DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on February 09, 2007, 03:28:16 AM
-
"Which is why decent, peace-loving, respectful-of-human-life people DO NOT START WARS, for non-existent or manufactured reasons."
In an effort to pull Tee out of his rut, I thought I'd address a core problem with the Iraq debate. Now, I ask if folks on the left, could put their Bush is Hitler glasses away for a while and address this debate with some civility and substance. Tee's above quote is very accurate. 1st half is absolutely reasonable. The 2nd half is the qualifying opinion that makes the 1st half credible. Fair enough?
So, when that opinion is debunked by a mountain load of facts and logic to the contrary, is the 1st half discredited? The person posing the opinion? When that opinion is presented as "sun will rise in the East" fact, what does that say?
But truthfully, this is where the rubber hits the road, for many, as it relates to Bush and the war in Iraq. For a huge chunk of folks (pretty much the same flock that believes Bush stole the elections), Bush absolutely lied us into war, manufactured reasons, manipulated Intel, and fooled everyone into following him in. That mind has been made up. And for those, the only real reason to "debate" them, is in highlighting the sheer lunacy of many of the positions they use in "coming to their reasoned conclusions"
Now there are those who also believe Bush can do no wrong. That as CnC, his orders in a time of war, are to be followed to the letter, that such commands are not to be challenged or questioned. That he has the absolute authority to do anything necessary in a time of war, even if it pushes the Constitution out of the way. If there are any "24" fans out there, you'll note the President's Chief of Staff, Lennox comes to mind, though he's looking at the Country as his CnC, and not the President. The point being, there are fringe folk on both of the ideological isles
But instead of getting bogged down into both sides trying to stamp their feet as to how bogus vs non-bogus the reasons for going to war were, why isn't it possible to debate the merits of the 1st half of the quote Tee provided, that I placed at the top, minus the 2nd half of it which brings out the vitriol. Why can't folks debate if it was prudent to go to war?
Let's pretend for a moment that Bush is right, and everything he said about Saddam's WMD was accurate, based on what his intel told him AT THE TIME. If that were the case, was it a good enough reason for going into Iraq? Would "decent, peace-loving, respectful-of-human-life people" believe it to be good enough to go to war? THAT's the debate we should be having. THAT's the debate that has merit, and can be substantively debated by all sides. Those that would still opine it was unjust and inappropriate, with their reasoned explanations, THOSE would be the opinions I could truly respect, and possibly even be moved in changing my position in supporting Bush on the war
(http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/11/11_9_10.gif)
-
Let's pretend for a moment that Bush is right, and everything he said about Saddam's WMD was accurate, based on what his intel told him AT THE TIME. If that were the case, was it a good enough reason for going into Iraq? Would "decent, peace-loving, respectful-of-human-life people" believe it to be good enough to go to war?
IMO, no. I say that because I believe that there were many other tactics that could have been pursued, especially continued diplomacy.
And I also feel that if it is believed that the evidence Bush thought he had at the time was good enough, then there is certainly more than enough to go into N. Korea or Iran now, not to mention multiple other repressive dictators or dangerous regimes throughout history.
And in that, I think you might find part of the problem - this is what sets people off - making them believe even more strongly that the causes for the war were manufactured.
-
Let's pretend for a moment that Bush is right, and everything he said about Saddam's WMD was accurate, based on what his intel told him AT THE TIME. If that were the case, was it a good enough reason for going into Iraq? Would "decent, peace-loving, respectful-of-human-life people" believe it to be good enough to go to war?
IMO, no. I say that because I believe that there were many other tactics that could have been pursued, especially continued diplomacy.
And I also feel that if it is believed that the evidence Bush thought he had at the time was good enough, then there is certainly more than enough to go into N. Korea or Iran now, not to mention multiple other repressive dictators or dangerous regimes throughout history. And in that, I think you might find part of the problem - this is what sets people off - making them believe even more strongly that the causes for the war were manufactured.
And this is rational civil debate, that despite being opposite in my support of Bush and the War in Iraq, I not only can respect, but admire it. Thanks Miss Henny. When I have more time to respond, I would like to get back to you on this. Right now though, it's time for some zzzzzzzzz's
How about those Red Wings? 8)
-
<<Let's pretend for a moment that Bush is right, and everything he said about Saddam's WMD was accurate, based on what his intel told him AT THE TIME. >>
Why would we want to pretend that when even at the time he could not persuade the French, Germans, Belgians, Canadians, Russians, Chinese or scores of other countries that there was justification for war?
<<If that were the case, was it a good enough reason for going into Iraq? Would "decent, peace-loving, respectful-of-human-life people" believe it to be good enough to go to war? >>
Well, let's see. Is the possession of deadly weapons by a country with a history of attacking and invading other countries good enough reason to go to war against it? On that theory, any country that has the muscle would be perfectly justified in invading the U.S.A. Was that your point, sirs?
<<THAT's the debate we should be having. >>
Yeah, not the debate about lying Presidents that take the country to war on manufactured reasons. That's not important. It's much more important to debate hypothetical situations that exist only in some die-hard's fantasies ("He didn't lie. He couldn't lie. He didn't lie. He couldn't lie.") Let's debate what WOULD have been right if Bush HADN'T been lying.
<<THAT's the debate that has merit . . . .>>
Yeah, I can see that. Merit for whom? Anyone who wants to continue the cover-up? Anyone who wants to pretend Bush didn't lie?
<<and can be substantively debated by all sides. >>
Sure. I love to substantively debate all kinds of hypotheticals. What if Joe Louis had boxed Mumammed Ali? What if JACK DEMPSEY had taken on Rocky Marciano? Boy, those substantive debates get my juices flowing every time.
<<Those that would still opine it was unjust and inappropriate, with their reasoned explanations, THOSE would be the opinions I could truly respect . . . >> Holy shit! A chance my opinion could EARN the respect of sirs! Be still my beating heart!>>
<<and possibly even be moved in changing my position in supporting Bush on the war>>
That'll happen when you visit the White House and see with your own eyes him and Cheney dressed in ladies' underwear and French kissing on the White House lawn. Till then you're the last man to leave the party.
-
<<Let's pretend for a moment that Bush is right, and everything he said about Saddam's WMD was accurate, based on what his intel told him AT THE TIME. >>
Why would we want to pretend that when even at the time he could not persuade the French, Germans, Belgians, Canadians, Russians, Chinese or scores of other countries that there was justification for war?
Because the above wasn't about anyone else going to war. Apparently you've conceded that they too also believed Saddam had WMD stockpiles, which in itself helps reinforce the question I posed, that pretending Bush was right, was it still appropriate to go to war. Miss Henny understood the position and question. Now let's see if you do.
<<If that were the case, was it a good enough reason for going into Iraq? Would "decent, peace-loving, respectful-of-human-life people" believe it to be good enough to go to war? >>
Is the possession of deadly weapons by a country with a history of attacking and invading other countries good enough reason to go to war against it? On that theory, any country that has the muscle would be perfectly justified in invading the U.S.A. Was that your point, sirs?
Apparently you don't. No biggie. I knew you wouldn't and couldn't
<<THAT's the debate we should be having. >>
Yeah, not the debate about lying Presidents that take the country to war on manufactured reasons.
You want to initiate a thread like that, and prop your pathetic Bush-is-a-moron-who-lied-us-into-war opinions as "reasoned thought", you go right ahead. You and knute should have a great time
(http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_17_4.gif)
-
<<Because the above wasn't about anyone else going to war. >>
It was originally, remember? Only when Bush found the rest of the civilized world wasn't going to buy his lies, his bullshit or his blackmail did he decide that the U.S. and Britain would have to go it alone.
<< Apparently you've conceded that they too also believed Saddam had WMD stockpiles>>
Yes, at one time, chemical and biological but not nuclear stockpiles, but I believe he had accounted for them as the UN had asked, within the UN deadline for the accounting. Also that by the time of the invasion the weapons which he had not been permitted to have had been destroyed, which was part of the accountng.
<<You want to initiate a thread like that, and prop your pathetic Bush-is-a-moron-who-lied-us-into-war opinions as "reasoned thought", you go right ahead. You and knute should have a great time>>
I DID have a great time. Thanks to you. I guess you've exhausted that subject, which I don't blame you for. How many times can you get hit over the head with facts, logic and reason and still remain in the ring? But you have fun with your WHAT-IFs, sirs. You've earned some light relaxation.
-
but I believe he had accounted for them as the UN had asked, within the UN deadline for the accounting. Also that by the time of the invasion the weapons which he had not been permitted to have had been destroyed, which was part of the accountng.
You "believe" incorrectly. A number of chemical weapons were destroyed after the invasion that were not accounted to the UN.
-
<<You "believe" incorrectly. A number of chemical weapons were destroyed after the invasion that were not accounted to the UN.>>
Given the numbers of weapons involved and the length of time covered by the accounting, a perfect account of every single weapon was virtually impossible. Even at the time the accounting was produced, there were gaps in the account, but the gaps were considered reasonable given the circumstances and the difficulties involved. I doubt if even the most sophisticated large North American corporation could give a perfect accounting for every unit produced over a comparable time period. A Middle Eastern army operating under near-crisis boycott conditions could be expected to under-perform the corporation in that respect.
-
Given the numbers of weapons involved and the length of time covered by the accounting, a perfect account of every single weapon was virtually impossible. Even at the time the accounting was produced, there were gaps in the account, but the gaps were considered reasonable given the circumstances and the difficulties involved. I doubt if even the most sophisticated large North American corporation could give a perfect accounting for every unit produced over a comparable time period. A Middle Eastern army operating under near-crisis boycott conditions could be expected to under-perform the corporation in that respect.
OK, you "believe" incorrectly and are willing to make excuses for it.
-
OK, you "believe" incorrectly and are willing to make excuses for it.
Fits nicely into the template, doesn't it? ;)
-
<<OK, you "believe" incorrectly and are willing to make excuses for it.>>
I guess I'll take that as a compliment. Translated from neocon, it means I have a realistic expectation of what's possible and realistic standards of compliance.
-
it means I have a realistic expectation of what's possible and realistic standards of compliance.
So, do you always think that partial compliance is all that is needed?
-
<<So, do you always think that partial compliance is all that is needed?>>
I have enough common sense to know that an insistence on 100% compliance when everyone knows it's impossible to achieve is just creating a fig-leaf excuse for going to war. I also know that the majority of the UN Security Council was sufficiently satisfied with the compliance demonstrated that they were unwilling to authorize the use of violence that the U.S. would have demanded.
-
I also know that the majority of the UN Security Council was sufficiently satisfied with the compliance demonstrated that they were unwilling to authorize the use of violence that the U.S. would have demanded.
And how do you know this? France's threatened use of their veto prevented a vote from happening. I mean, I can "connect the dots" as well - France wouldn't have threatened the use of their veto if they thought the vote was going to go their way, would they?
-
I do not think it was unreasonable to assume that Saddam had WMD to hide , the best evidence of WMD we ever had was his expulsion of inspectors who could have lifted the UN blockade , sice he would rather have had the privcy than the money or freedom of action , I considered the resistance to accounting and lack of transparency to be evidence of something worthy of hideing.
I am not yet convinced entirely that the WMD are entirely reveiled , totally destroyed , all accounted for, if given the power of a king over a territory as large as Texas and money being no object I can imagine myself produceing a really good hideing place.
I was not shocked that the president and other well connected figures thought the same way ,if there was convinceing evidence of Saddams cleanliness there were lots of world leaders with motive to produce it, but most of all there was Saddam ,with Saddam proven in the past to e an offender with WMD it was up o him to prove his innocence rather than ours to assume it.
