BS: Iraq War Lies

Subject: Iraq War Lies
From: GUEST,Axis of Oil
Date: 15 Jul 03 - 11:06 AM

The Iraq oil-invasion was enabled by terrorising us with the threat of imminent nuclear conflict. That threat was a lie. The real reasons now stand out clearly: OIL and ISRAEL.


Attacking Iraq was achieved by terrorising the public with the threat of potentially NUCLEAR attacks:

Attacks that could be launched WITHIN 45 MINUTES!

Attacks that might be directed against the West!


LIES! There was no such threat. These were ridicuclous claims, supported by forged evidence. And they knew it.


Chief UN weapons expert Doctor Hans Blix says:
Mr Blair was "fundamentally mistaken" over the "45 minutes" claim.

The CIA says:
The claim that Saddam sought to buy uranium "was based on false paperwork which American agents revealed as forgeries."


(Source, BBC News):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3063515.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3060817.stm


They said Iraq was a threat to the West. LIES!

They said the oil would be held "in trust for the Iraqi people". LIES! Now Americans are controlling oil sales and spending the proceeds on companies with ties to the Bush regime!

A Decade of American attacks have crippled the Iraq. Now the corporations that pushed for war and funded the politicians are making money from rebuilding Iraq!


The public debate is neatly avoiding the real issue. Clearly we they lied about the real reasons for attacking Iraq. So what were the real reasons?

Why did they lie? Why was it so important to attack and occupy Iraq?
(starting with the oilfields and then neglecting to protect schools and hospitals!)


1: Iraq is the world's second biggest source of oil. But the oil comes to the surface naturally, so that extraction is cheaper and easier than anywhere else.

2: Iraq was a significant and nearby opponent of Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian territory. If Iraq posed a threat to anybody then it was only to Israel. (The U.S. government funds and arms the illegal Israeli occupation, which is what started the Arab-American cycle of hatred.)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1552000/1552900.stm


Politics has become synonymous with corruption, dishonesty and evil. Our governments are using our taxes, our national resources and the lives of our military personnel for illegal attacks robbery to make money for themselves and their freinds.


The U.S. Military is now in the Iraqi Oil Business:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3056549.stm

"Iraqi oil deals up for grabs ... The US military has invited bids for two contracts - worth up to $1bn (£611m)


Aghganistan: The pipeline planned (in 1998!) is going ahead.

Iraq: The oil is about to go on the market.

Iran, Syria and other oilcountries may soon be attacked and robbed of their oil - using more lies and more terror if they are required.


The oil is being stolen. It is not being held in trust for Iraq as promised. Instead Americans are controlling oil sales - and spending the money on companies linked to the Bush administration!

Hamid Karzai, the U.S. puppet leader of Afghanistan, used to work for the oil company Unocal.

Unocal was the main oil company involved in the Centgas plan to build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan.

The plans were made in the 1990's - long before the September 11 attacks.

The U.S. government agreed at that time that the Taleban would have to be removed from power before the oil pipeline could be built.

The attacks of September 11 enabled the start of the oilwars, the removal of the Taleban, and the building of the pipeline.

Bush has close oil-business ties to the Saudi royal family, who had close ties to Osama bin Laden.

Bush has blocked the investigation into the intelligence failings which allowed suspects - who were under FBI surveilance - to continue with the attacks of September 11!


Murder, theft, fraud, deception.

Bush, Blair and their corporate puppeteers are criminals who kill.
They should not be allowed to get away with it just because they kill thousands instead of one or two people.
They must face trial.


Oil & The Bush Cabinet:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1138000/1138009.stm

Bush & Big Business:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1306000/1306777.stm

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Amergin
Date: 15 Jul 03 - 01:39 PM

geee maybe check other threads....been discussed.....

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 15 Jul 03 - 01:43 PM

don't forget all that rice in North Korea was must amass. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Jul 03 - 03:45 AM

Guest Axis of Oil,

Hi there DG, nice to see that you're still going strong - very entertaining as usual - complete and utter load of bollocks, but still entertaining - can hardly wait for the next instalment.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: michaelr
Date: 16 Jul 03 - 11:12 PM

Hi there Teribus, nice to see you still have your head in the sand, denying the all-too-obvious truth.

DG or not DG, the real "complete and utter load of bollocks" is coming from the Resident and his henchmen.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Jul 03 - 08:21 AM

OK michaelr,

Lets have a look at, "..the all-too-obvious truth", as laid out by Guest Axix of Oil:

We were all terrorised into believing there was a,
"..threat of imminent nuclear conflict."

No we weren't. The "all-too-obvious truth" bit here was that under the auspices of the UN, Iraq was being allowed to ignore the requirements of binding obligations detailed in numerous UN Security Council Resolutions. The UN and IAEA inspection teams could not function and there had been no inspection programme in Iraq since 1998. The UN sanctions were becoming increasingly ineffective (in fact they were about as water-tight as a collander) and pressure was mounting to have them removed completely. With no inspections, no disarmament and the prospect of sanctions being lifted please explain to me why it should be completely ruled out, and considered totally out of the question that Saddam Hussein's Iraq would not pursue their nuclear programme. The evaluation of an unrestricted restart of that programme put Iraqi acquisition of "home grown" nuclear weapons at five years down the road at the earliest. Should they opt for buying in from abroad they could achieve this much earlier, shortest estimate was 12 months. Nothing imminent about that, highly undesireable, but nothing immenent. In any event, post-911, there was absolutely no way that ANY American administration was going to allow that to happen and rightly so, given Iraq's track record.

Axis of Oil more or less owns up to that by ammending his text to down grade his immenent threat to, "the threat of potentially NUCLEAR attacks: - Attacks that could be launched WITHIN 45 MINUTES! - Attacks that might be directed against the West!"

Here Guest Axis of Oil is confusing various things and taking them totally out of context. Now where is the "all-too-obvious truth" in what Axis of Oil says here are lies.

Potential nuclear attacks? Given the circumstances outlined above I repeat my question - what rules the possibility out?

Those potential nuclear attacks being capable of being launched in 45 minutes? No-one has ever said that Iraq could launch a nuclear attack in 45 minutes. Here Axis of Oil is confusing the threat of a nuclear attack with the threat of a chemical/biological attack. Again given the circumstances outlined above (no inspections, no disarmament and sanctions lifted) - 45 minutes is perfectly credible. Even under the prevailing circumstances in Iraq at the time the statement was made (September 2002) 45 minutes was perfectly credible.

"Attacks that might be directed against the West!" - The "all-too-obvious truth" was that what was constantly stated was attacks might be directed against the West, against western interests and our allies. I again ask the question - What causes those, who deem this to be a lie, to state categorically that this contention can be totally discounted?

On the 45 minute thing Axis of Oil then quotes Dr. Hans Blix in a fairly recent interview with the BBC -

"Chief UN weapons expert Doctor Hans Blix says:
Mr Blair was "fundamentally mistaken" over the "45 minutes" claim."

The "all-too-obvious truth" here is that it is odd that the good Dr. waited the best part of 10 months to come out with this observation. If it was considered that Mr. Blair was fundamentally mistaken on this issue in July 2003, it must have been equally obvious that Mr. Blair was fundamentally mistaken in September 2002. Also odd that the materials that posed this threat, which Blix seems to discount, were exactly the same as the ones the good Dr. had reported were unnaccounted for when he was in Iraq as deputy head of the UNSCOM inspection effort - another "all-too-obvious truth".

With regard to the attempts to purchase uranium cake - in the UK the jury is still out on the veracity of that contention. The US intelligence agencies were supplied with one piece of evidence that was latter proved to be a forgery, the UK intelligence community say that they have further evidence that is currently being reviewed, but for the moment they still stand by their contention that Iraq did attempt to purchase this material.

Now onto Oil. The "all-too-obvious truth" that Axis of Oil wants us to swallow is that the Iraqi people are not going to benefit from Iraqi oil sales and that the entire proceeds are being stolen by the Americans and given to companies with ties to the Bush regime.

Utter crap! In making this contention Axis of Oil fails to point out the amount of up-front inward investment required to get Iraq's oil production flowing to pre-war levels (7 billion US$ over a period of 3 to 5 years)

Another "all-too-obvious truth" that Axis of Oil wants us to believe: "A Decade of American attacks have crippled the Iraq." What the "all-too-obvious truth" actually is, is that Saddam Hussein crippled Iraq:
- Through his expenditure of the country's resources to further his aims to achieve a very well documented ambition of his - to be known throughout the arab world as the man who finally destroyed the State of Israel;
- Through his expansionist policies within the region that manifested itself in the disasterous war with Iran and his invasion and occupation of Kuwait.

