Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Udie on September 17, 2003, 04:06:15 PM
-
http://globalspecops.com/view.html
PREFACE
Last Wednesday night, I attended a lecture by Judge Don Walters,
a federal judge from Shreveport, LA., who was asked to serve as
part of a 12 man team in Iraq to evaluate their justice system.
It was most interesting, and afterwards, I asked if he had a
book or a recording of any of his lectures. Since he did not,
he was generous enough to give me his notes from the evening.
For those of you interested, I will give you a slightly abridged
version of his lecture which I found difficult to cut down due to
its wealth of information.
THE LECTURE:
I really am not into public speaking as I am sure you are about
to find out. But my adventures in Iraq taught me something that
I would very much like to share with you. I have been fortunate
over the past 5 or 6 years to get to such exotic places as Bosnia,
Jakarta, Indonesia, and Morocco. But, Iraq is my swan song. First,
I am too old for such adventures, and second, Charlotte (my wife)
won't let me. In mid-April, I got a call from DoJ asking if I
would be willing to go to Iraq for up to 3 months to evaluate the
justice system and make recommendations. When I went home,
Charlotte said without a pause, "how could I possibly tell you, no?"
Let me begin with a disclaimer, I was in Iraq for fewer than 40 days,
I was in Baghdad for a little over three weeks and in the three
provinces of the far south for two weeks. I am limited in what I saw
and heard. Needless to say, the opinions are my own. I want to make
it clear that, initially, I vehemently opposed the war.
The team of 12 that went to Iraq was to access the judiciary and to
make recommendations for the future. We were sent too soon and without
sufficient planning and forethought. Accordingly we were forced to
play our part by ear. Ultimately, we were successful. No thanks to
the civil authorities in Washington or Iraq.
We were divided into 4 teams. We were the southern team: Mike Farhang,
an AUSA from Los Angeles, Harvard Summa Undergraduate, Harvard Law
Review, Linguist, 5 languages including Arabic; Rich Coughlin, Federal
Public Defender from New Jersey, who abandoned his wife and 23 month
old daughter to volunteer for this; and me. We were accompanied by an
interpreter and protected by what I called our "minders," four Iraqis
well-armed with 9mm hand guns and AK47's.
During the first two weeks, we talked to a few hundred Iraqis and
interviewed about 60 judges. Our help came from our Danish colleagues
and the First Armored Division (UK), not from the civil authorities -
OPCA, Office of the Provisional Coalition Authority,
(formerly ORHA), Ambassador Brenner's group.
Despite my initial opposition to the war, I am now convinced, whether
we find any weapons of mass destruction or prove Saddam sheltered and
financed terrorists, absolutely, we should have overthrown the Baathists,
indeed, we should have done it sooner.
What changed my mind?
When we left mid June, 57 mass graves had been found, one with the bodies
of 1200 children. There have been credible reports of murder, brutality
and torture of hundreds of thousands of ordinary Iraqi citizens. There is
poverty on a monumental scale and fear on a larger one. That fear is
still palpable.
I have seen the machines and places of torture. I will tell you one story
told to me by the Chief of Pediatrics at the Medical College in Basra. It
was one of the most shocking to me, but I heard worse. One of Saddam's
security agents was sent to question a Shiite in his home. The
interrogation took place in the living room in the presence of the man's
wife, who held their three month old child. A question was asked and the
thug did not like the answer; he asked it again, same answer. He grabbed
the baby from its mother and plucked its eye out. And then repeated his
question. Worse things happened with the knowledge, indeed with the
participation, of Saddam, his family and the Baathist regime.
Thousands suffered while we were messing about with France and Russia and
Germany and the UN. Every one of them knew what was going on there, but
France and the UN were making millions administering the food for oil
program. We cannot, I know, remake the world, nor do I believe we should.
We cannot stamp out evil, I know. But this time we were morally right
and our economic and strategic interests were involved. I submit that just
because we can't do everything doesn't mean that we should do nothing.
We must have the moral courage to see this through, to do whatever it
takes to secure responsible government for the Iraqi people. Having
decided to topple Saddam, we cannot abandon those who trust us. I fear we
will quit as the horrors of war come into our living rooms. Look at the
stories you are getting from the media today. The steady drip, drip, drip
of bad news may destroy our will to fulfill the obligations we have assumed.
WE ARE NOT GETTING THE WHOLE TRUTH FROM THE NEWS MEDIA. The news you watch,
listen to and read is highly selective. Good news doesn't sell. 90% of the
damage you see on tv was caused by Iraqis, not by US. All the damage you
see to schools, hospitals, power generation facilities, refineries,
pipelines and water supplies, as well as shops, museums, and semi-public
buildings (like hotels) was caused either by the Iraqi army in its death
throes or Iraqi civilians looting and rioting.
-cont-
-
-cont-
The day after the war was over, there was nearly 0 power being generated
in Iraq. 45 days later, 1/3 of the total national potential of 8000 MW is
up and running. Downed power lines are being repaired and were about 70%
complete when I left. There is water purification where little or none
existed before...this time to everyone. Oil is 95% of the Iraqi GNP. In
order for Iraq to survive, it must sell oil. All the damage to the oil
fields was done by the Iraqi army or looters. The 14 story office building
of the Southern Iraq Oil Company in Basra was torched by Baathist,
destroying all of the books, records and computers of the company. Today,
the refinery at Bayji is at 75% of capacity. The crude pipeline between
Kirkuk and Bayji has been repaired, though the Baathist keep trying to
disrupt it. If we are doing all this for the people, why are they shooting
us? The general population isn't. By my sample, 90% are glad we came and
the majority doesn't want us to leave for some time to come, but there are
still plenty of bad guys, the Baathists who lived well under Saddam. The
thugs of the old regime still hope to return to power, and there are plenty
of them, mostly located in Sunni areas. Then too, Saddam, in the Ramadan
amnesty, let every murderer, butcher, rapist and violent criminal loose on
his own people. There are interests, including organized crime, with a
desire for anarchy and profit. There are disruptive forces from Saudi Arabia,
Iran and Syria. We saw poverty on a scale that I have never witnessed except
in pictures of Haiti. I saw one little girl: she was slender, very pretty,
about 5 or 6 years old, in a tattered dress with a broad red hem, part of
which was torn and dragging in the dirt. She would touch her heart and make
hungry gestures. She was duplicated a thousand times during the journey.
The poverty in Iraq is a sharp contrast to the lives of Saddam and his sons.
Saddam alone, not counting Ouday and Qusay and the leading Baathists, had 43
palaces. We are using several for civilian government. The one where OPCA is
located is the main republican palace occupying over 2000 acres. It is a
monument to narcissism, four 25 foot tall heads of Saddam decorate the front
of the palace, and his portraits and statues are everywhere. We went to a
second palace by the airport. It is surrounded by a lake which was created by
diverting the Euphrates water which limited agricultural irrigation downstream.
His palace in Basra was used by him only once I am told. Basra functions fairly
well except for the power. There are 6 lines into the city, but it does not
have a standard power grid. Saddam used power and other essentials as a method
of punishing a city of 3 million! He would cut power for days to punish them.
When I tell you the temperatures there, you will understand how bad that was.
