BS: Moral Courage: Bush and Blair. Thanks!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Courage: Bush and Blair. Thanks!!!
From: kendall
Date: 22 Jul 03 - 07:10 AM

Is it possible that they destroyed those weapons as ordered?

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Courage: Bush and Blair. Thanks!!!
From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar
Date: 22 Jul 03 - 09:12 AM

We don't see eye to eye on this type of thread, but condolences to you, Claymore. Losing someone close to us puts all the rest in perspective.

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Courage: Bush and Blair. Thanks!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Jul 03 - 09:21 AM

Kendall,

In response to your question, "Is it possible that they destroyed those weapons as ordered?"

I can only say that they were given every possible opportunity to prove that they had done so - but they didn't. Unless of course you are prepared to accept the required Iraqi statement of the 7th December, 2002. This statement was totally discounted by both Hans Blix and Mohamed Al-Baradei as being incomplete and inaccurate. This dismissal was further backed up when items the Iraqi's fervently claimed that they did not possess started turning up.

Also, getting rid of the items detailed by UNSCOM only satisfies one part of the UN's stated requirements in relation to WMD, doesn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Courage: Bush and Blair. Thanks!!!
From: kendall
Date: 22 Jul 03 - 07:26 PM

How does one prove a negative? Why didn't Saddam use those weapons? because they did not exist? Before the war, the chief inspector whose name I don't recall, stated that it was a wild goose chase, and that no such weapons existed. He was branded a traitor and a fag. Now it seems he was right. On the news tonight, the white house finally admitted it had received memos from the CIA months ago warning Bush that some of the intelligence was faulty.

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Courage: Bush and Blair. Thanks!!!
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jul 03 - 07:35 PM

Sorry to hear about yer father, Claymore. I lost mine last Sept. 29th and still miss him. My condolenses, my friend...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Courage: Bush and Blair. Thanks!!!
From: mg
Date: 22 Jul 03 - 09:35 PM

yes, it does take courage to send other people's children into battle. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Courage: Bush and Blair. Thanks!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Jul 03 - 03:36 AM

kendall,

From your post in response to mine:

"How does one prove a negative?"

UNSCOM used extensive documentary evidence - supplied by the Iraqi's - that detailed their stocks of precursor material, stocks of weaponised agents and stocks of munitions, to establish what Iraq had produced, stored and used. Everything was fully documented and there was a discrepancy between those figures and what Iraq had used and what had been destroyed under UNSCOM supervision. The Iraqi authorities did not co-operate with UNSCOM in resolving questions relating to what had happened to that material, instead they embarked on an extremely well co-ordinated programme of deception and interference - Why?

Entirely at the instigation of the current US administration, UN inspection teams return to Iraq and again did not receive the full, pro-active co-operation of the Iraqi regime. Everything up to date on their WMD programmes had been fully documented by the Iraqi's - Why all of a sudden was this practice abandoned?

Now you, as Kendall Morse, can afford to take the view, "Oh well, I'll just write that down as a book-keeping error and I will accept Saddam's assurances that all such stocks, weaponised agents and munitions have been destroyed." You can afford to adopt that course of action because you are only responsible for Kendall Morse. You can also choose to ignore the fact that the man and regime you have just given a clean bill of health to has current links with terrorist organisations and totally dismiss the possibility that he might extend those links to terrorist organisations operating internationally, or that material, expertise and knowledge passed to those groups could not possibly to transferred to others for use against you. The President of the United States of America could never adopt such views because he is responsible for safety and security of the entire nation and all its citizens where ever they may be in this world.

"Why didn't Saddam use those weapons? because they did not exist?"

Again as private citizen Kendall Morse you can state the above quite happily and ignore all other possible explanations. You can choose to ignore the fact that he has used them and could use them again. Are you willing to consider those other possible explanations? If so they are as follows:
- 1991, during Desert Storm, they weren't used because the remit of the coalition forces was the expulsion of Iraqi forces from Kuwait - not the conquest of Iraq. The way that war went Saddam Hussein knew that if at anytime he had used those weapons that remit would have changed dramatically and those weapons would not have affected the end result - the total destruction of himself, his regime and his country.

- Means of delivery, Saddam's force's optimum means of delivering such weapons was from the air, in 1991 his Air Force, en-masse did a bunk to Iran. In 2003, due to complete air supremacy of coalition forces, he had no Air Force to deliver those munitions.