By the way , yes every drop of the US arsenal of war gasses can be accounted for and it is an expensive and troublesome disposal problem ,but worh the effort to dispose of properly. In Britan an Island was accidentally made unnhabitable for sixty years with a spill of Anthrax , lets hop that Saddam was more carefull.
-
Putting aside Tee's foaming over the keyboard style of debate, let's focus on some substantivity
Let's pretend for a moment that Bush is right, and everything he said about Saddam's WMD was accurate, based on what his intel told him AT THE TIME. If that were the case, was it a good enough reason for going into Iraq? Would "decent, peace-loving, respectful-of-human-life people" believe it to be good enough to go to war?
IMO, no. I say that because I believe that there were many other tactics that could have been pursued, especially continued diplomacy.
So, that brings up the logical foll-up question. How much more time does the President of the U.S. give diploamcy, following 911? You're the President. You've seen the intel, your CIA chief says "slam dunk", you have documented connections, both direct & indirect between Iraq & AlQeada, and AlQeada just murdered 3000 innoncent civilian Americans. Iraq also continues to remain out of compliance with UN 1441, not to mention a bunch of others. Given that on your table, how much more time does President Henny give Saddam & diplomacy?
BTW, what "many other tactics" would you be referring to, to bring Saddam into full compliance?
And I also feel that if it is believed that the evidence Bush thought he had at the time was good enough, then there is certainly more than enough to go into N. Korea or Iran now, not to mention multiple other repressive dictators or dangerous regimes throughout history.
Because they weren't in violation of UN 1441. Nor were there any documented connections between AlQeada & NK
And in that, I think you might find part of the problem - making them believe even more strongly that the causes for the war were manufactured.
But how could they possibly have been "manufactured" when the global intel community, the NIE, and practically every Dem, when Clinton was in charge, professed with near certainty Saddam's WMD danger to the region and WMD being used against the U.S. & its allies?? What was that official position on regime change all about then??
-
<<And how do you know this? [that the majority of the UN Security Council was satisfied with Saddam's accounting?] France's threatened use of their veto prevented a vote from happening. I mean, I can "connect the dots" as well - France wouldn't have threatened the use of their veto if they thought the vote was going to go their way, would they?>>
You're right and I'm wrong. Sort of. I was thinking of the old Security Council - - US, UK, France, USSR and China. France, USSR and China were against invasion. I wasn't thinking of the current, 15-member council.
However, France's threat of the veto does not necessarily mean that they expected a majority vote in favour of the U.S. position. It could have been nothing more than an emphatic demonstration of French opposition. The Americans could have scored at least a symbolic victory had they been supported in their request for an invasion, only to be disappointed by a French veto. This would have given them moral, if not legal, justification for their action. The American decision NOT to proceed in the Security Council indicates to me that they felt not only would they lose, but that they wouldn't even gain a moral victory.
-
However, France's threat of the veto does not necessarily mean that they expected a majority vote in favour of the U.S. position. It could have been nothing more than an emphatic demonstration of French opposition.
Personally, I think the threatened veto was no more than government support for the French oil company that had just signed a huge deal with Saddam.
-
<<Personally, I think the threatened veto was no more than government support for the French oil company that had just signed a huge deal with Saddam.>>
I guess the deal wasn't huge enough to make the U.S. government wonder why it was allowing Saddam to stay in business handing out deals to French oil companies? wonder if the new American-installed "government" will be as good to the French as the last one? Nothing to do with the Bush administration, I'm sure. None of their business, they just wanted an independent Iraq, right?
-
I guess the deal wasn't huge enough to make the U.S. government wonder why it was allowing Saddam to stay in business handing out deals to French oil companies? wonder if the new American-installed "government" will be as good to the French as the last one? Nothing to do with the Bush administration, I'm sure. None of their business, they just wanted an independent Iraq, right?
Actually, I'm pretty sure I read last week that Total (formerly Total Fina Elf) was getting one of the new deals.
So, yeah, I guess they are handing out deals to "French oil companies."
-
"I read last week that Total (formerly Total Fina Elf)"
I would like to see that.
-
I guess the deal wasn't huge enough to make the U.S. government wonder why it was allowing Saddam to stay in business handing out deals to French oil companies? wonder if the new American-installed "government" will be as good to the French as the last one? Nothing to do with the Bush administration, I'm sure. None of their business, they just wanted an independent Iraq, right?
Actually, I'm pretty sure I read last week that Total (formerly Total Fina Elf) was getting one of the new deals. So, yeah, I guess they are handing out deals to "French oil companies."
D'oh (http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_11_13.gif)
-
They're liars.
In a telephone interview yesterday, Feith emphasized the inspector general's conclusion that his actions, described in the report as 'inappropriate,' were not unlawful. 'This was not 'alternative intelligence assessment,' ' he said. 'It was from the start a criticism of the consensus of the intelligence community, and in presenting it I was not endorsing its substance.
[As Kevin Drum puts it,
Official's Key Report On Iraq Is Faulted
'Dubious' Intelligence Fueled Push for War
By Walter Pincus and R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, February 9, 2007; Page A01
Intelligence provided by former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith to buttress the White House case for invading Iraq included "reporting of dubious quality or reliability" that supported the political views of senior administration officials rather than the conclusions of the intelligence community, according to a report by the Pentagon's inspector general.
Feith's office "was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," according to portions of the report, released yesterday by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.). The inspector general described Feith's activities as "an alternative intelligence assessment process."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020802387.html
Some senior administration officials still relish the notion of a direct confrontation. One ambassador in Washington said he was taken aback when John Hannah, Vice President Cheney's national security adviser, said during a recent meeting that the administration considers 2007 "the year of Iran" and indicated that a U.S. attack was a real possibility. Hannah declined to be interviewed for this article.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/10/AR2007021001275.html
I think "To War" has been decided. Whose kids are going to fight it, and whose money...ahahah, never mind, they'll use the middle class and the poor, what am I saying? Bleed, die, pay. Repeat.
-
They're liars.
The NIE, and (one more time) the vast majority of nearly every other country's intel agencies, say otherwise, as it relates to Saddam's WMD disposition, at the time we went to war. Not sure why this concept is so hard for so many to grasp. Blinded hatred for the man Bush, is my guess
-
<<Not sure why this concept is so hard for so many to grasp. Blinded hatred for the man Bush, is my guess>>
No, guess again: because it's another lie, actually. NONE of the intelligence received was sufficient to generate a decision to go to war on the part of Russia, China, France, Germany, Canada and many other countries. So whatever the conclusions of their "intelligence communities" a great many responsible, law-abiding nations did not take the criminal path of the Bush administration.
On the alleged ELF contract, it could possibly be true and it wouldn't mean jack-shit. (Like most of the "truths" that Ami puts out.) On the one hand, Ami refers to a Saddam-era concession to a French oil company that was so huge it would induce France to use its veto power in the Security Council. Against which he now "balances" a rumoured post-Saddam contract with a French oil company . . . with no indication whatsoever of the size of the contract or how it compares with the "huge" contract that allegedly brought out the French veto threat.
As if the U.S. government would be so transparently stupid as to insist upon a monopoly of all post-Saddam oil concessions, thereby virtually confirming to all its critics, domestic and foreign, that it really was about oil all along. Step into the real world, Ami, where control of a public corporation doesn't mean ownership of 51% of the voting shares and control of the oil in a given country doesn't mean 100% of every deal made.
-
On the alleged ELF contract, it could possibly be true and it wouldn't mean jack-shit.
Of course not. You're always right, and anything that contradicts you doesn't "mean jack-shit."
Arrogant asshole.
-
<<Of course not. You're always right, and anything that contradicts you doesn't "mean jack-shit.">>
Not always, but often enough that it just seems like always. Especially to those who are almost always wrong.
<<Arrogant asshole.>>
Sorry about that. I'm working on developing my humility even as we speak and I think I can safely say I've got that arrogance thing licked.
-
<<Not sure why this concept is so hard for so many to grasp. Blinded hatred for the man Bush, is my guess>>
No, guess again: because it's another lie, actually. NONE of the intelligence received was sufficient to generate a decision to go to war on the part of Russia, China, France, Germany, Canada and many other countries.
Actually, the LIE is trying to persuade the folks here that the intel conclusions were being generated to determine if we all should go to war with Iraq and not. NEVER was. The intel is simply the intel. And he intel was nearly unamimous in it's conclusions about Saddam's WMD disposition. THAT'S A FACT, and no amount of rivisionist distortion on your part is going to change THAT FACT
-
I think "To War" has been decided. Whose kids are going to fight it, and whose money...ahahah, never mind, they'll use the middle class and the poor, what am I saying? Bleed, die, pay. Repeat.
The rich pay more than their share for wars monetariliy, and if you want them to fight it also, reinstate the draft. Pretty simple solution.
-
I think "To War" has been decided. Whose kids are going to fight it, and whose money...ahahah, never mind, they'll use the middle class and the poor, what am I saying? Bleed, die, pay. Repeat.
The rich pay more than their share for wars monetariliy, and if you want them to fight it also, reinstate the draft. Pretty simple solution.
The Air Force is top heavy with officers because every aircraft needs at least one and somef them need three. In Bosnia 100% of the personell shot down behind enemy lines was an officer.
If we attack Iran we will be forced to use Air Power to reduc the Iranian ability to fight befre we use any other tactic , so for the first part , the well to do will be more exposed than any other class. The attempt to disunify the country alon class lines is not a good thing to do , the welthy include the same purortion of Barbra Strisand and Rush Limbaugh as the rest of us.
It is a nasty trick .
-
<<And he intel was nearly unamimous in it's conclusions about Saddam's WMD disposition. >>
Bullshit.
<< THAT'S A FACT . . . >>
Because you say so? Because you say so IN CAPITAL LETTERS? Because all of the intelligence agencies of all the countries on the face of the earth share their intelligence conclusions with you?
<<Actually, the LIE is trying to persuade the folks here that the intel conclusions were being generated to determine if we all should go to war with Iraq and not.>>
The intelligence was originally simple intelligence and nothing more, as you suggest. When the Bush administration wanted to use it to justify the invasion of Iraq, it wasn't good enough for that purpose. So Douglas Feith and his boss, Cheney, using Feith's office, started a new group to interpret the intelligence PURELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF JUSTIFYING A WAR ON IRAQ. That is the "intelligence" that Bush and his criminal gang used to justify invading Iraq and it was in fact manufactured to order for their nefarious purposes.
-
"
<< THAT'S A FACT . . . >>
Because you say so? Because you say so IN CAPITAL LETTERS? Because all of the intelligence agencies of all the countries on the face of the earth share their intelligence conclusions with you?
"...interpret the intelligence PURELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF JUSTIFYING A WAR ON IRAQ. "
fROM NOW ON ALL OF MY OPINIONS WILL BE MADE MANEFEST WITH CAPS LOCK ON.
-
<<If we attack Iran we will be forced to use Air Power to reduc the Iranian ability to fight befre we use any other tactic , so for the first part , the well to do will be more exposed than any other class. The attempt to disunify the country alon class lines is not a good thing to do , the welthy include the same purortion of Barbra Strisand and Rush Limbaugh as the rest of us.>>
Ludicrous. In air war, you minimize your casualties to the point of non-existence. That's why it's your weapon of preference. The bulk of the casualties in every war from and including Viet Nam have been from the underclass - - the dumbest, the poorest, the most desperate. Nasty trick, my ass. That's FACT.