I am told that in high summer, it will hit 155 degrees, even 160! He has made
no investments in this area which is overwhelmingly Shiite. He has few friends
there. Consequently, it is easier for the Brits to govern, unlike Baghdad. And
they are doing a good job of it.They are doing it at the moment by using pre-
war personnel, perhaps contrary to Brenner's de-Baathification order. The
problem with Brenner's policy is that it removes almost all of the people who
ran the country. The Brits have been pragmatic: they have largely left the
judges and police in place and are removing them as they see the need and they
are able to train and replace the bad ones. That was our problem in Haiti, we
trained a police force but did not put the judiciary in place so that the jails
just filled up and then overcrowding forced criminals out. And the Haitian
police have largely quit. (Ouday had a solution to overcrowding, when he
received a complaint of overcrowding, he went to the prison and personally shot
every 3rd prisoner.) We want to keep Iraq a secular state, and that will present
some difficulties as there is no real concept of separation of church and state
in Islam. Attaturk was a true revolutionary where this was concerned. The tribal
and sahria (religious) courts are functioning, and if we don't get a move on,
they will replace the civil and criminal courts. I find it difficult to explain
how differently they think. I remember telling Mike, "I don't think we are on
the same page with this fellow." Mike said, "Don, I am not sure we are in the
same library." For a large percentage of the Iraqi people, and they are most
adamant, family and tribe are everything, religion and state are one and the
same. That they don't understand us is our biggest problem in the middle east.
They perceive our way of life as a threat to theirs,...and it is. They fear
the modern world is about to run over them, destroying family life as they know
it, educating and freeing their women, forbidding honor killing...coca colas,
jeans, lack of parental respect and respect for the old ways and religion. And
to defend their way of life and their religion, they will die with the same
fervor with which the Christians marched to the lions. In their fear of western
life, some will fight and kill us; but I remain convinced that the majority want
a secular society and the best that the west has to offer. We are not hated by
everyone. Of the hundreds I talked to, the overwhelming majority thanked us for
being there. Hundreds of adults and children on the roads waved and smiled as
we passed by. We went to the law school with about 300 students, about ten of
whom were female. There we were, three Americans and they wanted us to fix
their school and they thought we could. They thought Americans could do anything.
They were like children expecting the genie from the bottle to immediately
gratify their needs. The law students were the finest example of hope that I
encountered. They told me that the future was theirs and that they needed and
wanted our help. I believe we should be paying more attention and giving greater
effort to restoring higher education. These law students are the immediate future.
When we met with them a week later, they had formed a protective association, a
bus for transportation, found a disused grammar school for classes, and got their
assistant dean to round up some professors who were teaching them. Still they
need help and I am trying to get some help for them from our law schools. LSU has
refused, Seton Hall and Rutgers have promised to help; I have not contacted Tulane,
Loyola or Southern yet. Upon returning to Baghdad, I went to the Ministry of
Justice to review the situation in the south. I took advantage of the situation
and said the following: "I have read a little of your history. I know you are a
proud people who have risen from the ashes in the past, so I must tell you that I
am saddened and disappointed. I have talked to hundreds of you over the past
five weeks, almost everyone educated and privileged. What I have heard is what you
want from us, how the Americans have to fix this and give you money and equipment,
protect you from you own. The only adults planning on the future were those law
students in Basra who had lost everything - their books, their desks, their
records, their school. And they were doing something about it on their own. You
need to do some of these things for yourselves. If you are depending on us to do
everything, you are going to be sadly disappointed." I got a few nods from the
judges, but the translator said to me: "Thank you. I have been waiting for someone
to tell them that."
Our soldiers, God love them and keep them; they smiled every time I got a chance
to talk to them. They want to come home, but I did not hear one word of complaint
nor a question as to why they were there. This is boring, HOT, dirty, and
dangerous work. They stand in 120 plus degrees in full body armor. They are amazing.
Their entertainment was largely self-generated; boredom doesn't stop when they
stand down. Write a letter, send a note or email; send a book, cd, tape, or
magazine; do something.
Thank you.
-
Fantastic post.
-
Great Post Udie, a really good read. Thanks for sharing it with us.
-
"We must have the moral courage to see this through, to do whatever it
takes to secure responsible government for the Iraqi people. Having
decided to topple Saddam, we cannot abandon those who trust us. I fear we
will quit as the horrors of war come into our living rooms. Look at the
stories you are getting from the media today. The steady drip, drip, drip
of bad news may destroy our will to fulfill the obligations we have assumed.
WE ARE NOT GETTING THE WHOLE TRUTH FROM THE NEWS MEDIA. The news you watch,
listen to and read is highly selective. Good news doesn't sell. 90% of the
damage you see on tv was caused by Iraqis, not by US."
I want the world to know this, The media is f*&*ed up about this and it's costing lives.
rant mode off
Sorry, I have family over there and they concur that we are only getting the bad stuff, no one in this country cares about the good.
-
you guys still do not understand why people are mad at why we are there. Its because we were lied to about the reasons and we managed to piss off all our allies in the process.
It was the right thing to do, but so would have going into rowanda, north korea and pretty much any country with a cruel dictatorship governing it.
-
Yeah that's my big fear now. We can't leave until we're done, I think it would destroy us as a nation. We HAVE to see this through and make sure the Iraqi's are able to handle themselves before we leave. I pray to God that we will, but after 6 months of negative reporting from over there I was starting to waiver myself, until I read this article.
Glad you guys enjoyed it :) Bout time I posted something good over here ;)
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
you guys still do not understand why people are mad at why we are there. Its because we were lied to about the reasons and we managed to piss off all our allies in the process.
It was the right thing to do, but so would have going into rowanda, north korea and pretty much any country with a cruel dictatorship governing it.
STFU, our "allies" knew what was happening over there and decided that profit was more important to them than helping an entire nation of oppressed people. Guess what, that means they lose ANY moral high ground that they ever try to hold. How many iraqi's died so chiraq and his chronies could make a buck?
Like the article said, just we can't do everything doesn't mean we should do nothing.
-
The UN lied, Clinton lied, the Innspectors lied? WTF do you mean Bush lied? The US, with Bush as leader, finally acted upon something that the world had agreed upon was a problem, and now Bush lied!? Go read yesterday's post little boy, you have a lot to learn.
-
Lizking,
It's never a liberal's fault, therefore it must lay at the feet of the leading Republican, default to Bush.
I read an article on drudge today about some billionaire that said he's going to spend millions to make sure Bush doesn't get re-elected. He blamed him for the patriot act. Said he forced it on America. Said how none of the congressmen even read the legislation. Yet he blames Bush. Guess what, Bush signed it. THE ENTIRE CONGRESS PASSED IT. That's the way our republic works. No blame where it really belongs (in this case the congress)
It's facinating watching the libs scratch and claw and take any oportunity to lay blame on Bush just so they can get their greedy grubby hands back on the power. At all cost! The end justifies any means.
shreck em, feed em fish eggs......
-
This week I have read the entire Patriot act, and all of the statues that it references. Guess what? It does very little, with one exception, to endanger civil rights. I mean NOTHING. The primary impact of the whole bill is to allow the various agencies to share data, something which the US has always regarded as a bad thing, and which is one of the prime reasons for the failure of our goverment to detect 9/11.
The one thing in the bill that is a very bad thing is that there is now a process in place by which certain places(like a business or home) may be searched without consent or knowledge of the occupant. It is very tightly controlled with Federal Judiciary oversight, but it is still bad, IMO.
-
Anyone still gives a **** about Afganistan ? Just wondering...
or is it just SO LAST WEEK !!!
?
:D
PS. Udie, i'm pretty sure snopes will have an article on this one pretty soon.
-
Ski, look at it like this-The media has nothing much on Afghanistan, therefore it must be going extremely well over there.
-
Think again Gadfly
-
Originally posted by Ping
Think again Gadfly
yeah, bush is twisting CNN's arm not to report it :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
you guys still do not understand why people are mad at why we are there. Its because we were lied to about the reasons and we managed to piss off all our allies in the process.
It was the right thing to do, but so would have going into rowanda, north korea and pretty much any country with a cruel dictatorship governing it.