I would also like to see some evidence that any corporation - "pushed for war". The companies engaged in the essential work of rebuilding Iraq will most certainly make money - it would be extremely unusual and bizarre business practice if they did not - but their profit margin is pegged at 2% - normally Halliburton take on work within the international oil-field construction sector with a profit margin of 15%

The importance of oil-fields is not only an "all-too-obvious truth" it is also plain common-sense. By the By another "all-too-obvious truth" is that while work within Iraq's oil-fields is still ongoing, and they are far from full production, Iraq's schools are now open, as are Iraq's hospitals.

Another "all-too-obvious truth", as told by Axis of Oil, that you apparently are more than willing to swallow:

"Iraq is the world's second biggest source of oil." - No it is not. In the 13 years that Iraqi oil has been off the world market it's absence has not been noticed - That is the "all-too-obvious truth" of the matter. That would hardly be the case if what Axis of Oil says is true.

7 billion US$ and potentially 5 years work do not suggest either cheap or easy extraction. The cost/time estimate by the way is the estimate of international oil industry analysts and is fairly well documented. Not positively the "all-too-obvious truth" - but a damn good indication as to the truth of the situation.

On the Iraq/Israel topic Axis of Oil is a bit selective. What Axis, and obviously yourself, contend as the "all-too-obvious truth" is that - "Iraq was a significant and nearby opponent of Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian territory." - Whereas the whole truth is that Iraq has always been one of Israels most implacable foes, it was Saddam Hussein's aim to completely destroy the State of Israel, a State whose sovereignty is both recognised and guaranteed by the United Nations - has been since it's formation in 1948.

As to the contention - "If Iraq posed a threat to anybody then it was only to Israel." - The "all-too-obvious truth"? - Hardly!! ask Iran, Kuwait, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia.


"The U.S. Military is now in the Iraqi Oil Business:
Iraqi oil deals up for grabs ... The US military has invited bids for two contracts - worth up to $1bn (£611m)"

The contracts let are limited to repair of possible war damage that is the "all-too-obvious truth".


"Afhganistan: The pipeline planned (in 1998!) is going ahead." - Another "all-too-obvious truth" from Axis of Oil. Is it really? I take it Axis is referring to the TAP pipeline (Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan) - the pipeline that is dependent on India's participation for success? The pipeline project that is unacceptable to the Indian Government because they do want to become reliant on energy that is supplied by a pipeline that runs through Pakistan? An energy source that they (India) can dispense with due to signed memoranda of intent for alternative supplies via a subsea pipeline from Iran (planned since 1994)? The pipeline that is so desperately needed by the Afghan Government to enable that country to distribute and export it's oil and gas? The pipeline that is becoming increasingly unattractive to Turkmenistan due to cheaper transportation rates through Russian pipelines and better prices on offer from the West? The pipeline that once built and paid for is handed over to the Afghan Government?

"Iraq: The oil is about to go on the market." - Again not the "all-too-obvious truth". The "all-too-obvious truth" is that Iraqi oil is already on the market - has been for about a month now.

"Iran, Syria and other oilcountries may soon be attacked and robbed of their oil - using more lies and more terror if they are required." This is the "all-too-obvious truth"? If so there is little or no evidence of it.


"The oil is being stolen." Really? - where are they hiding it? who is "fencing" it for them? Utterly ludicrous - thats the "all-too-obvious truth" - My arse it is. As I pointed out in another thread on this subject, UN administered fund or no, the Iraqi people will see more benefits from the sale of this oil than ever they did under Saddam Hussein.   Another "all-too-obvious truth" is that under a UN administered fund, not only would the companies undertaking essential work in Iraq be making money, so would the UN via their not insignificant administration charges.

"Hamid Karzai, the U.S. puppet leader of Afghanistan, used to work for the oil company Unocal." - WOW!!!!! amazing, earth shaking revelation!!! - The significance of which is what - exactly? Or are you advocating that all heads of state should be recruited from the totally unemployed - like our Royal family - good case for a constitutional monarchy.

"Unocal was the main oil company involved in the Centgas plan to build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan." Yes the pipeline they give to the Afghan Government once it is built. The pipeline that benefits Afghanistan and the people of Afghanistan. The pipeline that the Afghan Government has to protect and bear the cost of protecting.

"The plans were made in the 1990's - long before the September 11 attacks." - WOW!!!!! amazing, earth shaking revelation!!! - The significance of which is what - exactly? Why omit all the pipelines that were planned and built to allow the transportation of middle-east oil to the Mediterranean - also long before the September 11 attacks - Some were actually planned and built before the Second World War - My God!! the conspiracy is far greater than even DG thought.

"The U.S. government agreed at that time that the Taleban would have to be removed from power before the oil pipeline could be built." Fairly reasonable condition really, considering the Taleban's track record with regard to Afghanistan's oil & gas industry and infrastructure.

"The attacks of September 11 enabled the start of the oilwars, the removal of the Taleban, and the building of the pipeline." - Oh!! so that was what it was all about - I bet they would have been down-right pissed-off if, in answer to their original request the Taleban had handed over Osama bin Laden and his boys. The pipeline, IF BUILT, and that seems more and more doubtful, benefits Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan long-term. Unical's benefit is only short-term.

"Bush has close oil-business ties to the Saudi royal family," - That "all-too-obvious truth" can equally be applied to anyone with a pension plan or shares in any oil company!!!   Another "all-too-obvious truth" stated by Axis is that the Saudi royal family, "...had close ties to Osama bin Laden." - HAD being the operative word as the "all-too-obvious truth" of the matter is that they (Saudi Royal Family) were the ones who stripped Osama bin Laden of his Saudi citizenship and who threw him into exile.

My opinion has not changed one iota, michaelr - the contentions made by Axis of Oil are a complete and utter load of bollocks.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: curmudgeon
Date: 17 Jul 03 - 08:39 AM

Try these on for size at this site.

Ten Appalling Lies We Were Told About Iraq
It was a systematic campaign to frighten the hell out of us about the threat of
Hussein, and almost none of it was true.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 17 Jul 03 - 11:19 AM

Teribus is doing what all rwn's are doing these days -- using technicalities to prove that what they think is "correct." If you can fine-tune the details, it makes Bush look "correct."

However, there is a big difference between being "correct" and being "right." It's called a moral component.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Jul 03 - 08:21 PM

Hahaha, T-Bird. Just as I would have suspected. Hmmmm? Yes, another Teribus's "War and Peace" length response which probably took several hours to write but doesn't answer the basic questions. Like, why Bush lied to the world. Oh, "Faulty intellegence". Is that your final answer, T?

1.Yes

2. No

Pick *Just* *one*, please...

(And no ovrarta dictum (sp)....)

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Jul 03 - 08:25 PM

I was hoping to congratulate Teribus on a short post. But then, oh me oh my...

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Jul 03 - 08:48 PM

Well, MCgrath. The heat's on T's hero and T is gonna do what T does best. Write reem after reem trying to narrow under T's microscope, where the big picture doesn't exist.

Yeah, I remeber well the day that Condi Rice sent up that first *trial baloon* with the "mushroom cloud" remark. Thats when the "Big Lie" started and how many times was this repeated by folks who are on the payroll of the American people. 1000?, 2000? Ten thousand? Twenty thousand? And then we found out that Bush was spending millions and millions of tax dollars on PR firms to sell "Bush's War"?

Hmmmmm?

But now that T and Co. have been caught, there is going to be a lot of attempted diversions and evasiveness to the basic questions. Hey, if I lied or supported "The Liar", I'd probably do the same...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: curmudgeon
Date: 17 Jul 03 - 08:58 PM

This evening on NPR's All Things Considered there was an analyisis of three of the resident's excuses for excess and mayhem. The most troubling to the most people was the Hussein-al Qaeda connection. To hear the piece in full,
click here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fan the flames -- Tom

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Frankham
Date: 18 Jul 03 - 12:18 AM

Hi Teribus,

Your proclamations are interesting. Lets examine them.
You say, " The "all-too-obvious truth" bit here was that under the auspices of the UN, Iraq was being allowed to ignore the requirements of binding obligations detailed in numerous UN Security Council Resolutions. The UN and IAEA inspection teams could not function and there had been no inspection programme in Iraq since 1998"

This isn't true. It's an opinion. The team was functioning well enough to keep Sadam at bay.

"The UN sanctions were becoming increasingly ineffective (in fact they were about as water-tight as a collander) and pressure was mounting to have them removed completely."

This simply is not the case. They were working and the only pressure to have them removed came from the Bush Administration.


why it should be completely ruled out, and considered totally out of the question that Saddam Hussein's Iraq would not pursue their nuclear programme.

He may have tried to pursue a nuclear program but he would not be successful. The inspection teams made that clear in their statements.
There were no means by which he could effectively do this.


"The evaluation of an unrestricted restart of that programme put Iraqi acquisition of "home grown" nuclear weapons at five years down the road at the earliest."