-
<<fROM NOW ON ALL OF MY OPINIONS WILL BE MADE MANEFEST WITH CAPS LOCK ON.>>
CAPS LOCK IS FOR WIMPS. REAL MEN USE CAPS LOCK AND RED.
-
<<If we attack Iran we will be forced to use Air Power to reduc the Iranian ability to fight befre we use any other tactic , so for the first part , the well to do will be more exposed than any other class. The attempt to disunify the country alon class lines is not a good thing to do , the welthy include the same purortion of Barbra Strisand and Rush Limbaugh as the rest of us.>>
Ludicrous. In air war, you minimize your casualties to the point of non-existence. That's why it's your weapon of preference. The bulk of the casualties in every war from and including Viet Nam have been from the underclass - - the dumbest, the poorest, the most desperate. Nasty trick, my ass. That's FACT.
Yep.
Iran isn't and ,can't be, prepared for the mess they are begging for , the only choice we have if we must fight Iran woud be to bomb heavyly and probly set records for the weight of bombs.
The single biggest reason for us to be reluctant is the human feeling we have to be reluctant to cause such carnage .
[][][][][][][][][][]
BTW please do not think of our poor as stupid, a large purportion of them are not deficient in any respect other than cash.
-
<<And he intel was nearly unamimous in it's conclusions about Saddam's WMD disposition. >>
Bullshit.
LOL....Let's not let facts get in the way of one's predisposed made-up-mind
<< THAT'S A FACT . . . >>
Because you say so? Because you say so IN CAPITAL LETTERS?
Actually, because FACTUALLY, the intel services say so, not sirs
Because all of the intelligence agencies of all the countries on the face of the earth share their intelligence conclusions with you?
No, not all, and and not to me personally. Just to the each country's leadership, which in turn releases what they know, to the general public via news reports, press releases, and committee conclusions. Unlike you, I don't use Tee-leaf logic when I post a fact
<<Actually, the LIE is trying to persuade the folks here that the intel conclusions were being generated to determine if we all should go to war with Iraq and not.>>
The intelligence was originally simple intelligence and nothing more, as you suggest.
Well, what do ya know, a small concession. I'm impressed
-
<<LOL....Let's not let facts get in the way of one's predisposed made-up-mind>>
FACTS? Oh, you got facts that say the intelligence was nearly unanimous? Mind sharing them with us? (If the world intelligence agencies that share their stuff with you don't object, of course.)
<<No, not all, and and not to me personally. Just to the each country's leadership, which in turn releases what they know, to the general public via news reports, press releases, and committee conclusions. Unlike you, I don't use Tee-leaf logic when I post a fact>>
No, no, of course not. You just simply make up the fact, from whole cloth. My compliments. I'm impressed.
-
<<LOL....Let's not let facts get in the way of one's predisposed made-up-mind>>
FACTS? Oh, you got facts that say the intelligence was nearly unanimous? Mind sharing them with us?
If Ami, nor Plane, nor Bt, nor anyone else has had a chance to do so for you, I'll endeavor to do some googling for you later tonight.
Quick question though. What difference does it make to you. You've already moved on to the new tact of trying to claim it was intel being generated to illicit war. So what if the vast majority were in agreement that Saddam had WMD. According to you, it wasn't enough for them to throw the war switch.
<<Unlike you, I don't use Tee-leaf logic when I post a fact>>
No, no, of course not. You just simply make up the fact, from whole cloth.
Must have learned from you, the master I guess
-
Let's pretend for a moment that Bush is right, and everything he said about Saddam's WMD was accurate, based on what his intel told him AT THE TIME. If that were the case, was it a good enough reason for going into Iraq?
No. It was an unjust war regardless of the outcome.
Iran isn't and ,can't be, prepared for the mess they are begging for , the only choice we have if we must fight Iran woud be to bomb heavyly and probly set records for the weight of bombs.
It is amazing to me that even after Vietnam and Iraq, that Americans are still wrapped in this myth of invincibility and continual underestimation of their opponents and complete misunderstanding of foreign societies and cultures. Don't be so sure that bomb tonnage and the power of the US Air Force (and more likely Navy) is going to cripple Iran so easily. Don't be so sure that the Iranians cannot withstand warfare probably far better than Americans.
-
Although we here have no special access to hidden knoledge , public knoledge is not that much less correct most of the time.
That is the purpose of haveing free press and no monopoly of power in one party.
The press is rewarded monetarily for finding facts for us and there needs to be enough competition to make them good at it .
The differing partys in power nationally and internationlly release the infrmation to the public that is good for their own faction, most of the time this amounts, in composite , to everything.
It is notoriously difficult for Washington to keep a secret, things that are known in several capitols are pretty special if they stay secret long.
But what is known and what is true can be quite diffrent .
Saddam ought to have been very proud of his accomplishment in keeping his WMD dearth secret .
-
Let's pretend for a moment that Bush is right, and everything he said about Saddam's WMD was accurate, based on what his intel told him AT THE TIME. If that were the case, was it a good enough reason for going into Iraq?
No. It was an unjust war regardless of the outcome.
Iran isn't and ,can't be, prepared for the mess they are begging for , the only choice we have if we must fight Iran woud be to bomb heavyly and probly set records for the weight of bombs.
It is amazing to me that even after Vietnam and Iraq, that Americans are still wrapped in this myth of invincibility and continual underestimation of their opponents and complete misunderstanding of foreign societies and cultures. Don't be so sure that bomb tonnage and the power of the US Air Force (and more likely Navy) is going to cripple Iran so easily. Don't be so sure that the Iranians cannot withstand warfare probably far better than Americans.
By "withstand" what do you mean?
If we ruin their ability to attack us , do we need to do more?
Iran has made itself extrodnairiay vunerable by placing radioactive stuff all over their country , after we bomb that, we have converted whatever potential for threat there may be to a problem with refugees.
-
<<So what if the vast majority were in agreement that Saddam had WMD. According to you, it wasn't enough for them to throw the war switch.>>
Well, that's a good question. It's even, in its own way, an intelligent question. I believe that at one point Saddam did have WMD. Then he came under a lot of pressure to destroy them, and - - to the best of his ability - - he did. Then he had to give an accounting of his WMD to the UN, which he also did, two or three days prior to the expiration of the deadline. And it was, by all accounts, a massive accounting.
Most of the intelligence that you refer to dates to before the accounting, which was more or less accepted by most UN members. It would be a surprise to me if any of the intelligence agencies were giving the opinion you claim for them after the accounting was delivered to the UN by Saddam.
But I still think you're missing the point. Regardless of the "intelligence," the decision to invade has to be based on more than simply what the intelligence report says. For example, intelligence would definitely report WMD exist in China, Pakistan and Israel. None of this triggers an automatic "attack" response. Israel not only refuses to account for its WMD, it denies their very existence. The decision to attack - - supposedly - - was based on the intelligence conclusions that Iraq did possess WMD and the political judgment that such possession constituted an intolerable and immediate threat to America's existence. So it's still a judgment call that can't be blamed on "bad intel."
-
<<So what if the vast majority were in agreement that Saddam had WMD. According to you, it wasn't enough for them to throw the war switch.>>
Well, that's a good question. It's even, in its own way, an intelligent question. I believe that at one point Saddam did have WMD. Then he came under a lot of pressure to destroy them, and - - to the best of his ability - - he did. Then he had to give an accounting of his WMD to the UN, which he also did, two or three days prior to the expiration of the deadline. And it was, by all accounts, a massive accounting.
Most of the intelligence that you refer to dates to before the accounting, which was more or less accepted by most UN members. It would be a surprise to me if any of the intelligence agencies were giving the opinion you claim for them after the accounting was delivered to the UN by Saddam.
But I still think you're missing the point. Regardless of the "intelligence," the decision to invade has to be based on more than simply what the intelligence report says. For example, intelligence would definitely report WMD exist in China, Pakistan and Israel. None of this triggers an automatic "attack" response. Israel not only refuses to account for its WMD, it denies their very existence. The decision to attack - - supposedly - - was based on the intelligence conclusions that Iraq did possess WMD and the political judgment that such possession constituted an intolerable and immediate threat to America's existence. So it's still a judgment call that can't be blamed on "bad intel."
Perhaps not immeiadiate , but definately intolerable.
There was no deadline for Saddam to worry about before Presidnt Bush made him beleive that there could really be an invasion.
-
By "withstand" what do you mean?
"Withstand" - able to recover from quickly.
If we ruin their ability to attack us , do we need to do more?
I don't recall Iran attacking the United States.
Iran has made itself extrodnairiay vunerable by placing radioactive stuff all over their country , after we bomb that, we have converted whatever potential for threat there may be to a problem with refugees.
Not really. It wouldn't be that difficult for Iran to recover and rebuild a nuclear facility in a much more remote location. Also, Iran could intensify their work in Iraq, something we aren't doing a very good job of handling as it is. They could theoretically make our soldiers' lives much more miserable than they already are.
Also, bombing Iran and killing civilians will only help to strengthen the hardline mullah's positions in Iran. They can point to the American air strikes and say, "look, what did we tell you about the Americans? Didn't we say they'd attack us? Didn't we tell you that they'd kill innocent women and children?" So even moderate and liberal Iranians would have a difficult time refuting that. Iranians with pro-western views would either have to retract those views or likely be purged.
Pro-Iranian Shi'a in Iraq would likely become much more inflamed. People who weren't anti-American before would suddenly become so. Why? Because they don't view Iran as a terrorist state or some ridiculous theocracy as you might. They see Iran as the answer to these unholy secularist states like Syria, Egypt, Turkey, Qatar, and formerly Iraq. They see Iran as a state that is willing to follow Koranic law despite what world opinion thinks about it. And the Americans just had the outrage to bomb it!
So yeah, you make it out like it is a nice and tidy little undertaking by some warplanes. That's our problem in this country. Somewhere along the way we decided that it was unmanly to think before you acted. We're a superpower and we have to show people that we use our force to make other countries do what we say.
Unfortunately that doesn't mesh with the realities of the world.
-
Iraq has ben attacking Americans since the Shah left.
They have killed hundreds , have been for years , and they want expantion of the effort,why are we tolerateing it?
-
Iraq has ben attacking Americans since the Shah left.
Iraq never had a shah, but I assume you mean Iran. They haven't made many "attacks." They've supported some terrorist groups, but the U.S. dealt with them as well. And U.S. support for Iraq during the Iran/Iraq War was well known. Plus US support for the Shah, his army, and SAVAK were well known. It wasn't as if we were innocent as the pure driven snow.
They have killed hundreds , have been for years , and they want expantion of the effort,why are we tolerateing it?
Because diplomacy and understanding foreign relations are a lot more complex than watching Under Siege or Rambo.
Seriously, you really believe we haven't helped kill as many or more of them?
-
Iraq has ben attacking Americans since the Shah left.
Iraq never had a shah, but I assume you mean Iran. They haven't made many "attacks." They've supported some terrorist groups, but the U.S. dealt with them as well. And U.S. support for Iraq during the Iran/Iraq War was well known. Plus US support for the Shah, his army, and SAVAK were well known. It wasn't as if we were innocent as the pure driven snow.
They have killed hundreds , have been for years , and they want expantion of the effort,why are we tolerateing it?
Because diplomacy and understanding foreign relations are a lot more complex than watching Under Siege or Rambo.
Seriously, you really believe we haven't helped kill as many or more of them?
Yes ,I do mean Iran . Thank you .
"They haven't made many "attacks." They've supported some terrorist groups,..."
Excuse me? Define "attack" in terms that do not include hireing goons to kill.
