a party's actions. I do believe that it would be damned hard for anyone to successfully argue that paragraph 13 has sufficient specificity to indicate invasion. The folks in the UN who crafted that language knew that it's lack of specificity would leave the question of the type of punitive response open for a later decision.
a) If this was a matter of interpretation, who or what entity is to be the judge of the "proper intepretaion" The World Court? The U.N. GA and/or the SC, neither of which are legal institutions?[/B]
I don't believe there is an entity that would be able to hear legal advocates present their interpretations.
Ideally, this kind of action would be handled by the UN/SC. Consider a scenario where if instead of the US invading Iraq, Iran had invaded using the same arguments that the US used. Would the UN/SC have stepped in to the situation? Probably. Iraq thought it had a perfectly good reason for invading Kuwait (they were stealing Iraqi oil) and they believed they had tacit US approval. However, we know what the UN's reaction was to that aggression.
The only reason there will be no action or sanction against the US is because we sit on the UN/SC.
And this also causes a huge problem for the UN. If it is to function, all who agree to utilize it must also agree to abide by its decisions or face sanction. Without that enforcement tool, there is no incentive for any member to hold their ambitions in check. As we have seen, India has already asked why it should not follow the US precedent and invade Pakistan.
b) Now that the UN SC has approved UN Resolution 1483, 14-0 with Syria missing the vote, does that somehow provide an ex post facto UN approval of the use of military force? The UN has never before, given the winning military coaltion countries the right to control what goes on after the combat is over.
Is it ex post facto approval or simply capitulation to the real politik of the situation? Bush made it clear when he stated that the UN will have to decide if it wants to be a relevant player in world politics. Bush demonstrated that the UN can capitulate to the US or the US will do what it wants anyway. It appears that the only way the UN can hope to be a relevant player in the future is to do what the US wants now.
Personally, I think the UN is toast as a world player. It has lost it's appearance of independence and it has lost any credibility that its members would abide by it's determinations achieved by concensus. That is somewhat too bad, as it did have some useful aspects as world arbiter.
-
Oops, Wrong door, sorry.
Smells like sh*t in here, has GRUN been postin?
-
Syzy, I would agree that the administration naturally assumed there would be WMD in Iraq. I'm personally surprised they haven't been found.
I would disagree with Dead that heavy casualties would be overly detrimental, in that Hussein's use of WMD would ultimately justify the invasion and any losses endured. This is particularly true given the percentage of the American population that would actually, personally lose a loved one. Also, there has been a focus on NBC training in the military for 50 years now. It is likely that an Iraqi use of chemical weapons would not be looked upon as a major impediment, and (as it played out) it wasn’t anticipated that there would be bloody streets in Baghdad.
IMO, the neocons felt that their philosophy would straighten out the Middle East through a carrot and stick approach from Iran to the West Bank. The end would ultimately justify the means, even if the American public was not quite ready to share in their grand (but highly complicated and theoretical) vision. Once a few WMD were found you would only see increased support for a successful “kick bellybutton and take names” administration. Perhaps they just didn’t do enough due diligence when they developed the second selling point - WMD - and are running a bit scared now because they are not finding any and the fact that Iraq is starting to look like the post war mess a lot of people thought it might but that the neocons generally dismissed.
The key in public relations is to not lie outright, but to shift the facts to support your position. And yes, both Democrats and Republicans do this as a part of daily life. I see it much like the adversarial relationship at a trial (hopefully without looking too ignorant to an expert), only with even more gray area where the truth is concerned. You can’t cross the line, but you can go right up to it and even shift it a bit. The goal is to win, and it helps that the other side usually has a self-serving reason for opposing your policy (that won’t play well with the public either) plus the need to operate in the Washington political environment after any single issue is resolved. The Washington media will generally play along until you FU, then there’s blood in the water.