This sounds like Bush propaganda. It did not come from the inspecttion teams.


" Should they opt for buying in from abroad they could achieve this much earlier, shortest estimate was 12 months. Nothing imminent about that, highly undesireable, but nothing immenent. In any event, post-911, there was absolutely no way that ANY American administration was going to allow that to happen and rightly so, given Iraq's track record."

The "should theys" are a red herring. These "factoids" were dreamed up by propagandists for the war.

"Axis of Oil more or less owns up to that by ammending his text to down grade his immenent threat to, "the threat of potentially NUCLEAR attacks: - Attacks that could be launched WITHIN 45 MINUTES! - Attacks that might be directed against the West!"

This is unreasonable to suggest considering the poverty of Iraq and the incapability of their being able to acheive any kind of nuclear threat.

"Here Guest Axis of Oil is confusing various things and taking them totally out of context. Now where is the "all-too-obvious truth" in what Axis of Oil says here are lies."

More propaganda by the Bush Administration.

"Potential nuclear attacks? Given the circumstances outlined above I repeat my question - what rules the possibility out?"

The impoverishment of the country and the strength of world opinion against this happening. It's a red herring.

" 45 minutes is perfectly credible. Even under the prevailing circumstances in Iraq at the time the statement was made (September 2002) 45 minutes was perfectly credible."

It might be for North Korea or the former Soviet Union (even their nuclear capabilities were overstated). But for Iraq? Not in a decade let alone 45 minutes. It's another scare tactic by this Administration to align the public with support for the war.



"Attacks that might be directed against the West!" - The "all-too-obvious truth" was that what was constantly stated was attacks might be directed against the West, against western interests and our allies. I again ask the question - What causes those, who deem this to be a lie, to state categorically that this contention can be totally discounted?

The threats were made as a cultural response to the proposed war. They simply didn't have the means to carry them out.

On the 45 minute thing Axis of Oil then quotes Dr. Hans Blix in a fairly recent interview with the BBC -

"Chief UN weapons expert Doctor Hans Blix says:
Mr Blair was "fundamentally mistaken" over the "45 minutes" claim."

And he was right.

"The "all-too-obvious truth" here is that it is odd that the good Dr. waited the best part of 10 months to come out with this observation."

What difference would it make if he had said it earlier?


"If it was considered that Mr. Blair was fundamentally mistaken on this issue in July 2003, it must have been equally obvious that Mr. Blair was fundamentally mistaken in September 2002."

I think that Dr. Blix had more information later on. His position was not to operate under assumptions.



"Also odd that the materials that posed this threat, which Blix seems to discount, were exactly the same as the ones the good Dr. had reported were unnaccounted for when he was in Iraq as deputy head of the UNSCOM inspection effort - another "all-too-obvious truth"."

It's not unreasonable that the more you explore the more you learn.
The materials that posed this threat were not then nor are they now significant to start a war over.

" The US intelligence agencies were supplied with one piece of evidence that was latter proved to be a forgery, the UK intelligence community say that they have further evidence that is currently being reviewed, but for the moment they still stand by their contention that Iraq did attempt to purchase this material."

And they have not successfully made their case for he availability
of attaining this material. Another red-herring.



"In making this contention Axis of Oil fails to point out the amount of up-front inward investment required to get Iraq's oil production flowing to pre-war levels (7 billion US$ over a period of 3 to 5 years)

This will not be used for the benefit of the Iraqi people. How do I know? Look at the US involvement in the Banana Republics of Central and South America. Look at the mess left in Afghanistan. It's no wonder that many Iraqis don't see it that way and refuse to designate America as the great liberator

"Another "all-too-obvious truth" that Axis of Oil wants us to believe: "A Decade of American attacks have crippled the Iraq." What the "all-too-obvious truth" actually is, is that Saddam Hussein crippled Iraq:"

And it must be stated that the preceding Bush Administration helped him do it. He was suppored by the other Bush and Reagan in demonizing Iran.

"- Through his expansionist policies within the region that manifested itself in the disasterous war with Iran and his invasion and occupation of Kuwait."

Which aside from the occupation of Kuwait got a nod from the White House.

I would also like to see some evidence that any corporation - "pushed for war". The companies engaged in the essential work of rebuilding Iraq will most certainly make money - it would be extremely unusual and bizarre business practice if they did not - but their profit margin is pegged at 2% - normally Halliburton take on work within the international oil-field construction sector with a profit margin of 15%

You have just supplied the evidence. Where is the source for the accounting of 2%? Even so, if this is a normal "peg" it's an abnormal situation. They'll make their 15% all right.

"The importance of oil-fields is not only an "all-too-obvious truth" it is also plain common-sense. By the By another "all-too-obvious truth" is that while work within Iraq's oil-fields is still ongoing, and they are far from full production, Iraq's schools are now open, as are Iraq's hospitals.

Yes and the hospitals are full with civilian casualties (collateral damage) and many children who have cancer because the water was contaminated by the bombing of treatment plants. The schools are open to teach more propaganda by the conquerors of Iraq.


"Iraq is the world's second biggest source of oil." - No it is not. In the 13 years that Iraqi oil has been off the world market it's absence has not been noticed - That is the "all-too-obvious truth" of the matter. That would hardly be the case if what Axis of Oil says is true."

This will change when Haliburton has it's way.

7 billion US$ and potentially 5 years work do not suggest either cheap or easy extraction. The cost/time estimate by the way is the estimate of international oil industry analysts and is fairly well documented. Not positively the "all-too-obvious truth" - but a damn good indication as to the truth of the situation.

And yet these estimates can be met and will be. The truth of the situation is that Haliburton and associates are up to the challenge and stand to make a profit margin that exceeds the so-called 2%.

" yourself, contend as the "all-too-obvious truth" is that - "Iraq was a significant and nearby opponent of Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian territory." - Whereas the whole truth is that Iraq has always been one of Israels most implacable foes, it was Saddam Hussein's aim to completely destroy the State of Israel, a State whose sovereignty is both recognised and guaranteed by the United Nations - has been since it's formation in 1948."

This above statement still holds regardless of Iraq's emnity to Israel.   

"As to the contention - "If Iraq posed a threat to anybody then it was only to Israel." - The "all-too-obvious truth"? - Hardly!! ask Iran, Kuwait, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia."

Iraq may have been seen as a threat to Iran. The Reagan and Bush Administration hoped for that. But this isn't what we're getting from the comments of Jordan, Syria or Saudi Arabia. Their assessment of the threat of Iraq to them is different.



"The contracts let are limited to repair of possible war damage that is the "all-too-obvious truth"."

And this could keep corporate business going for a long time. There's gold in them thar hills.


"Afhganistan: The pipeline planned (in 1998!) is going ahead." - Another "all-too-obvious truth" from Axis of Oil. Is it really? I take it Axis is referring to the TAP pipeline (Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan) - the pipeline that is dependent on India's participation for success? The pipeline project that is unacceptable to the Indian Government because they do want to become reliant on energy that is supplied by a pipeline that runs through Pakistan?"

It is true that the pipeline may not be successful.

" The pipeline that once built and paid for is handed over to the Afghan Government?"

What Afghan government? At the moment it's a Bush-backed set of war lords who dominate the country.

" The "all-too-obvious truth" is that Iraqi oil is already on the market - has been for about a month now."

This is possible. It's been planned for a long time. The beneficiaries however are not the Iraqi people.

"Iran, Syria and other oilcountries may soon be attacked and robbed of their oil - using more lies and more terror if they are required." This is the "all-too-obvious truth"? If so there is little or no evidence of it."

There is some evidence that some US Administrations have been associated with "Banana Republics". This might act as some kind of evidence.


"The oil is being stolen." Really? - where are they hiding it? who is "fencing" it for them? Utterly ludicrous - thats the "all-too-obvious truth"


The oil is being used for the current spate of SUV's in this country by people who claim to be "patriotic" Americans. It's not hiding at all. Haliburton is kind of a "fence".


" As I pointed out in another thread on this subject, UN administered fund or no, the Iraqi people will see more benefits from the sale of this oil than ever they did under Saddam Hussein."

Now I see no evidence for this. This assumption is just that.



" Another "all-too-obvious truth" is that under a UN administered fund, not only would the companies undertaking essential work in Iraq be making money, so would the UN via their not insignificant administration charges."

Which part of the UN would be making money? The part that Bush would like to trash?

" Or are you advocating that all heads of state should be recruited from the totally unemployed - like our Royal family - good case for a constitutional monarchy."

The point being made here is that the employee is being recruited for political purposes.

" Yes the pipeline they give to the Afghan Government once it is built. The pipeline that benefits Afghanistan and the people of Afghanistan."

Where is the evidence for this assertion?

The pipeline that the Afghan Government has to protect and bear the cost of protecting.