"Seriously, you really believe we haven't helped kill as many or more of them? "
Not yet , not nearly , and I still have hope of avoiding it.
Because diplomacy and understanding foreign relations are a lot more complex than watching Under Siege or Rambo.
It is more like "The Godfather".
-
plane: [speaking of the purported Iraqi threat to the U.S.]
<<Perhaps not immeiadiate , but definately intolerable.>>
I think you need to re-think the difference between "irritating" and "intolerable."
There was no immediate threat to the U.S.A. posed by Iraq. There was a perfectly acceptable mechanism in place in the U.N. for resolving real threats, this was the Security Council, which was not even asked by the U.S. to intervene. If a peace-keeping apparatus, set up with great care over the past 60 years, was completely by-passed, what does this do to international law and the means of peaceably resolving future clashes? Guarantees more violence, IMHO. not less.
I think at some point you need to come to grips with what your country has done, the lawlessness, the cynicism, the lives lost - - all unnecessary and all deplorable. You have absolutely nothing to be proud of in the record of the Bush administration's foreign policy.
-
plane: [speaking of the purported Iraqi threat to the U.S.]
<<Perhaps not immeiadiate , but definately intolerable.>>
I think you need to re-think the difference between "irritating" and "intolerable."
There was no immediate threat to the U.S.A. posed by Iraq. There was a perfectly acceptable mechanism in place in the U.N. for resolving real threats, this was the Security Council, which was not even asked by the U.S. to intervene. If a peace-keeping apparatus, set up with great care over the past 60 years, was completely by-passed, what does this do to international law and the means of peaceably resolving future clashes? Guarantees more violence, IMHO. not less.
I think at some point you need to come to grips with what your country has done, the lawlessness, the cynicism, the lives lost - - all unnecessary and all deplorable. You have absolutely nothing to be proud of in the record of the Bush administration's foreign policy.
The UN was not ineffective as we thought it was, it was actually corrupted and practicly in the hire of Saddam.
I wonder how the UN could ever become a trustworthy organisation , it appears to be a bribe magnet.
-
The UN was not ineffective as we thought it was, it was actually corrupted and practicly in the hire of Saddam. I wonder how the UN could ever become a trtworthy organisation , it appears to be a bribe magnet.
Not in our lifetime
-
<<The UN was not ineffective as we thought it was, it was actually corrupted and practicly in the hire of Saddam.>>
That is exactly the kind of unthinking negative bullshit that makes me sick. The UN and its predecessor the League of Nations were the first co-ordinated, serious effort in the entire recorded history of the human race to regulate the relations of states and abolish the scourge of war, which in the past century alone claimed well over 50 million lives. By no coincidence, two U.S. Presidents were instrumental in laying the foundation of these institutions.
You would think that every decent human being on this planet would support such an effort wholeheartedly. That no sane, realistic person would expect anything approaching perfection from the UN, that it is a start, and only a start, towards its founding goals. Instead we hear today - - from the right, from the Zionist Lobby and its supporters, from the forces of fascism, militarism and imperialism (naturally!) that the UN is "corrupt." From the citizens of America the Incorruptible, no less. From the land of Enron, and Jack Abramoff, from the Teapot Dome to the Savings & Loan debacle, from the Jesusland of Tammy Faye and Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart and Abscam and Watergate, we are getting the real lowdown on the United Nations - - "it's corrupt." Eeeew, the stench of corruption. How can any decent American deal with such people? Corrupt, is it? Fuck it, fuck the whole thing, fuck the corrupt United Nations and fuck its corrupt laws and its corrupt institutions and its corrupt treaties. One sovereign member state ought not war on another except in the clearest possible case of self-defence? Fuck that, that's corrupt. We'll do as we please. Why should the corrupt Charter of a corrupt organization bind the decent, law-abiding, snow-white and incorruptible American people? We make our own fuckin' rules here, pardner, because the laws are corrupt.
"practically in the hire of Saddam" - - plane, what are you thinking? Did Saddam then hire the UN to impose a boycott on himself that resulted in the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children?
<<I wonder how the UN could ever become a trustworthy organisation >>
You start by trusting it.
<< it appears to be a bribe magnet.>>
Then insist that the bribe-takers be tried, and if convicted, punished. Do you really think that five thousand years of recorded history provide no clue at all to what happens internationally if there is no supra-national institution to regulate teh relations of states? You and your vicious comments are chipping away steadily at the foundations of this wonderful institution, trying to take the planet back to a time when there was no UN and no League of Nations. And why do you do this? Because the UN is "corrupt." Probably in all its history, has LESS bribery and LESS scandal than your own pathetic nation over the same time frame, but that's obviously irrelevant. Why work towards strengthening the institution and building on it, when it's so much easier to tear it down.
You people who are so eager to tear down structures which try to impose a civilizing law on the relations of states and revert to the law of the jungle in international affairs probably do so because you feel you are the strongest beast in the jungle. Even if you were right, it would be a miserable and pathetic course to choose, but I think in the end there are stronger.
I've believed in the UN since I was a kid in elementary school. We were taught it would bring an end to war, which so far it has not done. But that's OK. I know now that people like plane (and he's far from the worst of them) will snipe and carp and do whatever they can to bring the UN into disrepute, and ultimately to make it, as John Bolton said, "irrelevant." You do your worst, and I and others will continue to do what we can, where we can, to see the UN strengthened, to see its errors corrected and to counteract everthing that the planes and sirs of the world can throw at it.
-
<<The UN was not ineffective as we thought it was, it was actually corrupted and practicly in the hire of Saddam.>>
That is exactly the kind of unthinking negative bullshit that makes me sick.
Well of course you would. You embody precisely what the UN has become, so of course it's gonna steam you when someone calls you on it.
The UN and its predecessor the League of Nations were the first co-ordinated, serious effort in the entire recorded history of the human race to regulate the relations of states and abolish the scourge of war, which in the past century alone claimed well over 50 million lives. By no coincidence, two U.S. Presidents were instrumental in laying the foundation of these institutions.
Unfortunately, just like some other organizations, like the NAACP & NEA, once well intentioned, and moral institutions, have gone the route of polar ideology, where diversity of thought is embraced, unless it's not of the same mindset as those running it, then it's deemed "hate speech", "intolerance". Then add years of overt Anti-americanism, blatant anti-semitism, corruption & bribery, and you have the new and improved version of the UN. Sad, quite sad, when you consider their original goals & purpose
-
<<The UN was not ineffective as we thought it was, it was actually corrupted and practicly in the hire of Saddam.>>
That is exactly the kind of unthinking negative bullshit that makes me sick. The UN and its predecessor the League of Nations were the first co-ordinated, serious effort in the entire recorded history of the human race to regulate the relations of states and abolish the scourge of war, which in the past century alone claimed well over 50 million lives. By no coincidence, two U.S. Presidents were instrumental in laying the foundation of these institutions.
You would think that every decent human being on this planet would support such an effort wholeheartedly.
No , it is still a mostly American product. We support it financhially out of all proportion to our population and very very out of purportion to any benefit we get from it. Itmight b a good thing for us to cut loose and let it leave the nest so that it can prove it can fly without its Mama pumping worms into it all day .
Fly free UN,fly free!
Then insist that the bribe-takers be tried, and if convicted, punished.
Not gonna happen , the end of Diplomatc immunity would be the end of the UN , he number of those diplomats who are so comitted to the UN that they would put up wth parking tickets is five , two of whom are British.
"practically in the hire of Saddam" - - plane, what are you thinking? Did Saddam then hire the UN to impose a boycott on himself that resulted in the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children?
Do you belive that?
And also beleive that there was plenty of time for inspection to search out the WMD situaion?
I don't beleive ether of these.
And I think we will continue to find that Saddm was useing the embargo as political props while he was smuggleing and bribeing hie way around it.
-
Oh, you got facts that say the intelligence was nearly unanimous? Mind sharing them with us?
Overt Bush Critic and former Chief of Staff to then Secretary of State Powell, Lawrence Wilkerson acknowledged that the Bush administration did not lack for company in interpreting the available evidence as it did: I can't tell you why the French, the Germans, the Brits and us thought that most of the material, if not all of it, that we presented at the U.N. on 5 February 2003 was the truth. I can't. I've wrestled with it. [But] when you see a satellite photograph of all the signs of the chemical-weapons ASP--Ammunition Supply Point--with chemical weapons, and you match all those signs with your matrix on what should show a chemical ASP, and they're there, you have to conclude that it's a chemical ASP, especially when you see the next satellite photograph which shows the UN inspectors wheeling in their white vehicles with black markings on them to that same ASP, and everything is changed, everything is clean. . . . But George [Tenet] was convinced, John McLaughlin [Tenet's deputy] was convinced, that what we were presented [for Powell's UN speech] was accurate.
Going on to shoot down another mis-impression, Mr. Wilkerson informs that even the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, known as INR, was convinced: "People say, well, INR dissented. That's a bunch of bull. INR dissented that the nuclear program was up and running. That's all INR dissented on. They were right there with the chems and the bios....the consensus of the intelligence community was overwhelming" in the period leading up to the invasion of Iraq that Saddam definitely had an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, and that he was also in all probability well on the way to rebuilding the nuclear capability that the Israelis had damaged by bombing the Osirak reactor in 1981.
Another war critic, Kenneth Pollack, National Security Council under Clinton, in latespring of 2002: I participated in a Washington meeting about Iraqi WMD. Those present included nearly twenty former inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), the force established in 1991 to oversee the elimination of WMD in Iraq. One of the senior people put a question to the group: did anyone in the room doubt that Iraq was currently operating a secret centrifuge plant? No one did. Three people added that they believed Iraq was also operating a secret calutron plant (a facility for separating uranium isotopes).
But of course, those aren't facts, right Tee?....that's just sirs made up fantasy of who said what. (http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_11_13.gif)
-
Wilkerson (quoted by sirs) <<I can't tell you why the French, the Germans, the Brits and us thought that most of the material, if not all of it, that we presented at the U.N. on 5 February 2003 was the truth. I can't.>>
The Brits were your partners in crime. They cooked their books, you cooked yours. All that Wilkerson seems to be saying is "he can't tell you why they thought X, Y & Z."
Who says they did? How does Wilkerson know they did? By their silence? By one of them saying so? And if one of them said so, was that the truth, or were they just being diplomatic? We'll never know. What we DO know for a fact is that the French and German governments (and many others) despite what their intelligence services may or may not have believed did not see the need to go to war against Iraq. Possibly because they didn't believe their own intelligence services (and no reason why they should, their job was to critique the intelligence, not rubber-stamp it) and possibly because even it you accepted it all, it did not add up to a justification to invade another country.
-
The Brits were your partners in crime. They cooked their books, you cooked yours. All that Wilkerson seems to be saying is "he can't tell you why they thought X, Y & Z."
Who says they did? How does Wilkerson know they did? By their silence? By one of them saying so? And if one of them said so, was that the truth, or were they just being diplomatic? We'll never know.
Tee's SOP, let's ignore the facts that fly in the face of his made up mind. What we DO KNOW, was WHAT WAS SAID. So for Tee, Wilkerson & Pollack never said what they said, never worked in the field that they worked, never could make assessments and conclusions based on their initimate connections with the Intelligence community. Let's pretend Wilkerson & Pollack don't exist. There, now Tee is right, now Tee can claim he's validated.