OH STFU:D
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
you guys still do not understand why people are mad at why we are there. Its because we were lied to about the reasons and we managed to piss off all our allies in the process.
It was the right thing to do, but so would have going into rowanda, north korea and pretty much any country with a cruel dictatorship governing it.
The young man has a point. Pre-emptive war with the objective of regime change is a bad road to be on.
It's going to get worse in Iraq before it gets better.
-
That when you subordinate everything to your belief system your only rational within that system?
Yeah, we're stuck with the mess Bush lied us into, we no longer have much of a choice but to finish what he started.
Just as the Bush regime intended when they manipulated us into the war.
-
We shall see. Personally it's still to early for me to judge either way. How long were we in Germany/Japan after WW2?
This was the right thing to do, period. It was right on many many levels. It still is. It needed to be done 10 years ago but we had somebody in office who needed a character on the scene like sadaam to keep his scandals off the front page. You'll never admit to that, but your wrong, just like your whole liberal idiology. Wrong....
-
Originally posted by k2cok
That when you subordinate everything to your belief system your only rational within that system?
Yeah, we're stuck with the mess Bush lied us into, we no longer have much of a choice but to finish what he started.
Just as the Bush regime intended when they manipulated us into the war.
When exactly did he lie? Manipulate what? He could have done this when ever he wanted to. He had 90% support to do it in 2001. He had congressional "aproval" to use what ever means necessary in 2002. Congress is to corrupt/imputent to actually declare war like they should. I don't understand how you people can have such a double standard. It was the right thing to do, but he lied to us (unproven) about it so he's guilty of a bad war. That's hypocritical Barbara Streisand. It's an itelectualy lazy way of saying you hate bush. But I don't expect any liberals to admit to that :rofl
-
When you subordinate everything to your belief system you're only rational within that system.
Let me know when you understand what this sentence means and then we will discuss those other words (lies, manipulation) you don't understand.
-
Originally posted by k2cok
When you subordinate everything to your belief system you're only rational within that system.
Let me know when you understand what this sentence means and then we will discuss those other words (lies, manipulation) you don't understand.
Pick up a mirror dude....
-
Pick up a mirror dude....
Talk to the hand!!!!!
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Talk to the hand!!!!!
Nah, I tried the crazy thing last year ;)
-
k2cok
{edit}
Nevermind...not worth it :)
-
That's what I though....
intellectually lazy and bankrupt and just plain WRONG :D
-
Lets see, the UN inspectors were right, there are no WMD's in iraq. At the time of our invasion saddam was pretty much the mayor of baghdad. Most of the slaughtering of his people was done when bush the 1st was in charge, and because of deals with the saudis didnt invade iraq and finish what he started. Oh yea Bush Lied about wmd's, his connections with 9/11, and now is chargeing our troops that are in the hospital for their meals. Good job bush admin!
The difference between iraq, japan, and germany(we are still in japan and germany btw.) Japan and Germany are not islamic. You have to understand that Islamic countrys do not want a democracy, and the only way iraq will ever be one is if we put them all in re-education camps and force it on them. Which is not democracy.
Look at turkey, everytime they have an election they vote in a religious nutcase. Then the army comes in and puts someone else in charge in an attempt to bring them into the 19th century. That is the most liberal country in the middle east mind you!
And you expect iraq to go somewhere anytime soon? BTW Bush's approval rateing 49 percent. I guess it was a fun ride for him while it lasted.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
Lets see, the UN inspectors were right, there are no WMD's in iraq.
Uh, the UN inspectors did not say there were no WMD's in Iraq. They did say that Iraq was not cooperating with their investigations.
I'll concede that the present administration MAY have misled the American public and if so, I, like most of you, will be very pissed. Furthermore, Iraq may be only the beginning with Syria and Saudi soon to follow.
While no one likes being lied to, one of the president's most important jobs is to defend us whether we want him to or not. He wasn't elected to conduct polls and then act only on those results.
-
hans blix said there were no WMD's. The UN objected to our time table on invading iraq not the invasion itself. And guess what, the french and germans were right. we should have waited, and had a better plan on what to do after the major fighting was over.
We will never invade or attack or demand anything from the Saudi's while Dick cheny and a Bush is running the show. Their family ties, connections, and oil contracts run deep.
Even though the saudis are more of a threat to america then iraq was.
The thing about democracys are that the polls do mean something. If the majority of the public dont want you to do something. You will end up paying the price during the elections. (well that isnt always true because of the electoral system, or if they redistrict before the next election.)
-
So, I guess the question is do we have the resources to clean up the mess Bush made in Iraq at the same time we deal with the mess he made in this country?
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
hans blix said there were no WMD's.
So why did he wait so long to reveal these "facts"? Besides, we know how reliable he has been in the past.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2268819.stm
"'Fooled by Iraq'
As director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from 1981 to 1997, he was in charge of overseeing inspections of the country's nuclear programme.
During that time, the Iraqis managed to hide an advanced nuclear weapons development programme from the IAEA.
It was only discovered after the Gulf War in 1991."
-
Unless your real name is ee cummings, I would suggest you crack an english book before trying to argue world politics.
-
I liked the part where gadfly couldnt respond to my arguement with a counterpoint. GOOD FOR YOU!
I also liked the part where we have commited ourselves to the mid- east for the next 10 years, while N Korea gets more and more scary.
-
Oh I could, but even if I post the quotes verbatim, you would say they were false. And, as I said above, I generally refuse to argue with children, being that it is a pointless exercise.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
I also liked the part where we have commited ourselves to the mid- east for the next 10 years, while N Korea gets more and more scary.
In case ya haven't noticed, China has stepped up to the plate where North Korea is concerned. While our relations with China have been strained from time to time, I don't think they want a loose cannon on their doorstep.
-
I'm remembering all the threads talking about those horrible Iraqi towel heads etc prior to the war. At that time it was all about the WMDs that existed "for sure" in Iraq.
Now some of those same towl head haters are lining up behind the arguments presented in that article.
I find it kinda amusing.
-
No, no i would like to see this. For you see, how would i ever learn i am wrong unless you give me some information. And if i can dispute your arguement we both learn. Thats why i enjoy debates.
-
Will you promise to clean your room and use capitals?
-
Originally posted by Curval
I'm remembering all the threads talking about those horrible Iraqi towel heads etc prior to the war. At that time it was all about the WMDs that existed "for sure" in Iraq.
The only ones saying there are no WMDs in Iraq are the same ones that were so against the overthrow of Saddam to begin with. Nothing wrong with a little self amusement though, I've indulged from time to time.
-
no capitals. btw his promise for a clear exit plan if he sends troops over sea's , is yet another broken promise from bush's campaign.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
I liked the part where gadfly couldnt respond to my arguement with a counterpoint. GOOD FOR YOU!
I also liked the part where We have commited ourselves to the mid- east for the next 10 years, while N Korea gets more and more scary.
We?
Are you in the Military? If not then STFU pissant. It's easy to sit there and whine about chit, than to do something about it. And if you have such a BIG DAM problem about the way Bush is handling things then MOVE your childish arse out of America until a sorry prettythang Democrap is elected!
My 2 cents.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
And you expect iraq to go somewhere anytime soon? BTW Bush's approval rateing 49 percent. I guess it was a fun ride for him while it lasted.
No, I expect we'll be there for at least 10 years. At least I hope and pray we will finish the job. God bless the president. Finally a man in the office who will do what's right reguardless of his poll numbers. I expect that's a concept you don't understand.
-
In hindsight, this was unfortunate, for with more frequent inspections, we might have deferred Iraqi authorities from the nuclear weapons effort.