What Afghan government?


" Some were actually planned and built before the Second World War - My God!! the conspiracy is far greater than even DG thought."

It's an interesting idea. It well might be true. Glad you brought it up.

"The U.S. government agreed at that time that the Taleban would have to be removed from power before the oil pipeline could be built." Fairly reasonable condition really, considering the Taleban's track record with regard to Afghanistan's oil & gas industry and infrastructure."

Yes. Agreed.

"The attacks of September 11 enabled the start of the oilwars, the removal of the Taleban, and the building of the pipeline." - Oh!! so that was what it was all about - I bet they would have been down-right pissed-off if, in answer to their original request the Taleban had handed over Osama bin Laden and his boys."

This wasn't going to happen of course. But whether they did or not does not negate the expansionist program regarding the pipline.

The pipeline, IF BUILT, and that seems more and more doubtful, benefits Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan long-term. Unical's benefit is only short-term.

I suppose according to some sources. What are they by the way?

"Bush has close oil-business ties to the Saudi royal family," - That "all-too-obvious truth" can equally be applied to anyone with a pension plan or shares in any oil company!!!"

I believe the Saudi government might be taking the Bush Administration for a ride. The point being made here is that the rank-and-file employee of an oil company has little to do with the workings of the hierarchy. It's not the employees that will benefit as much as the corporate CEO's. This is the current pattern of American economics under this Administration.



" Another "all-too-obvious truth" stated by Axis is that the Saudi royal family, "...had close ties to Osama bin Laden." - HAD being the operative word as the "all-too-obvious truth" of the matter is that they (Saudi Royal Family) were the ones who stripped Osama bin Laden of his Saudi citizenship and who threw him into exile."

This may not be true. Again, your source for this information would be appreciated. bin Laden has relatives in Saudi Arabia. Again, who knows what motivates the mind of members of the Saudi ruling class?
Not George Bush.

My opinion has not changed one iota, michaelr - the contentions made by Axis of Oil are a complete and utter load of bollocks.

And yet the evidence that is proferred is equally unsupported by fact but mostly by assumptions. If we need to bring this discussion tto a conclusion we must examine the sources for this position.

I feel that anger will not accomplish a rational analysis of these questions and to dismiss with pejoratives another's argument is to lessen the weight of a rebuttal.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Jul 03 - 02:38 AM

It's nice to be thought of when I'm not around, but this is the first time I've clicked on this thread. I'll read it manana, but I have to say GWBush looked especially stupefied on the tube tonight. I only saw a few seconds on the national non-news, but DAMN he was sputtering. He needs to get to the Grove for a little relaxation.

DG

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Jul 03 - 02:42 AM

Oh, and by the way, when Clinton's numbers fell to 32% approval, the CIA bombed the federal bldg in Oklahoma City. GW's low numbers on Sept 10 led to a record high 95% rating a week after Sept 11. And now his numbers are falling and the govt is rattling the 'nucular' cage. When it comes, remember the Pentagon bombed itself on Sept 11 to divert attention. Terrorists have seized the US govt, and they attack us when their puppets get in trouble.

DG

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: GUEST,Lies, Murder, Oil
Date: 18 Jul 03 - 07:27 AM

IRAQ-LIES LEAK MAN FOUND DEAD

And now the weapons expert blamed for telling the British media about Bush & Blair's Iraq weapons lies has been found dead.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Gareth
Date: 18 Jul 03 - 08:00 AM

Hmmm ! and now the reporter concerned seems to have problems of veracity ! Click 'Ere

Gareth

Subject: Man Who Exposed Iraq Lies Found Dead
From: GUEST,itani mulli
Date: 18 Jul 03 - 09:34 AM

The weapons expert blamed for telling the British media about Bush & Blair's Iraq weapons lies has been found dead.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3076801.stm

Dr Kelly caused acute embarassment to both the British and American governments when he allegedly leaked details of their lies to a reporter.

Dr Kelly denied being the BBC's main source for a story claiming Downing Street had "sexed up" a dossier about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

Police say he is an avid walker and has good local knowledge of the many footpaths surrounding his home.

According to his family it was very unusual for Dr Kelly to walk alone in the area where his body was found. Even more strange is the fact that he was out in bad weather without a coat.

Number 10 says "normal personal procedures" were followed after Dr Kelly volunteered that he might have been the source.

There were five days between his admission about talking to Mr Gilligan and the MoD's statement about the possible source, said the spokesman.

The Commons foreign affairs select committee said Dr Kelly, who has worked as a weapons inspector in Iraq, had been "poorly treated" by the government.

Committee chairman Donald Anderson said of Dr Kelly that ""He came across as someone rather relaxed before the committee."

"He seemed on top of it.


Let us look more closely at the most disturbing issues surrounding the death of this weapons expert:

1) Suicide could reasonably be ruled out: Committee chairman Donald Anderson said of Dr Kelly that ""He came across as someone rather relaxed before the committee." "He seemed on top of it.

2) Accident and Misadventure could reasonably be ruled out: Police say he is an avid walker and has good local knowledge of the many footpaths surrounding his home.

3) It was "very unusual" for Dr Kelly to walk alone in the area where his body was found.

4) The weather was atrocious - hardly ideal walking weather!

5) Considering the cold, the wind and the rain in the area, why would he venture out without a coat?

6) This suspicious death is just the tip of a very sinister iceberg, as we have seen (See Message 1 in this thread)

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Jul 03 - 10:31 AM

Hi Frank,

1. UNSCOM/IAEA Inspections 1991 -1998

During the period stated above this effort was largely successful, but not completely successful according to those in charge of those inspection teams. Extremely effective deception and interference schemes were used against this inspection programme again that was the opinion of those in charge of those inspection teams. At no time throughout this period was Iraq ever in full compliance with UN Security Council Resolutions. The purpose of those resolutions was to establish beyond doubt that Iraq had disarmed, abandoned the programmes directed at acquiring and developing WMD, returned foreign nationals abducted during the occupation of Kuwait and to ensure Iraqi compliance with regard to the improvement of human rights within Iraq. The aim of the resolutions was not merely to contain Saddam Hussein, to anyone who says that that end is sufficient, I would say that that is a shamefull compromise, that rather lamely provides an excuse for UN lack of resolve.

2. UN Sanctions

So the UN sanctions were working, were they? Apart from oil exports through the "Food-for-oil" programme, throughout the period 1991 to 2002 Iraq exported oil illegally through Syria, Jordan and Turkey. The Iraqi regime set up hundreds of companies in countries throughout the world whose sole purpose was to buy items proscribed under the UN sanctions and resolutions. Please show me evidence that the Bush Administration was pressing for the sanctions to be lifted while Iraq remained in non-compliance of UN Resolutions - remember that Bush came to office two years after the UN inspection teams had been withdrawn, Bill Clinton was in office for the bulk of the time.

3. Iraq's Nuclear Programme

I note that you do not rule out the possibility that Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, with no inspection regime and with sanctions lifted, could reconstitute this programme. It is your stated opinion that he would not be successful. Sort of like living in a house with a homicidal maniac with a gun and taking the view, that he might have a gun but he will never get any amunition. You as a private citizen are free to take that view, those specifically charged with the responsibility of the safety and security of your nation are not.

You honestly believe that with sanctions lifted Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, would not have the means to fund such a programme? They did before, in the face of world opinion and numerous non-proliferation treaties and controls.

Evaluation of Iraq's ability to acquire nuclear weapons, "home grown" or otherwise, was by UK Joint Intelligence Committee. They provide best case and worst case, the political powers that be have to decide where in between those cases they use as their basis for formulation of foreign policy. Post 911, it would be foolish in the extreme to weigh anything other than worst case - that is being responsible.

No one ever said that Iraq could mount a nuclear attack within 45 minutes. The 45 minutes referred to attack with chemical or biological weapons, taken in the light of the content of the UNSCOM Report of January 1999, the assessment that Iraq had that capability was perfectly credible - unless, of course you are saying that that report consisted of lies. That is why Dr. Hans Blix waited the 10 months to come out with his statement, had he said so in September 2002, it would have tantamount to an admission that that report, which he helped to compile, was incorrect. As Dr. Hans Blix's position was not to operate under assumptions, why should the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Britain operate under the assumption that a UN Report was incorrect. They, unlike Dr. Blix, have the specific responsibility for the security of their nations, and have to act on what information they have at any given time. Damn near everyone on this earth can be an expert given 20 x 20 hindsight.

It is entirely your opinion that, "The materials that posed this threat were not then nor are they now significant to start a war over." Our nations leaders, particularly post 911, could not, and can not afford that luxury.

With regard to the current stance of the UK Intelligence services on attempts by Iraq to acquire material for their nuclear programme. All that is clear at the moment is that one piece of evidence has been discredited, they have stated that they still believe attempts were made and have evidence to support that contention. Call that a red-herring if you will, it does not alter the fact that it cannot be totally dismissed or ignored.