Developing the message is a case of identifying the key issues (a laundry list), running focus groups and polls, determining which ones generate the most traction (typically ones that are simple and emotional) and concentrating on those messages exclusively. That’s why you saw such distinct shifts in the message. When Al Queada fell flat, they had to move on almost exclusively to WMD and so forth (or you start confusing people too much). The spokespersons (from Ari to Bush to Rumsfeld to Powell) then stick on message and repetitively reinforce the message every time they are in a quotable situation.
Is it possible that the current administration really believed that Saddam had WMD. Yes, in fact probable. Is it possible that these weapons would find their way into the hands of Muslim fundamentalist terrorists for an attack on the US? Sure, but that is speculation. It is that gray are where you can mislead and generate opinion without actually lying about it. You could argue that it is unlikely, particularly compared to several other countries in the region with far stronger ties to Muslim fundamentalism. But, again, it is in the realm of possibility. Is it likely that the whole WMD thing was a selling point with some potential validity, but that it was by no means the reason we actually went to war -- IMO, yes. Where this is getting dicey for the administration is that an assumption that was the cornerstone for a second tier (or more likely third of fourth tier) issue might have been false. If this is the case then they will have, even if uninetentionally, crossed the line. To me, it stinks regardless but unfortunately that is how the game is played.
Sorry if it reads like a lecture, but it always amazes me how many people (not referring to any particular individuals on the bbs BTW - in general) just don’t understand how this all works. I think "How marketing works" should be taught in Jr. High School about the time kids learn the Constitution, since marketing (from the Saturday morning cartoons to the next election) is as big a facet of life in America as democracy.
BTW, it is interesting to see Ari stepping down all of a sudden. While not too unusual, the timing is interesting. The last thing a PR person want’s to happen, career wise is to lose credibility, to intentionally, or even by being mislead, cross that line. You could speculate that past or potential future events have made him uncomfortable speaking for the administration. Or he could just want to move on for personal reasons.
Charon
-
Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,970331,00.html)
George Wright
Wednesday June 4, 2003
Oil was the main reason for military action against Iraq, a leading White House hawk has claimed, confirming the worst fears of those opposed to the US-led war.
The US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz - who has already undermined Tony Blair's position over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by describing them as a "bureaucratic" excuse for war - has now gone further by claiming the real motive was that Iraq is "swimming" in oil.
The latest comments were made by Mr Wolfowitz in an address to delegates at an Asian security summit in Singapore at the weekend, and reported today by German newspapers Der Tagesspiegel and Die Welt.
Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defence minister said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."
Mr Wolfowitz is beginning to look like the Bush juntas worst enemy.
-
Again you make many good points and your explanation is certainly more palatable than most I've heard that characterize the WMD issue as bogus justification.
But, that sort of makes my point too. It's not logical for WMD to have been intentionally lied about without there having been a failsafe method of "proving" the lie. The politicos in any administration would have seen that necessity. Thus, I'm left with the result that the administration leadership genuinely believed the intel they had that there was WMD. Thus, I come to the conclusion that what needs to be scrubbed clean is the IC. The Pentagon intel officer today vehemently denied that the IC was "directed" to find what the admin wanted found. Most people in the IC that I know think that concept is laughable. You just can't support fabrication. Too many people looking to see if you are right in your assessment.
And the basis for the WMD assertions was a NIE, from all the IC players. So, did this administration pick and choose from the NIE only that which would support its position that a preemptive invasion was necessary. That seems to be the thrust of your last post and I don't find that implausible. But, what I do find implausible is that they wouldn't have covered their bases better if they'd known they were "stretching" the truth.
As cynical as I am, I still don't ascribe the venal motivations to this, or any administration, as do most opponents of whatever administration is in power at the time. 99% of the time, it's just people trying to do some really tough jobs with eqipment and information provided via the lowest bidder system.
But, I wax philosophic. To get back on point, even if things are as you say they are, and the truth was "stretched" to fit the perceived need for support, I still suggest that those doing the"stretching" are smart folk, from many walks of life who would certainly have seen a need to have proof. That they didn't supply the "proof" speaks volumes, I think.