Give Tee precisely what he asks for (evidence of near unanimity in the intelligence community, NOT that it was used to try and justify war from all countries) and by god, that's not going to budge that template a milliimeter
-
<<Well of course you would [be sickened by the negative bullshit aimed at the UN.] You embody precisely what the UN has become, so of course it's gonna steam you when someone calls you on it.>>
What pisses me off is (a) the criminal and totally illegal actions of the U.S.A. and even more than that (b) their God-damn fucking hypocrisy in not only committing every fucking war crime possible but denouncing the very agency that they themselves had set up to stop that kind of shit from happening in the first place.
<<Unfortunately, just like some other organizations, like the NAACP & NEA, once well intentioned, and moral institutions, have gone the route of polar ideology, where diversity of thought is embraced, unless it's not of the same mindset as those running it, then it's deemed "hate speech", "intolerance". Then add years of overt Anti-americanism, blatant anti-semitism, corruption & bribery, and you have the new and improved version of the UN. Sad, quite sad, when you consider their original goals & purpose>>
Oh, this is really hilarious. This one takes the cake: sirs, the peace-loving man of reason, the benevolent internationalist, is saddened - - he's saddened by the UN's fall from grace. Once a noble institution formed for the betterment of all mankind, a goal that sirs and his ilk are deeply and fervently committed to, and now, alas! fallen from those lofty ideals in a way that wounds sirs more deeply than mere words can express. Can we all appreciate the tragedy of the moment? It's ruined sirs' whole fucking day.
-
<<No , it [the UN] is still a mostly American product. We support it financhially out of all proportion to our population . . . >>
I could be out of date here, but the last time I looked the U.S. was way behind in paying its UN dues and didn't look like it was going to pony up any time soon.
<< . . . and very very out of purportion to any benefit we get from it. >>
That's hilarious. Had you wished to stay within the UN procedures for dispute resolution, you'd be ahead now by about half a trillion dollars, the lives of about 3200 dead rednecks and the limbs of about 20,000 more.
<<Itmight b a good thing for us to cut loose and let it leave the nest so that it can prove it can fly without its Mama pumping worms into it all day .>>
Yeah . . . That whirring noise you hear is just FDR spinning in his grave.
-
plane: [speaking of the purported Iraqi threat to the U.S.]
<<Perhaps not immeiadiate , but definately intolerable.>>
I think you need to re-think the difference between "irritating" and "intolerable."
There was no immediate threat to the U.S.A. posed by Iraq. There was a perfectly acceptable mechanism in place in the U.N. for resolving real threats, this was the Security Council, which was not even asked by the U.S. to intervene. If a peace-keeping apparatus, set up with great care over the past 60 years, was completely by-passed, what does this do to international law and the means of peaceably resolving future clashes? Guarantees more violence, IMHO. not less.
I think at some point you need to come to grips with what your country has done, the lawlessness, the cynicism, the lives lost - - all unnecessary and all deplorable. You have absolutely nothing to be proud of in the record of the Bush administration's foreign policy.
In my country we cannot tolerate a level of arsenic in tap water that is suffecient to cause two deaths per century.
-
<<Unfortunately, just like some other organizations, like the NAACP & NEA, once well intentioned, and moral institutions, have gone the route of polar ideology, where diversity of thought is embraced, unless it's not of the same mindset as those running it, then it's deemed "hate speech", "intolerance". Then add years of overt Anti-americanism, blatant anti-semitism, corruption & bribery, and you have the new and improved version of the UN. >>
On the theory that sirs' diatribe deserved a little more serious treatment than the sarcasm I had previously heaped on it (sorry, sirs!) I would like to take another shot at it.
I suppose it would be too much to demand of you some relevant examples of the UN branding diversity of speech and thought "not of the same mindset of those running it" [as an aside, I humbly ask, just who are "those running it" anyway?] as "hate speech" and/or "intolerance." WHEN did this horrible atrocity occur?
<<Then add years of overt Anti-americanism, blatant anti-semitism . . . >>
This is probably the commonest misconception of the function of the UN that I have ever encountered. The idea of the UN is to prevent war. To get individuals who hate each others' fucking guts to resolve their differences non-violently. This does not mean to get them to speak softly and peacefully to one another, or nicely or even politely. The UN is a forum (among other things) - - a place where grievances can be aired, discussed, debated, and (hopefully) resolved. If the grievances are of the sort that would in due course lead to war, you can expect that there are a lot of bitter, angry feelings behind them. You would expect to hear violently unpleasant opinions of people, of groups, of nations, that would curdle your blood. But in the finall analysis, as Winston Churchill once said, "Jaw-jaw [i.e., talking] is better than war, war." (The way Churchill spoke, "jaw-jaw" rhymed with "war, war.")
<< . . . corruption & bribery, and you have the new and improved version of the UN. >>
You're an American citizen, right? So if I were you, I wouldn't make such a huge fuss about bribery and corruption at the UN. There are a lot of institutions that are just as corrupt as the U.N. and I'm sure that you're personally familiar with quite a few of them. Trust me, you really don't want to go there.
-
<<In my country we cannot tolerate a level of arsenic in tap water that is suffecient to cause two deaths per century.>>
Yeah? Planning on nuking the polluters anytime soon?
-
You're an American citizen, right? So if I were you, I wouldn't make such a huge fuss about bribery and corruption at the UN. There are a lot of institutions that are just as corrupt as the U.N. and I'm sure that you're personally familiar with quite a few of them. Trust me, you really don't want to go there.
The US Congress is 1/126 as corrupt as is the UN.
The NYPD is 2/1857 as corrupt as the UN.
-
<<In my country we cannot tolerate a level of arsenic in tap water that is suffecient to cause two deaths per century.>>
Yeah? Planning on nuking the polluters anytime soon?
No polluters are involved , the natural water that the Apache thrived on for centurys must be proactively treated untill it is safer than safe before the public can tolerate it.
-
<<The US Congress is 1/126 as corrupt as is the UN.
<<The NYPD is 2/1857 as corrupt as the UN.>>
Alright. I'm probably gonna be sorry I asked, but . . .
Where do those numbers come from?
-
<<The US Congress is 1/126 as corrupt as is the UN.
<<The NYPD is 2/1857 as corrupt as the UN.>>
Alright. I'm probably gonna be sorry I asked, but . . .
Where do those numbers come from?
They are supported with the same stuff by which you maintain that the UN is even slightly more trustworthy than any US government agency , pure steam.
-
<<They are supported with the same stuff by which you maintain that the UN is even slightly more trustworthy than any US government agency . . . >>
Oh, really? Let's see: Abscam, Savings & Loan, Enron, Pagegate, Jack Abramoff, Watergate, Duke Cunningham, Sherman Adams, Dan Rostenkowski, Ken Keating . . .
Now, let's see how many U.N. scandals we can think of: uhhh, Oil for Food; uh, lessee, Oil for Food, mmmm, Oil for Food, Oil for Food . . ., hey count your fingers after shaking hands at the U.N., those guys are baaaaadass.
-
<<They are supported with the same stuff by which you maintain that the UN is even slightly more trustworthy than any US government agency . . . >>
Oh, really? Let's see: Abscam, Savings & Loan, Enron, Pagegate, Jack Abramoff, Watergate, Duke Cunningham, Sherman Adams, Dan Rostenkowski, Ken Keating . . .
Now, let's see how many U.N. scandals we can think of: uhhh, Oil for Food; uh, lessee, Oil for Food, mmmm, Oil for Food, Oil for Food . . ., hey count your fingers after shaking hands at the U.N., those guys are baaaaadass.
It is not enough that the biggest bribe in recorded history is the oil for food scandal?
Ok then add the sex for UN personell in the Congo , the "protection" of Bonians and he mountain of petty crime tat the diploats get away with in NYNY.
This is just off the top of my head , I think a bit of digging woud find lots more.
The UN has a brbetastic reputation .
-
My apologies in not dealing with this earlier, as Js properly was trying to address the original query to this thread, so I'm compelled to answer in kind (Still waiting for Miss Henny to jump back in)
Let's pretend for a moment that Bush is right, and everything he said about Saddam's WMD was accurate, based on what his intel told him AT THE TIME. If that were the case, was it a good enough reason for going into Iraq?
No. It was an unjust war regardless of the outcome.
So, American President Js, just having lost 3000 American lives lost at the near snap of a finger, having this intel, corroborated by nearly every other country's intel agency, you just sit, and hope to God no AlQeada folks get their hands on some suitcases of Sarin, cannisters of mustard gas, viles and viles of Botulinum toxin? Really?
It is amazing to me that even after Vietnam and Iraq, that Americans are still wrapped in this myth of invincibility and continual underestimation of their opponents and complete misunderstanding of foreign societies and cultures. Don't be so sure that bomb tonnage and the power of the US Air Force (and more likely Navy) is going to cripple Iran so easily. Don't be so sure that the Iranians cannot withstand warfare probably far better than Americans.
I'm sure any country, NOT under overt oppressive dictator rule, won't be willing to be invaded, and would fight back. Are you, and like minds. trying to claim, that despite Bush's constant referencing ofno planned military action against assets in Iran, you're convinced that's precisely what is going to happen?
-
<<Ok then add the sex for UN personell in the Congo . . . >>
Ooooh, sex scandals - - I didn't know you wanted to talk about sex scandals or I would have thrown some of them into the mix - - let's see, the PageGate scandal (ooops, I DID throw that in,) the TailHook scandal, the various rapes within the U.S. military hushed up over the years, Bill Clinton's impeachment-worthy BJ, and as I'm sure all you good conservatives fervently believe, TrooperGate. I don't know, I'm just getting started, but I think the U.S. government can match the UN (or any other government in the world) sex scandal for sex scandal. Bad move, plane.
How does "sex for UN personnel in the Congo" compare with the rape and murder of a 14-year-old girl in Iraq and the murder of her family? Was it just a few bad apples in the UN and a characteristic act typical of the whole force in the U.S. military, or do you want to make that the work of a few bad apples in the U.S. military and acts characteristic of the whole UN force in the Congo? Tough call, eh plane? But it always gets embarrassing when the pot starts to call the kettle black, doesn't it?
<<the "protection" of Bonians >>
unheard of in all the military history of all the world, I presume. Guys with guns charging for protection during civil war. Who woulda thunk?
<<and he mountain of petty crime tat the diploats get away with in NYNY.>>
Wow a whole MOUNTAIN? I had no idea. Unpaid parking tickets. A phenomenon previously unknown in the U.S.A. till these scofflaw furriners brought it with them. SHOPLIFTING, never known to have afflicted U.S. diplomats anywhere on earth, because the U.S.A. is the most honest country on the planet. Kleptomania a foreign disease even with a foreign name. What is this mountain anyway? Any idea how many UN diplomats there are in the Big Apple and what percentage tickets if they were suddenly granted diplomatic immunity? New Yorkers aren't stupid, plane, and neither are international diplomats.
<<This is just off the top of my head , I think a bit of digging woud find lots more.>>
Yeah, ditto for the U.S.A., plane. I think the UN would come off pretty well against them when you add it all up.
<<The UN has a brbetastic reputation>>
That's in stark contrast with the squeaky-clean reputation of the U.S. government we have all come to know and love.
-
So, American President Js, just having lost 3000 American lives lost at the near snap of a finger, having this intel, corroborated by nearly every other country's intel agency, you just sit, and hope to God no AlQeada folks get their hands on some suitcases of Sarin, cannisters of mustard gas, viles and viles of Botulinum toxin? Really?
I could not, in good conscience, send American (or any) soldiers into an unjust war. There is no justification for a "preventive" war. Saddam Hussein did not attack the World Trade Center. There were other methods available to fight al-Qaeda
I'm sure any country, NOT under overt oppressive dictator rule, won't be willing to be invaded, and would fight back. Are you, and like minds. trying to claim, that despite Bush's constant referencing ofno planned military action against assets in Iran, you're convinced that's precisely what is going to happen?