4. Iraq's Oil

Your refernce to US involvement in the Banana Republics of Central and Soiuth America, and to Afghanistan - now they are red-herrings and have nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq, its oil and what will happen to the income derived from the sale of that oil.

The contention put forward was that America saw Iraq as a ripe plum just waiting to be plucked - of course it isn't and never was viewed as such. I merely pointed out the amount of effort that has to be put in, in terms of time and money, to restore Iraq to it's pre-1990 levels of production. Your contention that oil revenue will not be used for the benefit of the Iraqi people at present is totally unfounded opinion, please do not present that as a fact or basis for any arguement.

Germany, under the terms of a full scale military occupation, with all the freedom of action that implies, took five years hard and concerted effort to rebuild. Why do you, and others, expect that the problems facing the rebuilding of Afghanistan and Iraq are any less and should be capable of being accomplished overnight - such a view-point is as ridiculous as it is unrealistic.

Axis of Oil stated that Iraq was the worlds second biggest source of oil - that is not true, it never has been, at full production pre-1990 levels it accounted for less that one seventeenth of the worlds oil needs. So the point Axis of Oil was wishing to make was and still remains a load of bollocks. Your reply regarding what Halliburton may or may not do - they will not make Iraq the worlds second biggest source of oil.

And if, or maybe, about it Iraq today is currently exporting oil. FACT.


5. Who Crippled Iraq?

Saddam Hussein - plain and simple, muddy the waters as much as you like, nothing will alter that truth.

Iran was demonised in the minds of the American people long before the advent of the Iran-Iraq war. Saddam's war on Iraq had no dimension that related to US-Iran, or US-Iraq relations. It was a purely opportunist, offensive action on the part of the Ba'athist regime in Iraq to gain control of the Shat-al-arab waterway and the south-western oilfields of Iran at a time when Saddam Hussein believed Iran was weak enough for such plans to succeed.

6. Oil Related Contracts

Please refer me to any industry publication or company press release that shows any company or corporation pushed for war.

The two contracts awarded so far relate purely to repair of oilfield infrastructure, pipelines and facilities damaged during hostilities. Such damage has fortunately been very slight, mainly due to actions by Iraqi civilian oil workers subverting the plans of the Ba'athists to destroy those facilities. So far, subsequent to the ending of hostilities Saddam's sympathisers have attacked two pipelines, the damage caused was slight and the lines returned to operational staus very quickly. If as you, and Axis of Oil, contend, that the revenue resulting from exploitation of Iraqi oil is only going to go into the pockets of US corporations, those attacks would not have taken place - to attack them would have been counter-productive to their arguement that the oil was being stolen. Saddam's sympathisers know that Iraq's oil will benefit the entire population of Iraq - that is why those pipelines were attacked - no other reason.

That work is based on cost plus 2% as defined in letters between Waxman and the Army and Waxman and the GAO.

7. Iraqi Infrastructure

No water treatment plant in Iraq has been bombed since the cessation of hostilities of "Desert Storm". FACT.

Also fact Iraq's schools and hospitals are now open and operating. What is not being taught in Iraq's schools today is the slavish adoration of Saddam Hussein and the bountiful benefits to be enjoyed living under the wonderful Ba'ath regime. Your contention that the coalition forces in Iraq today influence and control what is taught throughout the country is ludicrous.

The required up-front inward investment of 7 billion US$ and potentially 5 years work has nothing to do with the contracts that have been let. As previously stated they relate to a fairly specific area. The investment relates to up-grading and modernising existing infrastructure to increase current production to pre-1990 level - it has nothing to do with existing Halliburton contracts.

8. Iraq - Israel and relations with neighbouring states

As long as Saddam Hussein remained in power in Iraq hopes for any peaceful settlement in the middle east would be slight. That comes from a desire to successfully eliminate the state of Israel that dates back to 1948. Saddam Hussein fled Iraq to Egypt, he was an ardent supporter of Gamal Abdul Nasser and Pan-Arabism, he continued down that path on his return to Iraq and his successful coup within the Ba'ath organisation which brought him to power.

You will not hear one word of complaint from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria or Iran that this man and his regime have gone. They may express concern over who or what will replace him and that is both natural and understandable - but none regret his passing.

9. Afghan Pipeline

Axis of oil said this pipeline project was underway - bollocks it is not and it is highly unlikely that it will proceed. If there is no pipeline then it can hardly be regarded as expansionism on the part of anyone.

10. US Intentions

"Iran, Syria and other oilcountries may soon be attacked and robbed of their oil - using more lies and more terror if they are required." This is the "all-too-obvious truth"? If so there is little or no evidence of it."

I'll stand by that, I have seen nothing that would indicate that the US has any intention whatsoever of attacking Iran, Syria or any other oil producing country.

Your response - "There is some evidence that some US Administrations have been associated with "Banana Republics". This might act as some kind of evidence." A total red-herring and completely irrelevant - you seem all too prepared to accept very dubious and far fetched assumptions on certain things and yet decry and condemn others for doing likewise on far better grounded intelligence and evaluation of that intelligence.

11. CEO's

Chief Executive Officers, of companies, corporations, etc. Responsible and accountable to their respective Boards of Directors for the running of their companies and business health of those companies. The Boards of Directors in turn are responsible and accountable to the shareholders of those comapnies - Who are the shareholders - Banks (Who have their own boards and shareholders), Insurance companies (Who have their own boards and shareholders) private investors (people like you and me). By law at least once a year they have to present themselves and account for their actions to all shareholders. FACT

They are not all powerful and can, and have, been brought down by their shareholders for whom they work.

12. Osama bin Laden

Has been stripped of his Saudi citizenship. FACT

Was exiled by the Government (Saudi Royal family). FACT




"Bush has close oil-business ties to the Saudi royal family," - That "all-too-obvious truth" can equally be applied to anyone with a pension plan or shares in any oil company!!!"

I believe the Saudi government might be taking the Bush Administration for a ride. The point being made here is that the rank-and-file employee of an oil company has little to do with the workings of the hierarchy. It's not the employees that will benefit as much as the corporate CEO's. This is the current pattern of American economics under this Administration.


Even in the light of your excellent post - My opinion has not changed one iota. What was written by Axis of Oil is nonsensical rubbish.

Subject: Lies, Murder, Oil - It Gets Worse!
From: GUEST,itani mulli
Date: 18 Jul 03 - 12:21 PM

It gets even worse!

BBC defence correspondent Andrew Gilligan was called to a "closed" session of the committee yesterday, where he would have been under extreme pressure to name his source off the record.

We will probably never know what happened in this secret meeting.

But later that day Dr Kelly went missing.

Now the star witness in any proper future enquiry will never talk again.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Gareth
Date: 18 Jul 03 - 01:11 PM

Well it seems that BBC corespondant Gilligan was less than forthright at this meeting. It might be to the benefit of the BBC and those who were content to allow Saddams regime to continue that the truth is obscured.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Jul 03 - 05:07 PM

Well, Frank Hamilton, good on you. Teribus loves to such folks into "Tropic of Cancer" lenght discussions on topics in the middle ot T's microscope. T feels real comfy in that comfort zone... you know with all them words around him or her like T's little army... Next thing, T will start assigning you homework assignments and try to get you to read what T wants you to read, which is mostly PR propaganda that is spun to keep the truth from inflicting any damage on his or her hero, Georage W. Blair....

Like, T-Bird, like why, if Saddam was such a bad man, did Goerge W. Blair kill off tens upon thousands of *other* Iraqis? Heck, if Dan Rather could get an interview with Saddam, do you expect us to believe that George W. Blair couldn't have had Saddam off-ed? No, make that, ahhhh, are you *really* sure?

Like I've been pointing out, historians and the American people aren't going to give your guy just one more *pass* this time. He has had a life time of them but looks as if the balloon payment is comind due...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Gareth
Date: 18 Jul 03 - 06:44 PM

Bobert - GWB is a nasty piece of work, but please don't let your hatred of the 'Erbert, cloud your jugement. For possibly the first time since 1991 the US of A armed forces were acting as the armed wing of Amnesty International - and got a Good Result.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Jul 03 - 08:08 PM

Interesting stuff. Axis of Oil left out a couple of things, though. GWBush maligned 62 rogue nations who were going to 'get theirs', and it just so happens the top 4 on the list are the two top opium and the two top oil producers. Afganistan, N. Korea, Iraq and Iran.