:D
-
Originally posted by weazel
Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,970331,00.html)
George Wright
Wednesday June 4, 2003
The quote was twisted and taken out of context big time. Don't let a rag like the Guardian do your thinking for you. Look up the transcript of his remarks for yourself.
-
But, I wax philosophic. To get back on point, even if things are as you say they are, and the truth was "stretched" to fit the perceived need for support, I still suggest that those doing the"stretching" are smart folk, from many walks of life who would certainly have seen a need to have proof. That they didn't supply the "proof" speaks volumes, I think.
One would hope. But smart folk screw up from time to time. Enron and WorldCom were led by smart folk. Martha Stewart was smart driven and successful, but she blew it all for $200,000. I think a lot would depend on the internal culture at the White House, the influence of the neocons and the checks and balances within the cabinet. And, again, there may very well be WMD. It's just that they may not have been the reason the war was undertaken given the long standing and documented positions of the senior advisors to the president as outlined in the Project for the New American Century. That's not to say they though they were acting in the worst interests of the American people, just that to achieve the best interests for America and a major partner in the region, they had to pick messages that would sell. Maybe GWB trusted his advisors too much? Only time will tell at this point.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Charon
One would hope. But smart folk screw up from time to time. Enron and WorldCom were led by smart folk. Martha Stewart was smart driven and successful, but she blew it all for $200,000. I think a lot would depend on the internal culture at the White House, the influence of the neocons and the checks and balances within the cabinet. And, again, there may very well be WMD. It's just that they may not have been the reason the war was undertaken given the long standing and documented positions of the senior advisors to the president as outlined in the Project for the New American Century. That's not to say they though they were acting in the worst interests of the American people, just that to achieve the best interests for America and a major partner in the region, they had to pick messages that would sell. Maybe GWB trusted his advisors too much? Only time will tell at this point.
Charon
Spekaing of smart people, the PNAC and doing dumb things:
Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil
George Wright
Wednesday June 4, 2003
Oil was the main reason for military action against Iraq, a leading White House hawk has claimed, confirming the worst fears of those opposed to the US-led war.
The US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz - who has already undermined Tony Blair's position over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by describing them as a "bureaucratic" excuse for war - has now gone further by claiming the real motive was that Iraq is "swimming" in oil.
The latest comments were made by Mr Wolfowitz in an address to delegates at an Asian security summit in Singapore at the weekend, and reported today by German newspapers Der Tagesspiegel and Die Welt.
Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defence minister said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."
I don't for a second suggest that we take at face value a "quote" taken by a German papers and then requoted a UK paper, but, me thinks that Mr. Wolfowitz needs to take a course in public speaking. If as has been suggested, that his meaning is taken out of context and twisted to it's most nefarious possible interpretation, he needs to choose his words much more carefully. His comments iin Vanity Fair and now this are, in large part, the impetus behind these bogus WMD justification diatribes.
-
Ahh yes and we get back to the idiotic "No war for oil" argument...
If we just wanted access to Iraqi oil all we had to do was drop the sanctions and sammam would seel it to us and even if he didnt want to sell it to us directly there is no way he could stop us from getting access to it on the open market and of ciurse no way he could stop us from enjoyoing the lower worldwide oil prices caused by an increase in supply of oil. Of course the counter to this is that we are now "stealing" the oil and that is why we invaded... Laughable garbage!
-
LOL. It's mind boggling Syzyg. Hard to explain except perhaps he's a bit too full of himself right now. As you point out you don't even let yourself get close to that kind of misquote.
As an aside, I left PR when I got so politically correct and self editing that I would, without thinking, refer to the girl I was dating as "the person I'm dating" :) And, use "can," "might," "may." "potentially," etc. even when the subject was clear and straightforward. I really started to miss declarative sentences.
Charon
-
Actully Grun, what you describe (dropping the sanctions) was a political impossibility for both Republicans and Democrats given the history of our relations with Iraq since 1991.