Statement by IAEA Director General Hans Blix on IAEA Inspections in Iraq to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee (http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/iaea/dgsp1991n06.html)
It disclosed that there had been three programmes for the enrichment of uranium with a great deal of equipment and material related to it, and that a quantity of about half a kilo of 4% enriched uranium had been produced.
Inspections in Iraq (http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/iaea/dgsp1991n09.html)
Now to be honest, after these statements were made, subsequent inspections revealed no evidence of continuing nuclear development, although they(Blix) would not commit to the fact that there was no further development, only that they were unable to find any proof of it.
In this regard, it must be recognized that Iraq retains, in its core of scientists and engineers, nuclear-weapons-related expertise and relevant documentation.
STATEMENT TO THE FIFTY-SECOND SESSION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY (http://www.iaea.or.at/worldatom/Press/Statements/FormerDG/dgsp1997n19.html)
In regard to chemical weapons:
(VX)
UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.
(Mustard Gas)
I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor.
Biological weapons:
There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist.
THE SECURITY COUNCIL, 27 JANUARY 2003: (http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm)
Is that enough for you?
-
Note that none of this is from the media, all of those statements were made in offical reports. He can spin it any way he wants, but those are Government documents, read by him and signed by him.
edit-spelling
-
Lizking,
You didn't take into account the total detachment from reality that a liberal suffers from. I think most of that will go right over his head...........
-
Of course, but since he said he would clean his room, I figured I would do his poor parents a favor.
-
Call me an old cynic - but I'd be really surprised if three Americans (or Brits) in suits wandering around Iraq talking to "a few hundred Iraqis" accompanied by "four Iraqis well-armed with 9mm hand guns and AK47's" and some "help" from "First Armored Division (UK)" would get anything other than a rosy view of their country's occupation of Iraq.
I mean, it doesn't take much of a leap to posit that the Iraqis are well versed in the art of telling a set of suits accompanied by a load of heavily armed guys and maybe a tank or two exactly what they think the suits 'want' to hear. Any Iraqis who didn't have this skill will have been "disappeared" by Hussein's lot. And if that's all you've been used to, then just because the guys who invaded your country say they're your friends, and that you can talk freely doesn't mean you're going to believe them - after all that's probably pretty much exactly what Hussein's lot said.
I reckon the jury's out on this one - I don't trust anything CENTCOM says without serious corroboration from other sources, and IMO anyone who does is seriously naive (and may also be interested in buying the Golden Gate Bridge off me). I don't much believe the media either.
We won't find out what's really going on in Iraq for at the very least a couple of years - or more likely decades (at least the US Gov't's documents on it - you can forget the UK gov't stuff - the UK has way too secretive a gov't system). That said, IMO you certainly won't find out what's going on running around asking people questions with a bunch of heavily-armed guys standing next to you.
One final little nagging detail abut the judge's piece - it might just be a scanning issue, of course - but why can't he get the name of the administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority right? It's Bremer not Brenner.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Call me an old cynic - but I'd be really surprised if three Americans (or Brits) in suits wandering around Iraq talking to "a few hundred Iraqis" accompanied by "four Iraqis well-armed with 9mm hand guns and AK47's" and some "help" from "First Armored Division (UK)" would get anything other than a rosy view of their country's occupation of Iraq.
I mean, it doesn't take much of a leap to posit that the Iraqis are well versed in the art of telling a set of suits accompanied by a load of heavily armed guys and maybe a tank or two exactly what they think the suits 'want' to hear. Any Iraqis who didn't have this skill will have been "disappeared" by Hussein's lot. And if that's all you've been used to, then just because the guys who invaded your country say they're your friends, and that you can talk freely doesn't mean you're going to believe them - after all that's probably pretty much exactly what Hussein's lot said.
I reckon the jury's out on this one - I don't trust anything CENTCOM says without serious corroboration from other sources, and IMO anyone who does is seriously naive (and may also be interested in buying the Golden Gate Bridge off me). I don't much believe the media either.
We won't find out what's really going on in Iraq for at the very least a couple of years - or more likely decades (at least the US Gov't's documents on it - you can forget the UK gov't stuff - the UK has way too secretive a gov't system). That said, IMO you certainly won't find out what's going on running around asking people questions with a bunch of heavily-armed guys standing next to you.
One final little nagging detail abut the judge's piece - it might just be a scanning issue, of course - but why can't he get the name of the administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority right? It's Bremer not Brenner.
*Delete according to political orientation
I think you're absolutely correct :eek: That's the main thing that's been getting under my skin lately. 1/2 the freakin country is ready to, scratch that, has already convicted the prez of lying. Guess what, if it had been proved he lied about this, he wouldn't be president right now or he'd be in the middle of his impeachment.
Good Lord, it's only been 6 months since the war started. This instant gradification lifestyle we lead over here will be the death of us one day.
-
Originally posted by AWMac
We?
Are you in the Military? If not then STFU pissant.
Oh please, pro-Bushians use "we" when referring to the militray in Iraq, even though they aren't in the military, all the time and you don't say chit. So why don't you STFU hypocrit. :)
Udie, I'm glad you can type out "intellectualy lazy and bankrupt", but your post clearly show that you don't have a clue what it means.
Go do a google search on "logic", "discourse", and "Fallacy".
-
Good points, dead, and I agree. You did catch the main thrust of his whole speech, though, right?
The Iraqis expect the U.S. to solve all of their problems, when in reality, they must accept that task. Our job was to get rid of Saddam, and provide security until their Government is established. We will of course provide as much support as possible, but until they make that mental leap, there will be no stable Iraq.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Udie, I'm glad you can type out "intellectualy lazy and bankrupt", but your post clearly show that you don't have a clue what it means.
Sorry but I disagree. I think my usage of the terms were quite accurate. They maybe mispelled though :) I've seen nothing from the left in years except lies and obstruction. Lambast the what the republicans are trying to do for our nation and then offer no alternatives. That is the apitamy of intillectual laziness and bankrupsy and dishonetsy. And once again I expect no liberal to understand what I'm talking about.
-
I say we because this is my country just as much as it is yours or anyones else's. My tax dollars pay for that millitary to exsist. And i talked to God yesterday and he said bush is damned and will lose the next election.
-
Is your room clean?
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
The difference between iraq, japan, and germany(we are still in japan and germany btw.) Japan and Germany are not islamic. You have to understand that Islamic countrys do not want a democracy, and the only way iraq will ever be one is if we put them all in re-education camps and force it on them. Which is not democracy.
Was'nt Japan a country that worshipped an emperor as a God and never knew Democracy before. I believe there is a name for this type of government, but it escapes me at the moment. I believe it is Theocratic, but I'm not 100% sure.
Just curious, Frog, but exactly how old are you? I always thought you were my age, but others are alluding to the fact that you are much younger.
-
pffft no
-
And I suppose you will also not be mature enough to say that you were wrong.
-
im guessing your to young to remember that the emporer of japan came out and promoted a democracy after the war.
Well i guess that would work in iraq to as soon as we get allah to come out from whatever rock it lives in and promote democracy.
Well ill admit that i was wrong when i made the statement that the UN said they had no WMD's. But it also looks like those statements contain alot of ifs maybes' and mights. And remember we were the ones to pull blix out of iraq the last time around.
In the long run displaceing saddam was the right thing to do, but i still think the way we went about it and the timeing was absolutely terrible.
-
Child, I tire of you, but perhaps you should should study a bit more on the treaty terms that ended the war.
Now Go clean your room, or no more Justin Timberlake CD's for you!
-
whatever gadfly, if all you can do is rag on me for being in my mid 20's then i pitty you.
-
Frog,
I doubt many people on this board are old enough to remember the end of WWII.
I asked you a simple question to which you, as per the norm, must repond with a wise arnold comment.