And the Iraqi oil was divvied up this way...they have 5-7 trillion dollars worth in the ground. Blair announced it is 1.5 trillion, so Iraq lost 3/4 of its oil wealth to British Petroleum in one sentence. The money from the sale of the remaining quarter will be put in a U.N. trust fund (according to Blair), and the Iraqis will have access to that money only for rebuilding infrastructure according to UN guidelines (sterilization programs, communist indoctrination in schools, etc.). And the Iraqis will have to borrow the money from their own trust fund to do any rebuilding...borrow it from the World Bank at 40% interest.

But I've been over this ground before. The UN is the benefactor in the 'rogue states' situation. Oil and opium. Fuel the UN army with oil and break down western society with heroin, then do the mop up.

DG

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Jul 03 - 11:27 PM

Gareth, my friend, had the US armed forces wanted to do anything that slightly resembled a goal of Amnesty International, they would have quietly snuck a few Special Forces folks into Iraq and offed Saddam in his sleep. Why they had to kill off 100,000 innocent people and reduce the country to chaos is way beyond comprhension. This was not anything that Amnesty International would stand back and applaud. Quite the contrary, Gareth. Killing off innocent folks ain't in their "mission statement".... Know what I mean?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Gareth
Date: 19 Jul 03 - 07:25 PM

Geee Bobert, I am glad to hear that you feel that the the Baathist regime was the only way to keep Iraq out of chaos.

I am sure that the shades of the victims will really appreciate that.

And I am confident that you would not be the First to criticis GWB for breaking that US law on assasination. Third or Fourth maybe !

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jul 03 - 11:44 PM

Hey, G, I don't give a rat's posterior about assasination when it is compared with dropping over 30,000 bombs on people that ain't Saddam!

So lets look at what we have done because we feel that assasination isn't a moral way to go. Ahhhhh, this is in number of folks killed.

* Saddam = Probably zero

** Non-Saddams= Possibly 100,000 or more...

Hmmmmm, let me get the ol' Wes Ginny Slide Rule involved here. Okay, W.G.S.L.. here's the question. If yer engry with one guy is it best to:

A. Kill him

B. Don't kill him. but kill 100,000 other folks

C. Don't kill no one, but bring Saddam back into the CIA fold where he hasspent most of his life and cajole him into letting the US have more say in the way Iraq is run.

D. Nuke Iraq and then Iran and then North Korea and then... and then....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: GUEST,Boab D
Date: 20 Jul 03 - 11:54 AM

This is FAO
Teribus
Call me old fashioned but when the US govt start accusing Syria of stealing oil from Iraq and threatening it with embargoes and the like then its obvious who the aggressors are in'it. Hovever informed you appear to be there is no way that Syria could start any form of invasion of anywhere ie Israel. However Mr bush has put them on his axis of evil hasn't he. So here we have a country who has no intention to attack anywhere but is a bad place because it's not playing the game the way the yanks want it played. Well look at the poor old saudi's eh lost all of them people in the planes on Sept the 11th. Yep planned it all and everything. 19 Saudi citizens planned the attacks as you and every one else knows. There were also bombs going off against ex pat settlements, beheadings of foreign nationals and hey surprise surprise they play the game well enough to be left alone. Why should this be allowed when poor old Iran havent done anything of the sort but hey they are number 2 on the list. No iranians were on the planes they dont have any plans that we know of to hijack planes and kill people but I'm sure if bush says that they are then some wee puppets will go on and bush will find a way to get their oil also.
So who is the bad man in all of this well for me its got to be bush but blair is in the picture also
Dylan

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Jul 03 - 04:45 AM

Bobert

Iraq War Lies - 100,000 dead Iraqi's - Provide source and verification for this figure - If you cannot provide such, please refrain from quoting it as fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: ard mhacha
Date: 21 Jul 03 - 06:05 AM

Hi Teribus do you not realise that Bush is still reading your first post to this Site, have pity. Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Gareth
Date: 21 Jul 03 - 07:13 AM

Yup - he is still reading, and suffering from lip strain.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Jul 03 - 07:41 AM

Guest BoabD,

Are you telling us that Syria, Iran and the Iraq of Saddam Hussein did not sponsor Palestinian Terrorist organisation? - If so you are in error, their support for those groups is well documented

Are you telling us that Syria, Iran and the Iraq of Saddam Hussein did not openly admit that their ultimate objective with regard to the State of Israel was its total destruction? - If so you are in error, again all well documented, although in recent years Syria has moderated its line on this and under Assad moved very close to reaching a bi-lateral agreement with Israel along much the same lines as the agreements reached with Egypt and Jordan.

Are you trying to tell us that the Saudi Arabian Government was involved with the planning and execution of the Al-Qaeda attacks on the United States of America? - If so you are in error, the Saudi Government is regarded as a legitimate target by Osama bin Laden's organisation.

Dr. Mohamed Al-Baradei, head of IAEA has stated clearly over the last couple of months that the current nuclear programmes in Iran and North Korea must be considered as serious potential threats.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Jul 03 - 09:18 PM

Yo, T. The Washington Post did an article with a brakdown of of the number of bombs dropped on Iraq. It exceeded 30,000 bombs. Now, some of these bombs mighta killed no one and some might have killed 20 or 50 or 100? Heck, ain't real no wat to know. But, if I'm a general running the show and I'm ordering 30,000 bombs dropped on *enemy* targets, I'd be purdy danged disgusted if I was told that I was only killing 3 *enemy* per bomb. Now, with that said, I don't think that 100,000 is to far out of line.

Historians will sort it out for you soon enough, T-ster, just as they are unfolding the layers and layers of lies you hero, Tony Bush, has told over the last year or two....

And until you can come up with a better number of Iraqi casulties, I'll stick with the *conservate* 100,000... for now...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 21 Jul 03 - 10:08 PM

"The Iraq oil-invasion was enabled by terrorising us with the threat of imminent nuclear conflict. That threat was a lie. The real reasons now stand out clearly: OIL and ISRAEL."

I have listened to the political exchanges before and after the Iraqui war and never heard anyone suggest the we were in immediate danger from nuclear attack. Certainly no such statements came from President Bush. You are the liar, Axis of Oil.

As for Israel, do you want to see genocide at the hands of Islamic extremists? People of your stripe used to be called anti-semitic, now they are called liberals.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Jul 03 - 02:45 AM

Bobert,

Thanks for providing your reasoning for the figure you are proferring as fact, when in reality you have just plucked it out of thin air, but haven't the guts, or integrity to admit it.

Civilian casualties were put at around the 1,250 - 1,450 mark by most of the worlds press, Iraqi sources in Baghdad and by Coalition sources. That is roughly half those experienced during the build up and period of "Desert Storm".

Your contention that every bomb, missile or shell fired is targeted to kill people conveys a rather simplistic notion of conduct of a modern war.

As predicted from the outset, the bulk of the Iraqi Army simply abandoned their positions and returned to civilian life - even members of RG and SRG did that - so the combat casualty figures will be much lower than than during "Desert Storm".

The only one I can see deliberately telling a lie is you in your post above - 100,000 Iraqi's killed in the course of the recent conflict. A lie Bobert, plain, simple and deliberate, with the express intention of misleading and inflaming people. And, having knowingly done that, you have got the gall to castigate Tony Blair for his statements to the House of Commons - At least Blairs utterances were based on far better grounded intelligence than yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jul 03 - 10:07 AM

Yeah, T-ster, I'll admit that I did pluck the 100,000 deaths out of "thin air" becuase, at least for now, those who might know the answers to this, also control the media and so, yeah, it will take some sorting out. But we read accounts of road ways from Bahgdad to Syria, littered with one burned out car after another with burned corpses. No, we weren't allowed to see the pics, again becuase guess who controls the media.

You don't know how many Iragi's died and more than I do, T., but if you'll come up with a *realistic* number of total *total causualties* (military and civilian), heck, I'll be glad to use that figure. It's important that we not sanitize what has occured in Iraq as a result of the invasion to the point that the discussions become some un-humanly academic. So, you pick the number, T, and, like I said, if it's "reasonable", I'llm use your number until the historians cut through the sandbagging by the Bush/Blair machine.

Deal?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Jul 03 - 11:47 AM

Thanks for the admission Bobert, which you immediately follow with another classic Bobertism in the form of a traffic report, suitably emotionally charged;
"..road ways from Bahgdad to Syria, littered with one burned out car after another with burned corpses."

What's it like Bobs - nose-to-tail - just like the photographs of the Iraqi Armies rout from Kuwait - that the picture you're trying to sell?

No Bobert, I will not pick a number, I prefer to quote from some source that can be verified and has some explanation of the composition of it's figures. But at least one thing is clear as of this moment the recent conflict in Iraq has not resulted in the deaths of 100,000 Iraqi civilians, but no doubt at some stage or other, when emotion gets the better of reason, you will quote that figure again.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jul 03 - 01:05 PM

I said Iraqis, T, in my original post and did not further qualify the casualties as either civilian or military.... just Iraqis. You are pulling one of your patented *Teezerisms" in trying to keep the discussion in the center of your magnifying glass. Nice try...