Not at all. I was referencing Plane's post that discussed specifically the bombing of Iran.
-
Mikey,
The UN's perception of corruption and ineffectiveness should stand alone.
Either it has a history of corruption or it doesn't.
Either the charges are true or they aren't.
If the charges are true, the focus should be on fixing the problem, not some comparative minimalization to mask the flaws.
You have faith in the UN. Admit its flaws and propose ways to make it better.
-
You made a lot of sense, BT. I just sensed a lot of hypocrisy in the complaints about UN corruption. These are from people who hate the UN for its perceived anti-Americanism and its failure to rubber-stamp every US initiative, who seized upon corruption on the "any stick to beat a dog" theory. I was only trying to demonstrate the hypocrisy.
Of course the UN needs to clean up its act and I'm sorry if that post was taken as a defence of UN corruption. The only things I minimised were the Bosnian protection racket which can't be allowed to be repeated and the "mountain of petty crime" in NYC, which is a characteristic of any large diplomatic body in any place where there are laws to be broken. I shouldn't have minimized the Bosnian protection racket but that NYC thing, it's really inevitable.
-
How would you change the charter of the UN to make it more effective?
-
So, American President Js, just having lost 3000 American lives lost at the near snap of a finger, having this intel, corroborated by nearly every other country's intel agency, you just sit, and hope to God no AlQeada folks get their hands on some suitcases of Sarin, cannisters of mustard gas, viles and viles of Botulinum toxin? Really?
I could not, in good conscience, send American (or any) soldiers into an unjust war.
That wasn't the question. In the scnerio given you, there is no war, justified or not. There's 911, and there's the intel on your desk. So, what you're saying is you sit, pray, and hope to God those AlQeada folks aren't able to drum up a deal to get their hands on a few hundreds poids of Sarin, right?
Are you, and like minds. trying to claim, that despite Bush's constant referencing ofno planned military action against assets in Iran, you're convinced that's precisely what is going to happen?
Not at all. I was referencing Plane's post that discussed specifically the bombing of Iran.
So, you're just debating military tactics in general? ok, fair enough
-
That wasn't the question. In the scnerio given you, there is no war, justified or not. There's 911, and there's the intel on your desk. So, what you're saying is you sit, pray, and hope to God those AlQeada folks aren't able to drum up a deal to get their hands on a few hundreds poids of Sarin, right?
I don't recall saying that.
There are justifiable reasons to retaliate against al Qaeda.
So, you're just debating military tactics in general? ok, fair enough
More the ramifications of making military decisions without foresight into the political realities of the region, but yeah, we weren't discussing any eminent war to my knowledge.
-
<<How would you change the charter of the UN to make it more effective? >>
In all humility, I'd have to back off on that one. The greatest minds in international law worked on that Charter and made it.
There is, however, one glaringly obvious problem. The Security Council veto. It was originally put in on the insistence of the U.S.S.R. but in more recent years was used more by the U.S.A. (after years of denouncing it.) I think in the long run the veto has to go, but the so-called Great Powers will have to trust the institution a lot more than they do now, and of course that trust has to be earned. Also, the composition of the Security Council - - it has to have some flexibility as to status and veto. Some recognition that the Great Powers of 1944 may not always be in the same position of dominance as they once were.
I think the U.N. has to build from small success to small success, learning by doing, self-correcting through analysis of past actions. A culture of unregulated international violence that built up since prehistoric times isn't going to be cured by something that started in 1944. It's a long slow haul. I object to those who tear down the institution for partisan reasons and I think the worst of the bunch are the State of Israel and the fascists and militarists who currently control the U.S. government. The U.N. now is the world's best hope for a better tomorrow. The better kind of Americans know that and take pride in the fact that the U.S.A. was the prime mover in its foundation.
I also think too much is made of the "anti-Semitism" and "anti-Americanism" of the UN, and specifically the General Assembly. First of all, it's exaggerated, and secondly, this is a debating forum. Members ought to be encouraged to blow off steam. The object is to avoid war, so a certain amount of yelling, screaming and name-calling (even shoe-pounding) ought to be kept in perspective.
-
That wasn't the question. In the scnerio given you, there is no war, justified or not. There's 911, and there's the intel on your desk. So, what you're saying is you sit, pray, and hope to God those AlQeada folks aren't able to drum up a deal to get their hands on a few hundreds poids of Sarin, right?
I don't recall saying that. There are justifiable reasons to retaliate against al Qaeda.
But apparently, given the intel, you still hope to God, Saddam doesn't sell off some of his Sarin & mustard gas to some AlQeada folks. An interesting gamble of American lives, but hey, that's why your president
So, you're just debating military tactics in general? ok, fair enough
More the ramifications of making military decisions without foresight into the political realities of the region, but yeah, we weren't discussing any eminent war to my knowledge.
Gotcha
-
But apparently, given the intel, you still hope to God, Saddam doesn't sell off some of his Sarin & mustard gas to some AlQeada folks. An interesting gamble of American lives, but hey, that's why your president
I never saw much intel linking the two, to be honest. Transporting Sarin isn't easy and furthermore Sarin has a very short shelf-life (it generally only lasts for a week or slightly longer before degredation). By the way, Sarin is not all that difficult to make and is relatively similar to many current insecticides.
I'm certainly not worried about mustard gas. Delivery of mustard gas is rather difficult and its use as a weapon of terror is rather pointless. Although it is associated with chemical warfare, it is rarely lethal (1% - nicotine is far more toxic) and its difficulty in delivery is just as likely to harm the terrorist as the intended victims. Interesting fact, mustard gas helped lead to chemotherapy treatment for cancer patients.
-
Has mustard gas really even been used as a weapon since the War to end all Wars?
Jw
-
But apparently, given the intel, you still hope to God, Saddam doesn't sell off some of his Sarin & mustard gas to some AlQeada folks. An interesting gamble of American lives, but hey, that's why your president
I never saw much intel linking the two, to be honest.
That's strange, Bush did. From what I've read and released for public consumption, I've seen it as well. Interesting. Even more a gamble by President Js, for missing it the 1st go round, IMHO
-
Has mustard gas really even been used as a weapon since the War to end all Wars?
According to Wikipedia:
- United Kingdom against Bolsheviks in 1919;[2]
- United Kingdom against rebels in Iraq in 1920;[3]
- United Kingdom against rebels in Afghanistan in the 1920s;[citation needed]
- Spain against Rif insurgents in Morocco in 1921-1927;[1][4]
- Italy in Libya in 1930;[1]
- Soviet Union in Xinjiang, China in 1934 and 1936-1937;[2][4]
- Italy in Abyssinia (now Ethiopia) in 1935-1940;[1]
- Poland against Germany in 1939 during an isolated incident, British product;[1]
- Germany against Poland and the Soviet Union in a few erroneous uses during the Second World War;[1]
- Japan against China in 1937-1945;[2]
- Egypt against North Yemen in 1963-1967;[1]
- Iraq against Iran in 1981 and 1983-1988;[1]
- Iran against Iraq in 1987-1988, possibly using captured Iraqi munitions;[1]
- Iraq against Kurds in 1988;[1]
- Possibly Sudan against insurgents in the civil war, in 1995 and 1997[1]
Sulfur mustard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustard_gas)
See article for the sources.
-
That's strange, Bush did. From what I've read and released for public consumption, I've seen it as well. Interesting. Even more a gamble by President Js, for missing it the 1st go round, IMHO
Care to supply said evidence, Sirs? Let's see it directly linking Hussein and al-Qaeda and throw in some armament transfers as well.
I noticed you made no comments on the rest of my post.
-
Has mustard gas really even been used as a weapon since the War to end all Wars?
Yes, as Ami pointed out.
It is, unlike Sarin, much simpler to transport as it remains a liquid at room temperatures (as I recall).
It is still, rather useless. I couldn't honestly see why a terrorist would want it other than to cause some hysteria perhaps. But a bomb threat would likely do just as well and be far less likely to get one arrested.
-
It is still, rather useless. I couldn't honestly see why a terrorist would want it other than to cause some hysteria perhaps. But a bomb threat would likely do just as well and be far less likely to get one arrested.
Mustard gas causes a suppression of your immune system. Used in conjunction with bio weapons, it can increase the severity of the bio weapon attack.
-
That's strange, Bush did. From what I've read and released for public consumption, I've seen it as well. Interesting. Even more a gamble by President Js, for missing it the 1st go round, IMHO
Care to supply said evidence, Sirs? Let's see it directly linking Hussein and al-Qaeda and throw in some armament transfers as well.
I didn't make that claim of direct armament transfer. I said the intel tells you there are both direct & indirect connections between Iraq & AlQeada, and the intel tells you Saddam still has his stockpiles of WMD. You do the math. Or you do the gambling, whichever you believe more prudent
I noticed you made no comments on the rest of my post.
Limited time.
-
I didn't make that claim of direct armament transfer. I said the intel tells you there are both direct & indirect connections between Iraq & AlQeada, and the intel tells you Saddam still has his stockpiles of WMD. You do the math. Or you do the gambling, whichever you believe more prudent
Lots of countries have WMD and terrorist groups that pass through. Where's that evidence?
I'm not betraying my principles Sirs, no matter what hypothetical situation you place me in. A "preventive war" based on suppositions and debatable scenarios is not a just war.
-
I didn't make that claim of direct armament transfer. I said the intel tells you there are both direct & indirect connections between Iraq & AlQeada, and the intel tells you Saddam still has his stockpiles of WMD. You do the math. Or you do the gambling, whichever you believe more prudent
Lots of countries have WMD and terrorist groups that pass through.
Connections with AlQeada, and in violation of UN mandate(s), specifically something along the lines of 1441? That last part wasn't intel, that was fact. Show me those countries that include those parameters above, then we can addess your concern of inconsistent application of intel & suppositions
I'm not betraying my principles Sirs, no matter what hypothetical situation you place me in. A "preventive war" based on suppositions and debatable scenarios is not a just war.
Your gamble, though personally speaking, given what Bush knew at the time, I'm appreciative he didn't take that one
-
The terrorist-connections and the Iraqi possession of more than token chemical/biological weapons have not been substantiated. But I will add, as if they had, another few elements to this discussion: scope of attack, likelihood of attack, casualties of attack, casualties of a war to prevent an attack, reliability of border-security, et al.
-
Show me the evidence that the Iraqi Government had dealings with al-Qaeda. You've yet to show me this evidence, but you continue to make the assertion.
Your gamble, though personally speaking, given what Bush knew at the time, I'm appreciative he didn't take that one
You asked the question Sirs and I gave the answer. "Preventive war" is not just war. Iraq was not an immediate threat to this country, nor any of her neighbors. We couldn't even use "defence of others" as an argument. The war was unjustified.
-
Show me the evidence that the Iraqi Government had dealings with al-Qaeda. You've yet to show me this evidence, but you continue to make the assertion.
I'm not at home at the moment. When I do get home, and have the time to provide some souces that outine those connections that iraq has with terrorists, including those of AlQeada, what will your response be then, I wonder? And that's just the intel we've been privvy to, for public consumption
Your gamble, though personally speaking, given what Bush knew at the time, I'm appreciative he didn't take that one
You asked the question Sirs and I gave the answer. "Preventive war" is not just war. Iraq was not an immediate threat to this country, nor any of her neighbors. We couldn't even use "defence of others" as an argument. The war was unjustified.