As far as oil is concerned, the real money is in exploration, development and production, which requires a partnership with the country's national oil company or an open, deregulated market. Neither were viable under Saddam Hussein. Whether it was about oil or not, you argument doesn't impact the issue.
Charon
-
Originally posted by john9001
yes, and the mobile weapons labs they found hidden the desert were really baby food factories.
Oh you mean those canvas sided mobile biochem labs....
mmmmhmmm
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Ahh yes and we get back to the idiotic "No war for oil" argument...
Not the argument as that implies it was to do with possession. It's not about possession, it's about control. I don't think it's anything to be embarassed about. Oil is very important to all our lives, and lack of any input into how the (possibly very large) oil reserves in iraq are exploited, would be a very serious thing indeed.
I merely wish that this had been clearly announced at the start of proceedings, instead of trying to use the UN, an organisation committed to the aim of ending conflict, to endorse a war fought for economic security.
By doing so, the public at large would have been more reliably informed of the thinking behind the conflict, and might then be in a better position to make informed choices about their position on the matter.
A war about oil would be more accurate. Or even a war to liberate oil.
Look, if Iraq's main export was dates, then this would never have happened.
Screw the WMD capability, laughably small as it was in comparison to others, that was simply a tangible threat that could be talked up into precisely the right vehicle for winning support from other nations. or not, as was the case.
The alternative, of saying "it's about oil and our long term economic security, which we believe will be enhanced by free market access to the iraqi oil reserves" was rightly deemed to be a less palatable message, and more likely to provoke protest at all levels of society.
-
You mean this war that was apparently opposed by millions worldwide and by amny in the UN was politically easier than dropping sanctions which so many people have been calling for in the past decade?
I dont think so. The warv was the right thing thing to do in light of saddams intransigence and it was also the difficult thing to do in light of various UNSC member states' duplicity...
As for control vs ownership of oil. First of all the iraqi people will own their oil and they will keep oil proceeds to rebuild Iraq. In fact it was the French and russians who oposed this war because their oil comapnies wer granted outrageusly fvaorable oil contracts by the saddam Government, terms so fvaorable that no free government could ever match them. So there lies your entire control and ownership arguemt. We did not go into Iraq to control, steal, or own their oil - we went in for reeasons generaly relevant to US national security and our views on the requirement of removing a threatening Saddam in intersets of regional stablity.
The no war for oil argument is weak in general but a reliable cop out for ignorant Bush haters due to his proffesional background. Lets not forget that many of the same culprits even called the post 911 assault on the Taliban and AlQaeda a war for oil - based on some specious argument about caspian sea oil pipes and what not. Some even went so far to suggest Bush was lying that AlQeada was responsible just so he could go in and attack afghanistan and yes somehow mysteriously steal some oil.
So if people were calling the Afgahnistan war a war for oil, and the cause of the war a lie, I'm not surprised many of the same folks would think the same about Iraq.
People in the international community dont seem to like Republican Presidents, they hated reagan even as he was bankrupting the Soviet Union and challenging Gorbacov for reforms. They seem to have a special hate for Bush beacous IMHO he is not as slick and smooth like they got used to with clinton - clinton sure is a better spaeaker and comes accros as much more sophistiacted and nuanced- Europeans in particular seemed to like that in him. But Bush is different, he is plain spoken and principaled, he has his views and IMHO his advisors are a reminder to Europe of their cold war depenadance on the USA and of course that rubs them the wrong way. So again its easy for europe to be hostile to Bush and subscribe to the wildest theories about him.
Also too many of you make too big a distnicion between opposition to the iraq war and oposition to the afghan war. If you look at them closely you will see the protest and activism organizers against both wars are the same people. In fact I recently read that in interntional "peace" circles the planning for anti-War anti-USA protests began only days after 911 itself in anticipation of ANY american response whatsover. This predetrrimed response clearly implies that a base anti-Americanism is at the heart of these reactions.
-
So if people were calling the Afgahnistan war a war for oil, and the cause of the war a lie, I'm not surprised many of the same folks would think the same about Iraq.