And, of course, you aren't going to venture a guesstimate because if you did you might have to actually think in terms of human lives taken and that ain't anything you want to clutter up your neat little world.

Now, I'm not trying to be disrespectfull here but I think we all understand that your 1400 and change number is laughably low, but if that's the number you choose that's the one I'm gonna use in future posts, but I'll be sure to attribute that number to you so that you won't accuse me of plagerism...

Okay, folks, you all can breath a easier now. 30,000 bombs, several million rounds of ammo and who knows how many tank rounds and artillery rounds were fired and, according to a reliable source (Teribus), only about 1450 Iraqis killed. This war will be know by future generations as the "Miracle War".


Whaddayathink, T? You like the plug I gave you?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 22 Jul 03 - 01:21 PM

The 100,000 figure is the number of northern Iraqi civilians that Saddam Hussein killed with nerve gas. Genocide, again.

2003 Iraq war casualties are about 220 allies, 2200 Iraqi civilians. As far as Saddam's troops, who cares. This is the cleanest war in history by a huge margin.

Saddam was killing between 100 and 400 of his countrymen each week! We stopped him. Also note that nerve gas is a weapom of mass destruction, as if there is any doubt that Saddam Had them.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jul 03 - 01:43 PM

"We don't do body counts"
General Tommy Franks, US Central Command

Iraqbodycount.net counts the true human cost of war, not just "Our Side"

As to the 100,000 number, those who are familiar with the true human costs of the West's Iraq policies over the last 20 years, knows that figure doesn't even begin to cover the number of deaths caused by war and sanctions.

Try this article Teribus, from FAIR:

Human costs of war and sanctions in Iraq

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Jul 03 - 04:18 PM

Guest/1:43: Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Gareth
Date: 22 Jul 03 - 04:20 PM

IOnteresting that - A Dictator holding his entire population as hostages.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Jul 03 - 05:39 PM

Ihesitated to 'cut and paste' this, but its certainly no longer than the majority of Teribus' posts, so:

The following letter was sent to Vice President Dick Cheney on July 21, 2003.

The Honorable Dick Cheney
Vice President
Office of the Vice President of the United States
Eisenhower Executive Office Building
Washington, DC 20501

Dear Mr. Vice President:

While it has been widely reported that the President made a false assertion in his State of the Union address concerning unsubstantiated intelligence that Iraq purchased uranium from Niger, your own role in the dissemination of that disinformation has not been explained by
you or the White House. Yet, you reportedly paid direct personal visits to CIA's Iraq analysts;your request for investigation of the Niger uranium claim resulted in an investigation by a
former U.S. ambassador, and you made several high-profile public assertions about Iraq's alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons. We hope that you will take the opportunity to provide
responses to the following ten questions.


I. Concerning "unusual" personal visits by the Vice President to CIA analysts.

According to The Washington Post, June 5, 2003, you made "multiple" "unusual" visits to CIA to meet directly with Iraq analysts. The Post reported: "Vice President Cheney and his most senior aide made multiple trips to the CIA over the past year to question analysts studying Iraq's weapons programs."

These visits were unprecedented. Normally, Vice Presidents, yourself included, receive regular briefings from CIA in your office and have a CIA officer on permanent detail. In other words, there is no reason for the Vice President to make personal visits to CIA analysts.

According to the Post, your unprecedented visits created "an environment in which some analysts felt they were being pressured to make their assessments fit with the Bush administration's policy objectives."

Questions:

1) How many visits did you and your chief of staff make to CIA to meet directly with CIA analysts working on Iraq?
2) What was the purpose of each of these visits?
3) Did you or a member of your staff at any time direct or encourage CIA analysts to disseminate unreliable intelligence?
4) Did you or a member of your staff at any time request or demand rewriting of intelligence assessments concerning the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?


II. Concerning a request by the Vice President to investigate intelligence of Niger uranium sale, revealing forgery one year ago.

This alleged sale of uranium to Iraq by Niger was critical to the administration's case that Iraq was reconstituting a nuclear weapons program. During the period of time you reportedly
paid visits to CIA, you also requested that CIA investigate intelligence that purported to show Iraqi pursuit of uranium from Niger, and your office received a briefing on the investigation.

According to The New York Times of May 6, 2003, "more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. Ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger."

The ambassador "reported to the CIA and State Department that the information was
unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged," according to the Times. Indeed, that former U.S. Ambassador, Joseph Wilson, wrote in The New York Times, July 6, 2003, "The vice president's office asked a serious question. We were asked to help formulate the
answer. We did so, and we have every confidence that the answer we provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government."

Moreover, your chief of staff, Mr. Libby, told Time magazine this week that you did in fact express interest in the report to the CIA briefer. Our understanding is that Standard Operating Procedure is that if a principal asks about a report, he is given a specific
answer.

Questions:

5) Who in the office of Vice President was informed of the contents of Ambassador Wilson's report?
6) What efforts were made by your office to disseminate the findings of Ambassador Wilson's investigation to the President, National Security Adviser, and Secretary of Defense?
7) Did your office regard Ambassador Wilson's conclusions as accurate or inaccurate?


III. Assertions by the Vice President and other high ranking members of the Administration claiming Iraqi nuclear weapons program.

The President's erroneous reference to the faked Niger uranium sale in his State of the Union address was only one example of a pattern of similar assertions by high ranking members of the administration, including yourself. The assertion was made repeatedly in the
administration's campaign to win congressional approval of military action against Iraq.

For instance, you said to the 103d National Convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars on August 26, 2002, "they [the Iraqi regime] continue to pursue the nuclear program they began so many years ago... we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons... Should all his ambitions be realized... [he could] subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail."

In sworn testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, just weeks before the House of Representatives voted to authorize military action against Iraq, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld testified on September 18, 2002: "He [Saddam]... is pursuing nuclear weapons. If he
demonstrates the capability to deliver them to our shores, the world would be changed. Our people would be at great risk. Our willingness to be engaged in the world, our willingness to project power to stop aggression, our ability to forge coalitions for multilateral action,
could all be under question. And many lives could be lost."

Questions:

8) Since your address to the VFW occurred nearly 7 months after Ambassador Wilson reported his findings to the CIA and State Department, what evidence did you have for the assertion that
Iraq was continuing "to pursue the nuclear program" and that Saddam had "resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons"?
9) Since the Secretary of Defense testified to Congress that Iraq was "pursuing nuclear weapons" nearly 8 months after Ambassador Wilson's briefing to CIA and the State Department,what effort did you make to determine what evidence the Secretary of Defense had for his
assertion to Congress?

Further refutation of the authenticity of the forged Niger documents came from IAEA Director General ElBaradei, when he reported to the UN Security Council on March 7, 2003: "These documents, which formed the basis for reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq
and Niger, are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded... we have found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq." Yet on March 16 -- nine days afterwards -- you again repeated the unfounded assertion on national television (Meet the Press, Sunday, March 16, 2003). You said:

"We think Mr. ElBaradei frankly is wrong," and "We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

Question:

10) What was the basis for this assertion made by you on national television?

We hope you will take the opportunity to answer these questions about your role in the dissemination of false
information about Iraq's nuclear program to justify the war in Iraq. We look forward to a response.

Sincerely,


Dennis J. Kucinich, Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations

Carolyn B. Maloney, Member
Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations

Bernie Sanders, Member
Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jul 03 - 07:50 PM

Greg F:

Haven't you read GUEST, pdq's post? Man, like what got into yer head. We ain't 'sposed to ask no questions about lies, cover-ups, manipulations, law breaking or contrcts being awarded without competition to Bush/Cheney's buddies. No sir, we can't ask dem questions. Wanta know why? Well, according to Guest pdq, Saggam was a bad man....

Hmmmmmm....

Yo, GUEST pdq, when did Saddam begin being a bad man? Before or after he gased the Kurds? Ahhhh, exactly what was the Bush the Elder's adminsitraion's actions then?

Hmmmmmm....

Seems to me that after the gassing of the Kurds, Donnie Rumsfeld took Saddam a bunch of gifts from the Bush the Elder. Could that be?

Hmmmmmm....

Yet, GUEST pdq, I ain't 'spose to ask no questions of the crooks who have highjacked our democracy? Like why not?

Hmmmmmm....

Waitin' on yer reply with baited breath (what ever that is...)...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 22 Jul 03 - 08:05 PM

Grab a beer, Bro. The world is not as bad as you think. We just greased Saddam's two thug kids. Can Saddam and Osama can't be far behind. Great day. Celebrate!

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jul 03 - 08:22 PM

Yer right, pdq, the world ain't... Bush and Blair on the other hand?......