Well, as I saw it, given what we knew at the time, I can't see Bush doing anything else, but what he did. And for that I appplaud his leadership, realizing the absolute repercussions that could come about from such decision making
-
<<Well, as I saw it, given what we knew at the time, I can't see Bush doing anything else, but what he did. And for that I appplaud his leadership, realizing the absolute repercussions that could come about from such decision making>>
It's pretty obvious from the thread that there are those who believe a preventive war is justified and those who believe it is not. The Charter of the United Nations obviously prohibits a preventive war. The U.S. is a charter member of the U.N. and is pledged to observe its Charter, including the preventive war provisions (Article 4 I believe) but apparently under the current U.S. regime, a signature on a treaty is virtually meaningless.
Let me also add, in the context of the U.S. war on Iraq, the concept of it even possibly being a preventive war is laughable, no matter what sirs claims all the intelligence agencies of the world believed. The idea that Iraq would ever attack the U.S. with WMD is preposterous and most people understand that. This was never a preventive war, not even in the minds of those who planned it.
-
The idea that Iraq would ever attack the U.S. with WMD is preposterous and most people understand that.
And the idea that Tee keeps propping that pathetic distortion up as the reason we went to war, is just as, if not more preposterous (http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/alien008.gif)
-
<<And the idea that Tee keeps propping that pathetic distortion up as the reason we went to war, is just as, if not more preposterous >>
Why would any sane, normal (i.e. non-paranoid) individual ever believe that Saddam Hussein, even if he HAD weapons of mass destruction, would take the suicidal step (for both himself and his whole country) of attacking the U.S.A. with them? Considering that the U.S.A. not only has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, and abundant means of delivery, but could not conceivably be knocked out of action by any Iraqi first strike, and is the only country in the world to have actually used nuclear weapons on its enemies, not once but twice? Only a nut could believe that there was any danger of an Iraqi WMD attack on the U.S.
-
<<And the idea that Tee keeps propping that pathetic distortion up as the reason we went to war, is just as, if not more preposterous >>
Why would any sane, normal (i.e. non-paranoid) individual ever believe that Saddam Hussein, even if he HAD weapons of mass destruction, would take the suicidal step (for both himself and his whole country) of attacking the U.S.A. with them?
Because that's (one more time) NEVER BEEN THE CLAIM (that he was prepping to attack america). Nor would most sane people consider Saddam sane to the point of fearing America. I'll go one better though. Prove me wrong. Show me the claim by Bush co, that we had to go into Iraq to prevent Saddam from taking out the likes of Boston. Not some nebulous reference to a mushroom cloud, with your then tee-leaf application of what it meant. Quotes in complete context, if you don't mind.
-
Show me the evidence that the Iraqi Government had dealings with al-Qaeda. You've yet to show me this evidence, but you continue to make the assertion.
Iraq-al-Qaida links go back decade
CIA reports show nearly 100 examples of cooperation, says reporter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 11, 2002
CIA reports of Iraqi-al-Qaida cooperation number nearly 100 and extend back to 1992, according to a reporter for Vanity Fair whose sources include senior Pentagon officials.
David Rose, writing for the magazine and the United Kingdom's Evening Standard, says he is convinced of the links between Osama bin Laden's terrorist network and Saddam Hussein's Baghdad regime.
"My own doubts emerged more than a year ago, when a very senior CIA man told me that, contrary to the line his own colleagues were assiduously disseminating, there was evidence of an Iraq-al-Qaida link," Rose writes. "He confirmed a story I had been told by members of the anti-Saddam Iraqi National Congress – that two of the hijackers, Marwan Al-Shehhi and Ziad Jarrah, had met Mukhabarat officers in the months before 9-11 in the United Arab Emirates. This, he said, was a pattern of contact between Iraq and al-Qaida which went back years."
Rose reveals in the new issue of Vanity Fair that the Pentagon established a special intelligence unit to re-examine evidence of an Iraq-al-Qaida connection earlier this year. The CIA cooperated by supplying the unit with copies of its reports going back a decade.
"I have spoken to three senior officials who have seen its conclusions, which are striking," he writes. "'In the Cold War,' says one of them, 'often you'd draw firm conclusions and make policy on the basis of just four or five reports. Here there are almost 100 separate examples of Iraq-al-Qaida cooperation going back to 1992.'"
Assertions that Iraq is cooperating and supporting al-Qaida are supported by the findings of a new book by a top terrorism expert.
Yossef Bodansky, author of "The High Cost of Peace," says joint preparations by Hussein, Yasser Arafat and al-Qaida for a new wave of anti-U.S. terror began last spring. The model for the terrorism campaign is Arafat's Black September Organization of the 1970s.
The initiative for the alliance came from Palestinian Islamists based in Lebanon and Syria, according to Bodansky, the U.S. Congress' top terrorism adviser. The response from al-Qaida came April 2, says Bodansky.
"A group calling itself the bin Laden Brigades-Palestine issued a statement formally integrating the Islamist and Fatah wave of anti-Israel terrorism into bin Laden's global jihad," he writes in his new book. "The bin Laden Brigades announced that their forces were now at the disposal of 'Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and fighter commander Marwan al-Barghouti' to fight 'alongside the Brigades' fighters and the Islamic factions.' The statement emphasized that numerous Palestinian factions, specifically including al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, '[had] become part of the International Front for Fighting Jews and Christians, led by Osama bin Laden.' They now '[had] found the path of Islam and adopted the line of genuine resistance of the jihad movement and Islamic resistance, that is the path of jihad and martyrdom for the sake of God, and discarded forever the lies of the alleged peace and the myths of negotiations.'"
The anti-U.S. coalition also includes Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
A communique issued on April 2 from the Unified Leadership of the Intifadah – an umbrella organization representing Arafat's Fatah groups, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other members of the Palestine Liberation Organization – called for attacks on U.S. interests.
"The United States is backing the Israeli assault on the Palestinians," it said. "Therefore, U.S. facilities, targets and interests throughout the world should be harmed."
Unit 999 of Iraqi intelligence has helped train both Arafat's shock troops and bin Laden's Islamists for suicide operations utilizing weapons of mass destruction. According to Bodansky's book, some of these terrorists have already "succeeded in infiltrating several Arab countries. They are provided with instructions, secret codes and advanced weapons."
According to Israeli sources, the Iraqis permitted the terrorist trainees to test chemical weapons in southern Kurdistan.
More ties to ignore (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29949)
Iraq, al-Qaida linked by administration
Fleischer hints at more coming on connection
Posted: January 28, 2003
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer confirmed yesterday terrorist detainees from Afghanistan have implicated Iraq in providing training and support to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network.
Fleischer said the U.S. knows Iraq has supported al-Qaida in the past and there have been "contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of the al-Qaida organization, going back for quite a long time."
"We know, too, that several of the detainees, particularly some of the high-level detainees, have said that Iraq provided some training to al-Qaida and chemical weapons development," said Fleischer. "There are contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida. We know that Saddam Hussein has a long history of terrorism in general. And again, if you are waiting for the smoking gun, the problem is, when you see the smoke coming out of the gun, it's too late; the damage has been done."
Fleischer hinted that more would be forthcoming on this connection – perhaps even in tonight's State of the Union address.
"One factor I think you also have to consider is given the fact that Afghanistan provided a very large training ground and operational ground to al-Qaida, many of their needs were taken care of in Afghanistan until Sept. 11, and then their activities in Afghanistan have been widely disrupted," he said. "And this is an unfolding story, and I think you'll hear more of it."
President Bush is expected to spell out the threat Iraq poses to U.S. interests, explain why he has dispatched some 150,000 U.S. troops to the Gulf, insist that he does not want war, but assert that Baghdad is running out of time to disarm. Reportedly, the president will leave it to Secretary of State Colin Powell to build the U.S. case that Iraq has ties to bin Laden's network.
"The information that we can divulge in greater detail, we will be divulging in the days ahead," Powell told reporters yesterday.
Iraq has no links to al-Qaida, said Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri at a press conference yesterday following remarks by Powell and Fleischer
And still more references (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30713)
And that's just the intel we've been privvy to, for public consumption. Now, what will your response be, I wonder?
Your gamble, though personally speaking, given what Bush knew at the time, I'm appreciative he didn't take that one
You asked the question Sirs and I gave the answer. "Preventive war" is not just war. Iraq was not an immediate threat to this country, nor any of her neighbors. We couldn't even use "defence of others" as an argument. The war was unjustified.
Well, as I saw it, given what we knew at the time, I can't see Bush doing anything else, but what he did. And for that I appplaud his leadership, realizing the absolute repercussions that could come about from such decision making
-
<<And the idea that Tee keeps propping that pathetic distortion up as the reason we went to war, is just as, if not more preposterous >>
Why would any sane, normal (i.e. non-paranoid) individual ever believe that Saddam Hussein, even if he HAD weapons of mass destruction, would take the suicidal step (for both himself and his whole country) of attacking the U.S.A. with them? Considering that the U.S.A. not only has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, and abundant means of delivery, but could not conceivably be knocked out of action by any Iraqi first strike, and is the only country in the world to have actually used nuclear weapons on its enemies, not once but twice? Only a nut could believe that there was any danger of an Iraqi WMD attack on the U.S.
Are we even clear on the concept?
Why do North Korea and Iran want WMD if they are no real deterant?
-
<<Not some nebulous reference to a mushroom cloud, with your then tee-leaf application of what it meant. Quotes in complete context, if you don't mind.>>
Nebulous? "We can't wait until the smoking gun turns into a mushroom cloud" MEANS an atomic attack. On America, of course. That's what ANYBODY would understand from that and you too, whether or not you want to admit it.
If you want to pretend those words don't refer to a nuclear attack on America, you go right ahead. I can't debate against that kind of dishonesty. The words are right in front of you, and you want to pretend that they don't mean what everybody knows they mean.
I wouldn't waste another minute on debating the meaning of those words. All the spin in the world can't change it.
-
<<Not some nebulous reference to a mushroom cloud, with your then tee-leaf application of what it meant. Quotes in complete context, if you don't mind.>>
Nebulous? "We can't wait until the smoking gun turns into a mushroom cloud" MEANS an atomic attack. On America, of course.
Yea, as its always been in reference to the region, and always been in reference of preventing Saddam from reaching that level of WMD ability. Only morons (and apparently that includes those on the left that believed it too), believe it was some imminent attack to American soil
So, basically, we have no quotes to provide. Only the continued perpetual grotesque distortion of what Condi referenced. Lame tactic by the left. Claim something that Bush did/said, then provide examples refuting what never was said.
I wouldn't waste another minute on debating the meaning of those words.
Smart move
-
Let's look at this evidence, shall we?
First, the "evidence" from a Vanity Fair report.
there are almost 100 separate examples of Iraq-al-Qaida cooperation going back to 1992
Assertions that Iraq is cooperating and supporting al-Qaida are supported by the findings of a new book by a top terrorism expert...joint preparations by Hussein, Yasser Arafat and al-Qaida for a new wave of anti-U.S. terror began last spring
The timing seems a little off. By the way, it seems very odd that the PLO would wish to engage in a joint operation with al-Qaeda in an operation that calls itself this: International Front for Fighting Jews and Christians. Some of the highest ranking members of the PLO are and were Christians. Reckon they'd support such a nasty endeavor?
A communique issued on April 2 from the Unified Leadership of the Intifadah – an umbrella organization representing Arafat's Fatah groups, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other members of the Palestine Liberation Organization – called for attacks on U.S. interests.
Where to begin?