Ahhh but theres no oil in afghanistan quite like there is in Iraq...and the argument there was so crystal clear...
Anyone would even try to link the arguments for and against the two conflicts is a fool.
People in the international community dont seem to like Republican Presidents,
Bush #1 did ok when it came to Gulf War #1, Bush #2 did ok when it came to Afghanistan
Also too many of you make too big a distnicion between opposition to the iraq war and oposition to the afghan war. If you look at them closely you will see the protest and activism organizers against both wars are the same people. In fact I recently read that in interntional "peace" circles the planning for anti-War anti-USA protests began only days after 911 itself in anticipation of ANY american response whatsover. This predetrrimed response clearly implies that a base anti-Americanism is at the heart of these reactions.
The anti-war movement for Afghanistan (if there was any), was light years in difference to the anti war movement for Iraq
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
Ahhh but theres no oil in afghanistan like in Iraq...and the argument there was so crystal clear...
Bush #1 did ok when it came to Gulf War #1
The anti-war movement for Afghanistan (if there was any), was light years in difference to the anti war movement for Iraq
Tronsky
No No not in Afhagnistn - but we attacked afghanistan so halliburton could build caspian sea oil piplines, that was the argument. So even with the claear post 911 argument the were many people suggesting AlQaaeda was not the real reason we attacked afganistan.
And you bet there was a significant anti-war movement wrt Afganistan - it's interseting how quickly people forget that. And the SAME workers/socialist/communist/anti-globalization/anti-USA groups who organized and funded the Afghan war protests did the same for Iraq.
As for the presidents thing thats an overall average, they seem to like democratic presidents more than republicans.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
No No not in Afhagnistn - but we attacked afghanistan so halliburton could build caspian sea oil piplines, that was the argument. So even with the claear post 911 argument the were many people suggesting AlQaaeda was not the real reason we attacked afganistan.
And you bet there was a significant anti-war movement wrt Afganistan - it's interseting how quickly people forget that. And the SAME workers/socialist/communist/anti-globalization/anti-USA groups who organized and funded the Afghan war protests did the same for Iraq.
As for the presidents thing thats an overall average, they seem to like democratic presidents more than republicans.
I would dispute the anti-war movement for Afghanistan was anything more than just token, especially when measured against the tone, numbers, and makeup of the Iraqi anti-war movement.
The international support of the Afghanistan conflict would seem to make any other motives laughable.
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
People in the international community dont seem to like Republican Presidents
I agree with Tronsky...this statement is a bit broad. I think Bush, Sr. was respected by the international community. Nixon also as he started the arms reduction negotiations with the USSR and he penetrated the bamboo curtain by going to China. Going back one more, I would wager that Eisenhower was very well liked by the European community.
The international community seems to care more about actions than any US party affiliations.
-
But there were many people seriously suggesting it - as laughable as it is. And those are the same people who were oraginizing the iraq war protests.
Sure the afghan war protests weresmaller but they had far far less time to organize and then the iraq war protests were built on theat infrastructure - you see they started planning and protesting literally right after 911 even before the USA attacked which was less than a month after 911. Still there were 100s of thousands protesting worldwide. So its easy to see how they transfered that mass propaganda machine infrastructure to build even larger protests a full year later for iraq. Follow the money, its all the same people funding these mass coordinated ralleys. And that takes a lot of centralized planning and coordination, they arent just good decent people out expressing their views - its an organized propaganda campaign.
Thankfully it was all a dismal failiure and the people of Iraq are now free from the tyrrany of saddam and the mideast pecae process is moving forward as everyone in the region now has aclearer idea that the USA is dead serious about the issues.
-
Originally posted by Charon
I would disagree with Dead that heavy casualties would be overly detrimental, in that Hussein's use of WMD would ultimately justify the invasion and any losses endured. This is particularly true given the percentage of the American population that would actually, personally lose a loved one. Also, there has been a focus on NBC training in the military for 50 years now. It is likely that an Iraqi use of chemical weapons would not be looked upon as a major impediment, and (as it played out) it wasn’t anticipated that there would be bloody streets in Baghdad.