Gadfly is correct. You are a child.
-
I do not rag you for being a child, I rag you for acting like one.
-
a childish comment? i was only pointing out the fact that yes while the japanese did worship their emporer. The emporer played a role in helping japan become a working democracy after the war. something your not going to be able to get allah to do.
-
You also merely edited the comment out of your post.
You know what, Gadfly has the right idea.
Have a nice day.
-
like i said, if the best you can do is call me child( im 23 like it matters), then wow you have some growing up to do yourself. At least i can admit it.
-
Udie I see you graduated from the Cabby Coulter school of debate, when reason fails just loudly screech "liberal" everytime someone doesn't agree with Bush's agenda.
Whether you agree or not many Americans feel that we were lied to by Bush and Co. leading up to the war and by your reasoning that makes all of us liberals.
Well sorry to burst your bubble but it makes us angry not liberals.
It appears by your reasoning when Clinton lied to Americans and pissed you off you became a liberal.
Wait a sec, that's not a very fair criteria for labeling someone a liberal is it?
Let's add some weight to the argument, hmmm- you support a president who has grown the government so large and in such a short period of time that it makes Clinton look like a fiscal conservative----guess that makes you a liberal ehh?
Oops, still on kinda shaky ground here, let's add some more weight to classifying your political posistion.
Look at the size of Bush's discretionary budget and the programs he spends all that money on-----once again Bush makes Clinton look like a fiscal conservative, welcome to the Bush "nanny state" Udie, you whacky liberal. :D
If you you can follow up without the Cabby Coulter squawking and buzzwords in your next post then we can discuss "lies and manipulation", if not then please carry on making yourself look like a child arguing on the playground.
-
yawn...
I'm still waiting for the child, and sandman to respond to my posts that pwn'ed them yesterday :)
-
I do not agree with Bush or his agenda on many points. Many, Many points. But I do agree with him on the one under discussion, and disagree that we were lied to.
If you will remember, you and I did not vote for the War; the duly elected members of the House and Senate did. They are and were privy to more information than us, and for a segment of those bodies to backtrack is where the real lie is.
-
Very discerning Gadfly, were getting closer to the bone now.
IIRC Dashole and other House and Senate members were denied information on the grounds of "national security" leading up to the resolution Bush used to go into Iraq?
Not to mention the "patriot police" tar and feathering anyone who disagreed with Bush as being unpatriotic in the post 9/11 fallout.
We can go in circles all day on this but ultimately it all leads right back to Bush's desk doesn't it?
It's about accountability, something Americans seem to have forgotton.
-
Originally posted by k2cok
Whether you agree or not many Americans feel that we were lied to by Bush and Co. leading up to the war and by your reasoning that makes all of us liberals.
major diference between libs and cons. Libs feel their way through life, cons (most of us) think our ways through life. If you were to think about it clearly and let your hate get out of the way you would see that in no way has it been proven that Bush lied. You're feeling that he lied has clouded your judgement. Can you prove it to me now that he lied? Please do, it will change my mind on him. Unlike the libs with komrad klinton. I think that if it had been proven that he lied, we would be reading/listening to his impeachment.
It appears by your reasoning when Clinton lied to Americans and pissed you off you became a liberal.
No I became pissed off. Because he lied, not just once, but daily. Then they were proven lies, even the ones in court, and NOTHING was done about it. Yeah he was impeached. I'm still waiting for all the libs who said he should be punished once he's out of office to come forth and punish. Nope they still worship...
Again, please point me to where Bush has been proven to lie.
Let's add some weight to the argument, hmmm- you support a president who has grown the government so large and in such a short period of time that it makes Clinton look like a fiscal conservative----guess that makes you a liberal ehh?
No actually I'm pretty angry with him and congress about that. Hmm guess that means I'm still a conservative. But 9/11 changed what I'm able to accept out of my leaders. You see, though you probably don't, we are in a war. Yes a real live war, 2 fronts at that. I think Bush has done a good job so far in prosecuting this war. I wish we would have hit Syria/Saudi/Jordan by now as well as hammas, but I don't have all the info he does. So for now I still trust his judgement.
Oops, still on kinda shaky ground here
yes you are, but I'm having fun with you so I'll continue ;)
Look at the size of Bush's discretionary budget and the programs he spends all that money on-----once again Bush makes Clinton look like a fiscal conservative, welcome to the Bush "nanny state" Udie, you whacky liberal. :D
Like the last paragraph, that's one of the things I'm agry at him and the congress for. Though I'll admit to being more angry at the republicans in congress than Bush. They are the ones that debate and make the bills that he signs, so they get the blame too. Blame goes to both parties btw ;)
If you you can follow up without the Cabby Coulter squawking and buzzwords in your next post then we can discuss "lies and manipulation", if not then please carry on making yourself look like a child arguing on the playground.
:rofl Just calling them like I see em. Like I said, I don't expect you to understand. I don't believe it's in your nature as a liberal. Kind of like how deer stand in front of headlights and get run over. Just too stupid to get out of the way :D
-
Originally posted by k2cok
We can go in circles all day on this but ultimately it all leads right back to Bush's desk doesn't it?
It's about accountability, something Americans seem to have forgotton.
How does it lead back to Bush? The congress past a joint resolution. You say they didn't have all the info. Well isn't it thier responsibility then to NOT vote for a resolution to use force? How can their irresponsibility be blamed on Bush? Oh wait, I fort liberal rule #1 somebody else, preferable a Republican, is always to blame. Libs can do now wrong.
Accountabilty? Hmm how many dems have resigned or been run out of congress? I can think of a few Republicans that were (some rightfully so but not all). Then I think of Ted Kennedy:rofl
thanks for the fun man! :lol
-
Where is that post where I already covered the "Lies" that the administration gave to the UN as our justification for war? Was it on this board or another. At any rate, I went through it, item by item and the plain and simple truth is-there were no lies, and rigorous justification.
Now it is quite possible that people who do not read the primary sources, and get their information just from the media were indeed lied to, but that was the media lying, not the administration. ***** at CNN all you want, they lie daily.
-
Udie, now your arguing semantics, I suppose I'll just redirect you to my original statement:
"That when you subordinate everything to your belief system your only rational within that system".
You are irrational, there's no point in trying to discuss any topic with you until you can learn to think critically.
Gadfly, I don't watch CNN or Fox, they are opposite sides of the same coin.
Gee, it's time for me to go haul my hot air balloon and trailer to the dump now, I would hate to be accused of having a "trailer for production of WMD" sitting in my garage. :p
-
Originally posted by k2cok
Udie, now your arguing semantics, I suppose I'll just redirect you to my original statement:
"That when you subordinate everything to your belief system your only rational within that system".
You are irrational, there's no point in trying to discuss any topic with you until you can learn to think critically.
:rofl stop it! you're killing me! Again to your belief system comment I say, Look in the mirror.
Irrational? Uhhh I don't think you've been on this board long enough. You haven't seen me be irrational in this thread.
[edit] oh yeah, again, what lies?
-
bush claimed that those balloon trailers were the WMD's that justified the war and that was all the proof he needed.
-
See, child, there you go again, talking from your Spinchter.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
bush claimed that those balloon trailers were the WMD's that justified the war and that was all the proof he needed.
He did? Care to prove that? Child :rofl
-
I would like to take the time to thank all the liberals for posting in this thread. It was wonderful to pwn all of you :p
-
It cracks me up to hear some folks get all bent out of shape about an estimate that we may be in Iraq 10 years.
Personally, I think our presence will be as "temporary" as our basing has been in Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, et al.....we'll be there like it or not for far longer.
Yes, I think it's necessary.
Close a few bases in Germany, open a few in Iraq....they're certainly not needed in Germany except as permanent employment for local nationals....but I digress.....