Hamas has never been a member of the PLO. Neither has Islamic Jihad. One of the main differences in those groups is that the PLO recognizes Israel, whereas Islamic Jihad and Hamas did not. Intifadah sounds like a menacing, evil word, but it is merely Arabic for "uprising" (very few of the Palestinian uprisings are "unified" ;) ). Fatah is a secular political party and though they had terrorist activities in the 70's, I doubt they made plans with Islamic Jihad (though I concede it is very possible).
But so what? Saddam Hussein has always supported the PLO, and likely especially Fatah, which includes Baathist elements. This is news? This has no links to handing over WMD to al-Qaeda. The United States likely receives threats from two-bit Middle East terrorist organisations all the time. Clearly we did not take those seriously and none ever came to fruition.
Let's not forget that if we accept this version of connections since 1992 (which I've yet to see any real evidence), nothing happened! It only proves that the two groups found no compatibility. The WTC bombing and the 9/11 attacks needed no state help. Their evil genuis was in their very simplicity.
Unit 999 of Iraqi intelligence has helped train both Arafat's shock troops and bin Laden's Islamists for suicide operations utilizing weapons of mass destruction.
According to Yossef Bodansky, an Israeli-American who publishes books on defence studies. I'm sure it is a completely objective analysis. By the way here is another quote from Bodansky:
al-Qaida has not carried out a second major attack on the US until now for internal psychological and ideological reasons, but after the reelection of President George W. Bush, it has gotten the green light to do so from leading Islamic religious luminaries, as well as from the elites of the Arab world.
Interesting.
An article with Powell and Fleischer as the source? Really? Powell who gave the grand show at the United Nations showing the "mobile weapons labs" and detailing the tonnage of the chemical weapons Saddam Hussein definitely had in his posession?
The President would give more detail in the State of the Union address?
You aren't serious.
LOL - I went to the link on your first article and at the bottom is this: Related special offer:
Purchase Yossef Bodansky's "The High Cost of Peace."
No, no Bodansky has no interest other than getting the truth out surely!!
And that's just the intel we've been privvy to, for public consumption. Now, what will your response be, I wonder?
Link (http://zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=24822)
-
Let's look at this evidence, shall we?.....
The point of the evidence being that there were connections, both direct and indirect to Terrorists, including thse of AlQeada. At no time have I claimed it was a working relationship (neither has Bush). At no time have I claimed that Saddam was involved in 911 (neither has Bush). At no time did I cliam examples of Saddam selling/giving arms to AlQeada (neither has Bush). You can try to minimize those connections all you want, even try to kill one of the messengers (of the book documenting many of these links), the point being they exist, and have for a decade+ while Saddam was in power.
THAT's the point that I was cliaming (which Bush was as well)
-
First, the "evidence" from a Vanity Fair report.
What a shame. Mikey has told us that Vanity Fair articles are well researched.
-
The point of the evidence being that there were connections, both direct and indirect to Terrorists, including thse of AlQeada. At no time have I claimed it was a working relationship (neither has Bush). At no time have I claimed that Saddam was involved in 911 (neither has Bush). At no time did I cliam examples of Saddam selling/giving arms to AlQeada (neither has Bush). You can try to minimize those connections all you want, even try to kill one of the messengers (of the book documenting many of these links), the point being they exist, and have for a decade+ while Saddam was in power.
THAT's the point that I was cliaming (which Bush was as well)
In other words the "evidence" is that there were connections, but nothing showing any working relationship, arms deals, or really anything but something akin to the six degrees of Kevin Bacon (that's a joke by the way)?
You really expect this flimsy argument to be enough to send a nation to war and invade another sovereign state? I'm asking sincerely Sirs. Even you admit that the evidence isn't really anything more than a "connection" and nothing involving a working relationship of any kind.
What am I supposed to do with this? In a criminal trial, what would this establish? I'd love to hear Domer's view of what this "evidence" means.
-
The point of the evidence being that there were connections, both direct and indirect to Terrorists, including those of AlQeada. ....You can try to minimize those connections all you want, even try to kill one of the messengers, the point being they exist, and have for a decade+ while Saddam was in power. THAT's the point that I was cliaming
In other words the "evidence" is that there were connections, but nothing showing any working relationship.....
Isn't that what I just said? FINALLY. Miracles do happen ;D
What am I supposed to do with this? In a criminal trial, what would this establish?
Nothing, since this isn't some petty criminal activity. We're fighting a war. Whole host of different parameters are involved, if you didn't know
-
Nothing, since this isn't some petty criminal activity. We're fighting a war. Whole host of different parameters are involved, if you didn't know
Indeed. One would think the burden of proof would require more than just a "connection."
By the way: Saddam Hussein was portrayed by Jerry Heleva in Hot Shots part Deux which starred Charlie Sheen who starred in Young Guns with Kiefer Sutherland who teamed up with Kevin Bacon in Flatliners.
And that's about as useful as your "connection" theory on justifying warfare.
-
Nothing, since this isn't some petty criminal activity. We're fighting a war. Whole host of different parameters are involved, if you didn't know
One would think the burden of proof would require more than just a "connection."
As I said, this isn't a criminal activity. You can't fight a war like it's simply a crime. And after 911, we had more to go with than just "a connection", than you very much.
By the way: Saddam Hussein was portrayed by Jerry Heleva in Hot Shots part Deux which starred Charlie Sheen who starred in Young Guns with Kiefer Sutherland who teamed up with Kevin Bacon in Flatliners. And that's about as useful as your "connection" theory on justifying warfare.
In reality no, thankfully there was far more than that
-
As I said, this isn't a criminal activity. You can't fight a war like it's simply a crime. And after 911, we had more to go with than just "a connection", than you very much.
No we didn't. There was no link between Saddam and 9/11. You said that yourself, not very long ago.
I agree, war isn't a criminal activity, it requires a hell of a lot more justification to go to war.
In reality no, thankfully there was far more than that
There was a "connection." According to what you gave me as your "evidence." That's it. Correlation does not equal causation Sirs, and in this case you didn't even have correlation.
I really don't know what you expect from what you've given me here. How can any reasonable individual sit down and look at this information, then draw a straight line to "we must invade Iraq." It is absolutely illogical. There's nothing here that shows any threat to the United States or any reason to be concerned with the defence of a neighboring state of Iraq.
-
There was no link between Saddam and 9/11. You said that yourself, not very long ago.
Actually I (and Bush) have been saying that since the beginning, so please avoid the attempt to make it some recent epiphamy
I agree, war isn't a criminal activity, it requires a hell of a lot more justification to go to war.
Following 911, and given the intel Bush had at the time, the justification was plenty, IMHO, and more importantly, to the fella that had access to far more intel than we could ever imagine, without jeapordizing lives and tactics on how said intel is gathered
-
Sirs,
You're starting to talk in circles. Seriously, I think you've lost the plot.
-
Sirs, sorry for delaying on this response. I was thinking. LOL.
So, that brings up the logical foll-up question. How much more time does the President of the U.S. give diploamcy, following 911? You're the President. You've seen the intel, your CIA chief says "slam dunk", you have documented connections, both direct & indirect between Iraq & AlQeada, and AlQeada just murdered 3000 innoncent civilian Americans. Iraq also continues to remain out of compliance with UN 1441, not to mention a bunch of others. Given that on your table, how much more time does President Henny give Saddam & diplomacy?
BTW, what "many other tactics" would you be referring to, to bring Saddam into full compliance?
First things first - I am following your line of reasoning, based on "let's just say" that Bush's hands are clean on this - that he did NOT lie to the American people.
President Henny would never consider a pre-emptive war. I would continue to work with the UN on finding non-violent means to deal with Saddam. Do you remember when Saddam offered to let UN weapons inspectors back in to Iraq? A lot of people felt that he was just posturing, trying to buy time. Perhaps he was. But he was told instead that "there would be a regime change in Iraq" and the time table was up for trying to negotiate. I would have taken him up on that, Sirs. I would have sent the weapons inspectors in. As this was the basis for going to war or not, the weapons inspectors would have really cleared things up - should we or shouldn't we?
Because they weren't in violation of UN 1441. Nor were there any documented connections between AlQeada & NK
The UN and UN 1441 seem to be entirely beside the point. The U.S. scoffed at the UN - who needs the UN? Since when is the UN a litmus test for whether or not we go to war? They certainly didn't have much pull - except where it was convenient - before the invasion.
But how could they possibly have been "manufactured" when the global intel community, the NIE, and practically every Dem, when Clinton was in charge, professed with near certainty Saddam's WMD danger to the region and WMD being used against the U.S. & its allies?? What was that official position on regime change all about then??
I remember Saddam being problematic for Clinton. What I remember even more clearly was Clinton using Saddam as a distraction from his personal life that the press was so interested in. (Look over there! A bird!) Please, Sirs, believe me on this - I may not be a Republican, but I really can't stand the Democrats. Call me independent. What the Democrats do or say, did or said, is not credible to me either.
-
Sirs, sorry for delaying on this response. I was thinking. LOL.
So, that brings up the logical foll-up question. How much more time does the President of the U.S. give diploamcy, following 911? You're the President...... Given that on your table, how much more time does President Henny give Saddam & diplomacy? BTW, what "many other tactics" would you be referring to, to bring Saddam into full compliance?
First things first - I am following your line of reasoning, based on "let's just say" that Bush's hands are clean on this - that he did NOT lie to the American people.
President Henny would never consider a pre-emptive war. I would continue to work with the UN on finding non-violent means to deal with Saddam.
Fair enough. As I referenced to Js, quite a gamble being taken on your two's part, but that's why the President's payed the big bucks.
Do you remember when Saddam offered to let UN weapons inspectors back in to Iraq? A lot of people felt that he was just posturing, trying to buy time. Perhaps he was.
Do you remember how he still wasn't giving them complete, and unequivical access to everything at any time, per the UN's mandate, when they were in Iraq?
I would have sent the weapons inspectors in. As this was the basis for going to war or not, the weapons inspectors would have really cleared things up - should we or shouldn't we?
Hey, if it weren't for the events of 911, I'd be right there with you, on that one Miss Henny. Perhaps you could conclude that AlQeada really screwed things up for Saddam
The UN and UN 1441 seem to be entirely beside the point. The U.S. scoffed at the UN - who needs the UN?
Well, you're right there. Clinton didn't need them either, and our defense doesn't require UN approval. Simply that in this instance we DO have UN 1441. We DO have their madate that Saddam fully comply. He chose to do other, and since the UN is a toothless uncredible organization now, having no ability (probably no desire) to actually enforce their own resolutions, we did it for them. Not that we had to or required their authorization, simply that we did
But how could they possibly have been "manufactured" when the global intel community, the NIE, and practically every Dem, when Clinton was in charge, professed with near certainty Saddam's WMD danger to the region and WMD being used against the U.S. & its allies?? What was that official position on regime change all about then??
I remember Saddam being problematic for Clinton. What I remember even more clearly was Clinton using Saddam as a distraction from his personal life that the press was so interested in. (Look over there! A bird!) Please, Sirs, believe me on this - I may not be a Republican, but I really can't stand the Democrats. Call me independent. What the Democrats do or say, did or said, is not credible to me either.
Fair enough 8)
-
During the late part of the Bush 41 aministration , and throughout the administration of Bill Clinton acts ofwar were carryed ou in Iraq by the US and allies .
I see the availible choices as of 2002 as amounting to three ;
1.Status quo , maintain the embargo and the supression .
2.Give up, let Saddam regain his unfettered controll.
3. War , not a small scale incease in the constant unfreindlyness, but enough of a commitment to bring the conflictfiannally to a conclsion.
So item three being chosen, has given us the highly imperfect result we can all observe , but in what respet would choice one or two have been better?