Having gone through the reports and comments of both Dr. Hans Blix, Chief of the UNMOVIC Weapons Inspection Team, and Dr. Mohamed Al-Baradei, Head of IAEA, before the war, neither made any such comment in relation to their work being a, "wild goose chase", and neither made any comment or statement that no such weapons existed.

As for your comment, "On the news tonight, the white house finally admitted it had received memos from the CIA months ago warning Bush that some of the intelligence was faulty." Oh Joy!! as you put such great store in that admission, does that mean that you accept fully that as some of the intelligence was faulty, then some of it wasn't?

As Kendall Morse, private citizen - you can afford that luxury - Your President cannot, and unlike you must decide on a course of action based upon what information he has at a given time. The events of September 11th, 2001 changed the world, because it was brought home abundantly clearly that the United States of America for all it's great power, wealth and geographic position was as vulnerable as any other nation on this planet - with that realisation comes the necessity to change the way of thinking at the top with regard to evaluation of potential threats. Particularly if your President wants to honour his obligation to his country and to private citizen Kendall Morse.

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Courage: Bush and Blair. Thanks!!!
From: kendall
Date: 23 Jul 03 - 02:10 PM

He's not my president. He's a liar and a phoney. He has no clue what to do about the economy which is in the toilet, so, like many other leaders before him he takes our attention away from that by bombing the shit out of a country that was not a threat to us. Colin Powell said before the war that there was no link between Saddam Hussein and Al Quida.


> the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into
a
> patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both
> emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of
war
> have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has
> closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the
citizenry.
> Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will
> offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know?
> For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."
>
>

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Courage: Bush and Blair. Thanks!!!
From: Raptor
Date: 23 Jul 03 - 03:42 PM

I'm glad that our P.M. had the balls to decide not to follow Bush as Blair did!

Raptor

Whats 7 inches and hangs between George Bush's legs?









Tony Blair's Tie!

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Courage: Bush and Blair. Thanks!!!
From: kendall
Date: 23 Jul 03 - 07:02 PM

My post should start with BEWARE the leader...

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Courage: Bush and Blair. Thanks!!!
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jul 03 - 08:21 PM

yes, it does take courage to send other people's children into battle.

Quite right, Mary -- and clarity is a good ingredient in such a choice as well.   

Kendall:

That "Thus have I done, for I am Caesar" quote was listed on Snopes a long time ago as a fabrication, neither Caesar nor Shakespeare. Doesn't make it any less true, though...

A

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Courage: Bush and Blair. Thanks!!!
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jul 03 - 09:40 PM

The President of the United States of America could never adopt such views because he is responsible for safety and security of the entire nation and all its citizens where ever they may be in this world.



This is horse pucky. An elected official is not the "father" of the nation and his responsibility is for the safety and security of the nation as a whole, not for those who exercise free choice to make their own decisions about where they will place themselves in the world. If he paid more attention to international dynamics and less fretting about the safety of individuals he would be doing a much better job. He is not the King, nor is he the Chief Executive Officer in the way a corporate CEO is.

It is good policy to care about American citizens and male it clear that the nation will look after its own and get rough on those who mess with them.   But that should not be perverted into a paternalistic attitude. That way lies folly.


A

A

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Courage: Bush and Blair. Thanks!!!
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jul 03 - 09:49 PM

An article expressing some of my reservations about the creeping fascism now afoot in hte halls of democracy.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Courage: Bush and Blair. Thanks!!!
From: rangeroger
Date: 23 Jul 03 - 10:19 PM

I love it. I clicked on Gareth's link above and got a message stating that it "contains a type of information that can't be used".

Sort of like lies.

rr

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Courage: Bush and Blair. Thanks!!!
From: Gareth
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 07:47 AM

Nice try RR Here is the exact statement Page 4

"Gathering intelligence inside Iraq is not easy. Saddam's is one of the most secretive and
dictatorial regimes in the world. So I believe people will understand why the Agencies
cannot be specific about the sources, which have formed the judgements in this
document, and why we cannot publish everything we know. We cannot, of course,
publish the detailed raw intelligence. I and other Ministers have been briefed in detail on
the intelligence and are satisfied as to its authority. I also want to pay tribute to our
Intelligence and Security Services for the often extraordinary work that they do."

Gareth