Sure, a "now you've done it, let's get 'em boys" bounce back is a distinct possibility - but would you be prepared to bet your dream job on it? Public opinion would certainly be behind the troops, especially, as you rightly point out, in a comparatively militaristic society. There'd be flags, yellow ribbons, benefit concerts and telethons all over the place. But the question that would concern the president is: would public opinion be behind the guy that got them into the mess? Would they vote for the guy that got one of their relatives gassed/infected/irradiated? Would the Republican party take the risk? Had Hussein attacked first, no problem. However this invasion had no "Pearl Harbour" as provocation, it didn't even have a dodgy "Tonkin Gulf". The public might well back him, but it might just be to the end of his term and no further. I still reckon it's not the sort of odds that you'd want to stake your dream job on.
-
Dead it was the right thing to do in this case saddam had plenty of chances and plenty of time to show us that he was disarmed and he did not. Combine that legal reason for the attack with the reality that he was openly financing suicide bombers in Isral and thus adding incentive to extending the crisis and so raising regional instability it makes a good case for the USA to attack out of our own and our allies national intersets. Moreover the French position to outright veto ANY UNSC use of force proclamaion in support of 1441 noncompliance measures made it impossible to go the UN route. This was nothiong unusual as the USA and allies have acted independently of the UN before, most notably in Kosovo to IMHO great success and stopped another developing miliosevic genocide before. In other words we looked into his past behavior saw current developents and decided not to wait for another Bosnian genocide scale outrage to provide evidence that nobody could challenge. Remember the russians were very very oppoosed to the Kosovo attack - the serbs and russians are very close historically.
And IMHO the USA undertook a similar analysis of the Iraq situation, we were unwilling to risk saddam betraying us again and starting more trouble. On the appeals of Colin Powell the govt dcided to try the UN route and got the stronly worded unanimous 1441 resolution demanding iraq come clean or else military force would be used. They did not, they violated 1441 disclore provisions and again showed they could not be trusted. In the mean time france started her games about not allowing ANY use of force. This appeasemt weakness only emboldenned Saddam and he resite further and thus we had the war.
Saddam is gone, the iraqis are free, the checks to suicide bombers arte stopped, the wmd program is over, the UN bs is over and as usaual America is leading the charge in doing the rigth things and the difficult things as europeran intellectual elites do the chatting andpointless nuanced moralising about the virtues of saddam.
-
The Boeing airliners flying into the WTC changed it all for me.
Afganistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria and then Saudi Arabia if it were up to me. If Europe, China and Russia want to take sides against us then let it all hang out in the open so we can get down to the bottom deal and either end the show for everyone or get the problem fixed once and for all. Dont like it? Too Golly-geened bad. Afraid? You had better be.
:)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I got this e-mail from Janes Security News Briefs:
Next US target: Tehran
.........
This doesn't look good (although I'm sure it does for some of you).
I wonder what excuse will be used this time.
It could be to keep Russia from getting a warm water port.
Yeah, It could be that!
:D
-
I dont think we will attack Iran and I dont think we should, its not Iraq and should be handled differently.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I got this e-mail from Janes Security News Briefs:
>>>>
Next US target: Tehran
Tension is rising between the USA and Iran. The stalemate that existed since President Bush branded the Islamic Republic part of the 'axis of evil' is moving slowly, but surely towards a major crisis and influential hawks in Washington are intensifying their call for regime change in Iran. JID's regional correspondent examines the prospects for another conflict in the Gulf.
<<<<
This doesn't look good (although I'm sure it does for some of you).
I wonder what excuse will be used this time.
Second time around is always a charm, maybe they learned from '53.
Reminds me of a story about a town that was infested by mice. The town's people bring in cats to chase the mice away and then dogs to chase the cats aways and so on, unitl they come to elephants.
Finally, they have to bring the mice back to scare off the elephants.
And the wheel goes round and round and round....