-
Gadfly, what is your definition of deception?
From Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: de·cep·tion
Pronunciation: di-'sep-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English decepcioun, from Middle French deception, from Late Latin deception-, deceptio, from Latin decipere to deceive
Date: 15th century
1 a : the act of deceiving b : the fact or condition of being deceived
2 : something that deceives : TRICK
- de·cep·tion·al /-sh&-n&l/ adjective
synonyms DECEPTION, FRAUD, DOUBLE-DEALING, SUBTERFUGE, TRICKERY mean the acts or practices of one who deliberately deceives.
DECEPTION may or may not imply blameworthiness, since it may suggest cheating or merely tactical resource . FRAUD always implies guilt and often criminality in act or practice .
DOUBLE-DEALING suggests treachery or at least action contrary to a professed attitude .
SUBTERFUGE suggests the adoption of a stratagem or the telling of a lie in order to escape guilt or to gain an end .
TRICKERY implies ingenious acts intended to dupe or cheat .
The Bush administration's attempt to link Iraq with Al Qaeda was a lie. In reality, not a shred of evidence suggested any alliance, practical or otherwise, between them
The attempt to characterize Saddams balloon trailers as WMD was a lie, and one Bush is still repeating.
Bush is a serial liar, surely your intellectually honest enough to recognize and admit this?
I would list the lies Bush has told in chronological order beginning with the oath of office but I'll save that for another thread. :p
How about manipulate?
Main Entry: ma·nip·u·late
Pronunciation: m&-'ni-py&-"lAt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -lat·ed; -lat·ing
Etymology: back-formation from manipulation, from French, from manipuler to handle an apparatus in chemistry, ultimately from Latin manipulus
Date: 1831
1 : to treat or operate with the hands or by mechanical means especially in a skillful manner
2 a : to manage or utilize skillfully b : to control or play upon by artful, unfair, or insidious means especially to one's own advantage
3 : to change by artful or unfair means so as to serve one's purpose :
In his prime-time press conference last March, which focused almost solely on Iraq, Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.
Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks.
A New York Times/CBS poll showed that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11.
US intelligence sources say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has ever aided Al Qaeda.
Now that Bush has us in Iraq he's backing off from the assertions he made back in March. (yesterday)
Bush encouraged this false impression and succeeded in creating a sense that there is some connection between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein
Polling data showed that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein.
But by January of this year, attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens.
The answer is zero.
That sir is deception.
-
Show me something that would indicate that that speech(or any speech)led to the 45%'s erroneous belief that Saddam was behind 9/11, and you will have a point. Otherwise you are confusing several issues.
As stated above, public perception actually has little to do with the ability of the U.S. to go to war. If you can show me where the Administration lied to Congress, again, you may have something.
Secondly, the basis for the U.S. going to war was laid out for the international community by Colin Powell, and if you take the time to review his speech, you will see that nothing stated is either factually wrong, or intended to deceive.
-
Originally posted by llyr69
It cracks me up to hear some folks get all bent out of shape about an estimate that we may be in Iraq 10 years.
Personally, I think our presence will be as "temporary" as our basing has been in Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, et al.....we'll be there like it or not for far longer.
Yes, I think it's necessary.
Close a few bases in Germany, open a few in Iraq....they're certainly not needed in Germany except as permanent employment for local nationals....but I digress.....
Correct Sir,
We were in Germany due to the cold war, we now have a hot war and need to relocate. I have no problem with that, when the other side surrenders from this war then we can talk.
Time changes things, History will go well for W and not well for many others. Anyone remember the 6 congressmen who wanted nothing to do with the Berlin Airlift? Well? thats my point, they were wrong and forgoten.
This is all the Libs have left, Stock market is up, Unemployment is down, No attacks so far, Hurts to be a Dem. these days, they may even loose Cal. :rofl
Ahh and lets see if we can get another half dozen Bozo's to run.
Maybe even the queen Bozo herself!! that would be fun
-
"You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons, They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. "
"And we'll find more weapons as time goes on, But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them."
-Bush lying about balloon makers.
fun comments from the admin about why we went to war!
But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence
that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was
about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.
Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
April 10, 2003
-
Stock market is up, Unemployment is down
when did 3 million jobs reappear?
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
"You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons, They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. "
So because we found 2 of the mobil labs he lied? :confused:
"And we'll find more weapons as time goes on, But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them."
this a lie? :confused:
-Bush lying about balloon makers.
huh?
fun comments from the admin about why we went to war!
But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence
that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was
about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.
Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
April 10, 2003
That's not a lie, that's a statement of fact. You poor child.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
when did 3 million jobs reappear?
http://custom.marketwatch.com/custom/earthlink-net/mw-news-headlines.asp?GUID={1A5AFE68-2B05-4434-B502-BE29378E5B8D}&destination=&symb=DJIA
Never said it was over just said it was down, dont be a dip stick:cool:
btw I really did not mean to use the work "stick" you understand.;)
-
:rofl
Bush gave Congress incomplete information by hiding behind their worn out excuse of "national security", it was hardly possible for them to make an informed decision when it was based on what Bush wanted them to know vs what they should have been given by the White House.
He looked into the camera and lied to the American people when he made his Iraq al-Queda link, he as much as admitted it yesterday.
He continues to lie about the WMD trailers even though that has been thoroughly debunked.
As far as Powell goes please explain the WMD trailers to me again, I must be a bit slow. ;)
Hey, but it's fun arguing with you----maybe you could school Udie a bit, that shreiking Ann Coulter style of his gets on the nerves.
-
Hey! That is a step in the right direction, Frogm4n.
Now, let's take them one at a time:
"You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons, They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. "
"And we'll find more weapons as time goes on, But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them."
-Bush lying about balloon makers.
You need to carry your search out a little bit further, and illustrate the fact that the mobile labs were, in fact, not used for Biological production, or, in lieu of that, prove that they were used only to produce hydrogen. It is not enough on either side to say that they could be used for both, and it is not a lie to say that they could be used for either.
But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence
that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was
about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.
Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
April 10, 2003
Why is this statement erroneous or a lie? it is a statement, but it is also not presented as a fact. "high confidence" is what they believe, and it has yet to be proven either way. Still open to debate, but in no way can it be construed as lying or deception.
Keep going, though, at least we are debating now.
-
K2, you presume that all information available to the Congress is, or must somehow be screened through the White House. This is simply not true.
-
oh i didnt say the second statement was a lie. Just pointing out what the admin sold us the war on. Of course there is yet to be any concret evidence that they knew there were no wmd's, but went to war on that pretense anyways. Chance's are we will never know; hell if reagan got off on iran-contra this will be hella-easy for Bush.
-
Sold who? Speak for yourself, Young man, I researched the issue and made up my own mind.
-
Originally posted by Udie
So because we found 2 of the mobil labs he lied? :confused:
No. You didn't find any mobil labs. You found to mobile hydrogen generators, produced my Marconi out of Britain. They are used to inflate weather balloons for artillary purposes. They never were mobile chemical biological weapons labs.
"And we'll find more weapons as time goes on, But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them."
this a lie? :confused:[/B]
Well yes Udie. You see, he said that they had found the weapons of mass destruction when they had not. That's what we call a lie.
-Bush lying about balloon makers.
huh?
See above.
You poor child.
Oh grow up.
-
Let's clarify something before we go any further.
The "selling" was done by Media. Be it Fox or CNN, they are the channel through which most people form their opinions. It seems stupid to me that it is so, but that is the way it is. So if you want to blame anyone other than yourself, it must be them, not the administration. As an adult, you are responsible for what you allow yourself to be fed.
With a minimum of effort, anyone can determine the real facts, without relying on the opinions of others. That is a personal choice, and if it is not done, then you have no one to blame but yourself.
Caveat Emptor applies to politics more-so than to consumerism.
-
i was never sold on the idea of the war. but most of america was. then again most of america believes that saddam had something to do with 9/11.....
-
Originally posted by Gadfly
K2, you presume that all information available to the Congress is, or must somehow be screened through the White House. This is simply not true.
I am specifically referring to the fact that when Bush was pushing for the passage of H. J. Res 114: Armed Forces Against Iraq (http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/bliraqreshouse.htm) he did not give full intelligence disclosure to Congress citing "national security" as the reason, much as they did before the U.N., and lets not forget the "patriot police" effect either,.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
I think it's pretty clear that language like Section 2 above (bold text) probably had a strong effect on American perception (45%) that Iraq was culpable in the 9/11 atrocity.
-
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
So, how did you miss that "including"?
The action is against international terrorist and terrorist organizations. Is this not a true statement of Iraq?
-
The Congress has oversight of the intelligence services, and thus had access to ALL information that the President has. Not the whole Congress, but the members of the appropriate committees. What is the political makeup of those committees? It is not 100% Republican.
Look, we are just going round and round. I am, and was satisfied with the grounds for War, you obviously are not. We can can pick it apart forever, but the bottom line is that if someone was mislead, it was because they were not paying attention. 45% is a low estimate for idiots in the American populace , anyway, and it still means that 55% are smart enough to know the truth.
-
Gscholz, et al. Unless you have rea..
Ah **** it, you are mindless sheep, and HT ain't paying me enough to educate you.
-
Originally posted by Udie
We shall see. Personally it's still to early for me to judge either way. How long were we in Germany/Japan after WW2?
This was the right thing to do, period. It was right on many many levels. It still is. It needed to be done 10 years ago but we had somebody in office who needed a character on the scene like sadaam to keep his scandals off the front page. You'll never admit to that, but your wrong, just like your whole liberal idiology. Wrong....
One can't compare Germany and Japan to Iraq. It's a completely different situation.
The main mistake of the Bush policy was to wage war with Iraq at all. Iraq had no WMD. Iraq did not support Al Qaeda. Iraq was absolutely no threat to the United States and regime change for the purposes of disarmamant does nothing but encourage other countries to build WMD.
These points are moot. We are now in Iraq and we are effectively trapped. The U.S. can't simply leave. The country is now less stable than it was before. Still, we can't simply throw more troops at the problem. We don't have enough and even if we did, we can't sustain this type of occupation forever. I suspect that democracy by force will take a long time. The answer isn't going to be found on this BBS. You can be certain.
You can also be certain that the federal government will spend more on Iraq than education in this country. I'm sorry, but they aren't worth it, IMHO.
Oh... and the notion that Clinton is to blame for the condition of Iraq is hilarious. You may not have noticed, but he's not relevant anymore.
-
including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
News Flash:
Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11, even Bush said so yesterday.
Don't look now but you just shot your own argument in the foot.
Ouch.
-
What part of "including" do you need a dictionary to figure out?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
What specific terrorist attacks did the former government of Iraq commit, organize or aid?
You can't single out one word in that sentence to make a viable argument, and you can't have it both ways either.
Either Bush lied in his al-Queda/Iraq connection or he lied yesterday - which is it?
-
Jeez guys, I know you can't really be this blind, so I will just assume you are obtuse and leave it at that. You can not have a discusion with some one that would make the above statement with a straight face.
I will leave you with 2 vignettes:
Abu Nidal, enough said.
I can think of no use for the body of an airliner at a camp in the desert, unless of course they were training stewardresses?
-
k2cok, I think you're missing the forest for the trees in this case. That section of bold text basically says that when Bush decides to use military action against Iraq, he has to notify Congress that he has determined the action consistent with the War on Terror. For this to be a lie, you'd have to show that Bush did not believe the war in Iraq to be consistent with the War on Terror.
-
I could provide you the links, but you would not believe it anyway, so what is the point?
-
Hell with it, I am an insomniac tonight, so here:
http://www.terrorismanswers.com/groups/abunidal.html
http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/abu.htm
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/2441.htm
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/ITeamInsider030403.html
And don't forget about the assassination attempt of GW bush, either.
-
Well, you can not assume rational thought for Saddam. It appears to me, that he(we, the world), did indeed destroy most, if not all of his weapons. (Note that without his co-operation there is only one way to ascertain this fact, and that is what the U.S. has done).
In light of his stance towards the inspections, this can mean only one of 2 things. He either bluffed about maintaining his weapons to maintain his stature in the Arab world, or he did it to maintain the threat towards his neighbors. Either way, as the result shows, it was an irrational and highly stupid act.
As for a direct link to a specific terrorist act, I do not think that it is possible to indisputably prove such a link, and do not think it is required. At least by American Law, the evidence is solid enough to convict him personally, and his regime in general, for supporting terrorism.
Also, again, do not forget the attempted attack on the elder Bush. The evidence was strong enough for the previous administration to take retaliatory steps against him, so it can not be ignored.
-
There is nothing in any of those links about the Iraq and al-Queda alliance. Your side stepping the question again.
It's obvious saddam was a no good POS, I don't think anyone here is disputing that, but let's get back to which Bush statements were lies, was it-the SOTU address or yesterday?
Erlkonig, Bush sold the Iraq war on the basis of WMD and the al-Queda connection.
The al-Queda connection was a lie, the African uranium statements were known to be lies-yet Bush didn't hesitate to repeat them in the SOTU speech.
Bush had the benefit of the doubt on WMD but that's fading fast, and it doesn't help his case much when no weapons are being found and he continues to lie about hydrogen generators being mobile bio-weapon labs .
At this point he has about as much credibility as a used car saleman.
-
K2ock, I have gone through the trouble of posting links and quotes to back up my statements. If you would do the same, we could continue the debate.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
What specific terrorist attacks did the former government of Iraq commit, organize or aid?
they paid 25,000 to any Palistinean who died attacking Jews.
Thats sounds like aid to me.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
they paid 25,000 to any Palistinean who died attacking Jews.
Thats sounds like aid to me.
wrong answer : it's not specific :rolleyes:
-
There's no question a good portion of the justification for war was sold and hyped by the Bush administration.
I think most wars are propagandized, as the American public normally prefers a course of isolationism.
9/11 changed all that. We were looking for a fight, and one was manufactured for us.
I don't think Bush Lied about WMD's but he surely does have egg on his face on that particular aspect now. I highly doubt the WMDs will ever be found and very likely were destroyed. I think he believed in his heart, and was told by the intelligence agencies that there were in fat WMDs there. Why else would he crucify himself? So instead of being a liar, he's a dupe. Not much better, but....
I guess Saddam actually believed the UN Inspectors were spies. Why else would he have kept them out if he really had nothing to hide?
In the defense of Bush and Co. it was recently stated by members of the former Iraqi government, that Saddam perpetrated the belief that he had WMD's to keep the US at bay. Perhaps his little facade worked too well.
Though I agree that the war was sold to us, I still believe strongly that the end result is worth the effort. Iraq is still a necessary battleground against terrorism.
Unfortunatley, it's not nearly as festering with terrorists as Saudi Arabia, but we all know that country is off the list of potential targets.
-
Neville Chamberlain!
The WMD are hidden in the Maginot Line :)
Some of us never believed 9/11 or WMD were the main reasons for the war, just the justification for proceeding with a risky, McNamara-esque vision by the PNAC on how we could remake the middle east through force and on ours and Israel's terms. NEOCONS (http://www.iconservative.com/neoconservatives.htm) like Wolfowitz, Perle and Rumsfield convinced the president of a grand vision that was too hard to explain to the people on its own merits, or lack there of apparently. They have been pushing for this for over a decade -- there is a lot of documentation on this and they aren't shy about addressing it directly -- and after 9/11 they saw the opportunity to make it happen.
They were helped by a Washington Press Corp, who -- with a few notable exceptions like Helen Thomas who was dropped from the president's final pre-war press conference because she asked hard questions -- didn't want to risk their careers (access to officials/embeds/public opinion) by being too controversial. They were just like the cowardly Democratic politicians who only now think it was a bad idea.
FWIW I didn't like this one bit (they made an awful lot of assumptions that didn't seem all that solid) but felt it was technically justified by the WMD issue. Most of us thought they were there, I'm fairly sure even Bush though they were there. But, I don't think it was an important enough reason to the people setting the policy to make absolutely sure they were. Anyway, It's really all about Saudi Arabia.
William Kristol
Testimony Before
The House Committee on International Relations
Subcommittee on Middle East and South Asia
May 22, 2002
Excerpts from: http://www.newamericancentury.org/saudi-052302.htm
Since the end of World War II, the United States has regarded the al-Saud regime as a friend, or an ally, or at least a partner for stability in the Middle East. After September 11, it is time to call this assumption into question. It is time for the United States to rethink its relationship with Riyadh. For we are now at war -- at war with terror and its sponsor, radical Islam. And in this war, the Saudi regime is more part of the problem than part of the solution...
The case for reevaluating our strategic partnership with the current Saudi regime is a strong one. Begin with the simple fact that 15 of the 19 participants in the September 11 attacks were Saudi nationals. That’s something the Saudis themselves could not initially admit. A large proportion -- perhaps as high as 80 percent, according to some reports -- of the “detainees” taken from Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay are Saudis. And although Osama bin Laden has made much of his antipathy to the Saudi regime, his true relationship with the royal family is certainly more complex and questionable. The Saudis refused, despite the urgings of the Clinton Administration, to take him into custody in 1996 when Sudan offered to deliver him...
But even more important than funding terrorist acts has been the Saudi regime’s general and aggressive export of Wahhabi fundamentalism. “Saudi Arabia,” writes Michael Vlahos of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, has “sought to make Islam a sort of wholly-owned subsidiary of the Saud family.” Wahhabi teachings, religious schools and Saudi oil money have encouraged young Muslims in countries around the world to a jihad-like incitement against non-Muslims. The combination of Wahhabi ideology and Saudi money has contributed more to the radicalization and anti-Americanization of large parts of the Islamic world than any other single factor...
At the same time, it is clear that we cannot base our strategy for the region on the hope that the Saudis will moderate their behavior to suit our interests. To the Saudis we have been, at best, allies of convenience, shielding them from other would-be regional hegemons with greater conventional military strength, larger populations and more diverse economies. The Saudi desire to create a caliphate of money and religious extremism depends upon an unwitting American partner.
So in addition to hoping for and encouraging change from within Saudi Arabia, we should develop strategic alternatives to reliance on Riyadh. In the military sphere, we have already begun to hedge, with agreements and deployments to other Gulf emirates. Although still the strongest influence on oil prices, other source -- in Russia, the Caspian Basin, Mexico and elsewhere -- can be developed and brought to market at a reasonable cost. The attacks of September 11 remind us that it is not just what we pay at the pump but what we pay in lives, security and international political stability that comprise the true price of Saudi oil...
In particular, removing the regime of Saddam Hussein and helping construct a decent Iraqi society and economy would be a tremendous step toward reducing Saudi leverage. Bringing Iraqi oil fully into world markets would improve energy economics. From a military and strategic perspective, Iraq is more important than Saudi Arabia. And building a representative government in Baghdad would demonstrate that democracy can work in the Arab world. This, too, would be a useful challenge to the current Saudi regime...
Additional:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/middleeast-20010827.htm
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqsep1898.htm
Charon
-
Hackworth is also calling it like it is:
Time for Straight Talk
By David H. Hackworth
Recent polls reveal that 70 percent of Americans honestly believe that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 – a powerful testimony to Karl Rove and the neoconservative propaganda machine.
Connecting the dots where there aren’t any in order to pin the rap on Saddam is about as bent as ignoring Saudi Arabia’s very real involvement in 9/11. But that linkage just might inconvenience a bunch of crooked oil barons doing “bidnezz” with their porker pals in Washington.
The cold facts are that the destruction of the twin towers was carefully planned by the al-Qaeda gang led by Osama bin Laden, a Saudi fundamentalist Muslim who would probably sooner form some sort of alliance with the state of Israel than join forces with Saddam, whom he’s always considered as corrupt an infidel as the rest of us. Count on it – no fingerprints from former top Iraqi leadership will ever be found tying Baghdad to 9/11.
Several years before that sad, calamitous September day, my wife and I moved from New York City to Connecticut. As a contributing editor for Newsweek who’s spent a fair amount of my life studying terrorism and insurgency, I could see a tsunami-grade terrorist attack coming as clearly as the cityscapes of the towers we used to seek out during early morning constitutionals. That is, until my fears finally convinced my wife that we should move to safer ground.
As I pumped grunt sources, read thousands of reports and slowly put the terrible puzzle together, all the arrows pointed toward our being whacked – just as the fall of Saigon seemed inevitable to me after comparing that bloody reality to the Nixon/Kissinger spin on how well the phony “peace with honor” Vietnamization program was going.
And as in Vietnam in 1971, I began sounding the alarm about this imminent new terrorist threat during well-attended speeches across America, as a talking head on hundreds of TV and radio shows and in this column. I even did a major piece for Maxim’s August 2000 issue called “World War III: Terrorism,” which outlined five possible scenarios Osama’s boys might use in five U.S. cities – including the Big Apple.
The general underwhelming reaction was: “Well, Hackworth's finally lost it, and he should fade away.”
Instead, I held my position and kept putting out the word while Eilhys and I built our house of bricks at a careful distance from what's now known as Ground Zero.
On the two-year anniversary of 9/11, both the hardliners within the administration and the chicken hawks on the airwaves are stubbornly continuing to blame the strikes on Saddam, painting his tyrannical regime as a major player in the Islamic fundamentalist jihad to maintain support for our gigantic misadventure in Iraq. It was the same sort of scare tactics the manipulators used during the Vietnam War when they kept asserting that a defeat there would be the key domino falling and we’d soon be defending the beaches of the West Coast from invading commies.
Once again, most Americans – including a lot of red-faced lawmakers – have fallen for the old Hitler trick: Tell a lie often enough and the people will believe it.
The losers are our soldiers still stuck in the sand, the scores of fallen warriors who were quietly buried from “sea to shining sea,” the hundreds of maimed who are maxing out our military hospitals, and the American taxpayers who’ll be laying out big bucks for a war against terrorism that has struck the wrong target.
And we’re talking another big win for Osama, who’s out there somewhere sucking the sweet Pakistani mountain air as he plots yet more genocide against an America whose homeland defenses – despite the billions of dollars blown – are perhaps only marginally better than pre-9/11.
The Bush administration has a responsibility to tell the American people the truth, not feed us more self-serving lies – now more than ever, since so many good folks are too busy looking for jobs to separate the cow mounds from the grass.
And the buck doesn’t stop there: We the people need to understand that if we aren’t vigilant and insistent on the truth, then we are one with the liars who got us into this mess in the first place.
-
Something interesting I found while reading UN Resolution 687 from the 1991 Cease Fire agreement:
"Deploring threats made by Iraq during the recent conflict to make use of terrorism against targets outside Iraq and the taking of hostages by Iraq."
Have a look and make your own decision. It's in the first section.