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 22 Jul 03 - 09:09 PM

Another bit of good news for you, guest pdq: American military fatalities have just gone past the total for Desert Storm. Whoopee! (Cos it's the only language the administration seems to understand.)

Gareth, so Bush is still reading and suffering from lip strain. What about you? If you'd managed to read the item that you yourself linked to, you'd have realised that your wittering about Gilligan's is sheer wishful thinking. None of us knows right now how much Gilligan is to blame, but my guess is that it will turn out to be not at all.
Your reference to Amnesty shows ignorance beyond words.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 22 Jul 03 - 10:03 PM

Bobert: Tenacity is an admirable trait. It will serve you well. Somewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Gareth
Date: 23 Jul 03 - 06:04 AM

Fionn - Wishfull thinking, ignorance on Amnesty International ?

I respectfully submit that your prejudices destroy any objectivity on this or any other comment that you make.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 23 Jul 03 - 08:00 AM

Yes, wishful thinking Gareth. If you'd read the item you linked to. you would have seen that as well as carrying the FAC view of Gilligan it also gave Gilligan's response - and that of the opposition committee member who'd missed the meeting. You latched on to the bit you liked and put no weight on the other side of the story. THAT's prejudice, Gareth.

You will have noticed no doubt that the BBC has a tape of one of the interviews with Kelly. I would still suggest, ever so gently, that you let the inquiry run its course before spreading inuendo about Gilligan.

Oh, re Amnesty: did you happen to hear Bush describing British detainees at Camp Delta as "bad people" (with the the UK's supine PM raising not a murmur of protest)? Truly a wonderful soldier for human rights! Have you any idea why Peter Benenden founded Amnesty, and have you read its current mandate? Have you seen any of its campaigns for human rights in the US, among other places? Amnesty activists do sometimes win battles, but never with guns in their hands. You obviously don't know any or you would know how offensive your analogy was.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Gareth
Date: 23 Jul 03 - 11:30 AM

I repeat "For possibly the first time since 1991 the US of A armed forces were acting as the armed wing of Amnesty International - and got a Good Result" - Where is the offence ?

I also repeat the link Click 'Ere It points out that Gilligan has a crdebility problem, it gives Gilligan's point of view - where is the wishfull thinking ?

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jul 03 - 01:02 PM

There are a list of 16 coherent and pointed questions which the Bush administration needs to answer in a straightforward and candid manner, listed at the Dean site.

I would dearly love to hear the answers. Perhaps you lot in the UK have a similar set of unanswered questions for W. Blair?

Gareth, in my book the killing of human beings in other than self-defence is an offence, and doing it deliberately with planning even more so.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Jul 03 - 01:17 PM

But, Amos, if you don't kill them there's always a chance that they will kill you...

Geeze, are we gonn ahave to go over this pre-emptive stuff again with you? You just don't seem to get it....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 08:46 AM

Thanks for the links GUEST of 22 Jul 03 - 01:43 PM

The "Iraqbodycount.net counts the true human cost of war, not just "Our Side" - A read of how they compile their figures will also show that the human cost also includes Iraqi civilians killed by Iraqi civilians. It also lists all Iraqi deaths from the point in time the day the statue fell as civilian deaths, including the Iraqi soldiers who carried on fighting in civilian clothes. This sites worst case puts total civilian deaths at 7,782 - somewhat short of Boberts 100,000 figure. In that site links are provided - go through them there is one based in New Zealand that provides a breakdown.

Bobert brought his "thin air" figure up as those killed during the recent conflict. You wish to give it credence by opening the window so that Iraqi deaths attributable to the West spans from 1983 to present day. Bit of a fanciful stretch that isn't it? The "West" didn't urge Saddam Hussein into his war with Iran (In that conflict the West helped both sides at times when each particular side looked like losing - in the case of Iraq, Iraq also received help from neighbouring Arab nations).

The article from FAIR you direct my attention to, "Human costs of war and sanctions in Iraq", is dated and relies on "statistics" that are nothing of the kind. Re the "stock-piling" of medical supplies, that the Iraqi Health Authorities claimed were buffer supplies to be used in the event of any emergency. If as you seem to give credence to the evidence of the "statistics" and a half a million children under the age of 5 years old had died, somewhere along that path, at what point would you have declared that process an emergency and released those supplies.

As you seem all to eagre to apportion blame for deaths in Iraq on the "West" and "the policies of the West". Does that mean that the "West and it's policies" are to be given credit for the population increase in Iraq (Damn near 26% from 1990 to 2002 - 18.9 million in 1990 increased to 23.2 million in 2002).

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: GUEST,frankham
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 10:55 AM

Hi Teribus,

Thank you for your response. Although extensive I feel not conclusive.



1. 1. UNSCOM/IAEA Inspections 1991 -1998

Admittedly there was deception by Saddam in the inspections.
But this was uncovered admirably by the inspection teams and had a convincing effect on world opinion.

There are very few countries in the world that have been in full compliance with UN Resolutions. US has violated them. Great Britain.
These are well-documented.

The containment of Saddam is not shameful. It sends the message to the rest of the world that the other tyrants of the world will not be tolerated even though some have been and are still supported by the Bush Administration.

I'm going to respond to your statements piecemeal. There are too many here to do all at once.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 11:54 AM

Hi there Frankham,

On your response:

1. 1. UNSCOM/IAEA Inspections 1991 -1998

"Admittedly there was deception by Saddam in the inspections.
But this was uncovered admirably by the inspection teams and had a convincing effect on world opinion."

Uncovered admirably it might have been - but it was never countered. As to the convincing effect on world opinion - how many within this forum alone refuse to believe, or acknowledge, the contents of the UNSCOM Report of January 1999.

"There are very few countries in the world that have been in full compliance with UN Resolutions. US has violated them. Great Britain.
These are well-documented."

Very true - now apart from Iraq, how many of those countries have invaded two of their neighbours and used chemical/biological weapons against one of those countries and their own populations? I think that justifies marking out Iraq for closer consideration.

"The containment of Saddam is not shameful. It sends the message to the rest of the world that the other tyrants of the world will not be tolerated even though some have been and are still supported by the Bush Administration."

According to the requirements of existing UN Resolutions the containment of Iraq is nothing other than a shameful compromise. The message it sents to all like-minded tyrants is that it doesn't matter what the UN requires, if you can deceive and delay them, they will ultimately get tired of the exercise and you can carry-on as before. Saddam Hussein was clearly and deliberately challenging the authority of the UN. If what you contend is true then there would have been no need for statement from Dr. Mohamed Al-Baradei that IAEA regards the current nuclear programmes in Iran and North Korea a serious potential threat to world peace and non-proliferation. The fact that he has issued such a statement, however, supports my contention.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 12:34 PM

"Very true - now apart from Iraq, how many of those countries have invaded two of their neighbours and used chemical/biological weapons against one of those countries and their own populations?"

Besides the US you mean?

Teribus, you are conveniently forgetting how many countries the US has invaded.

You are conveniently forgetting that the US tested biological weapons on it's own population throughout the Cold War.

You are conveniently forgetting the health legacy of chemical weapons used against the enemy upon our own troops--for instance Agent Orange in Vietnam, the Gulf War Syndrome, etc.

You are conveniently forgetting that the US tested nuclear weapons on our own troops, on our own people, as well as on the innocent of other nations, like the Marshall Islanders.

And most despicably, you are conveniently forgetting that the US government is THE ONLY COUNTRY to have ever used nuclear weapons against anyone.

Selective amnesia is thankfully not a problem for all citizens. Just citizens with no functioning moral compass like you, Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 01:21 PM

DG re your posting 24 Jul 03 - 12:34 PM - Bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 01:43 PM

During the '60s and '70s the U.S. military conducted numerous tests involving the use of chemical and biological weapons. They were a part of a major U.S. military review initiated by then-Defense Secretary Robert McNamara in 1961 soon after President John F. Kennedy's became president. The purpose of the experiments was to learn more about potential combat uses of, and methods of defense against, biological and chemical weapons. The study was comprised of 150 separate projects conducted in Hawaii, Alaska, Maryland, Florida, Utah, Georgia, Panama, Canada, Britain and aboard ships in the North Atlantic and Pacific oceans. In several cases civilians and U.S. servicemen were exposed to potentially lethal agents. [U.S. Department of Defense declassified fact sheets; KFOR, 4/25/03; New York Times 5/24/02; Associated Press 10/9/02; Reuters 10/10/02; Reuters 11/1/02; Associated Press, 7/1/03]

1964-1968. As part of the experiments, referred to as Project Shipboard Hazard and Defense (SHAD), "nerve or chemical agents were sprayed on a variety of ships and their crews to gauge how quickly the poisons could be detected and how rapidly they would disperse, as well as to test the effectiveness of protective gear and decontamination procedures in use at the time." In several instances, there was no evidence that the servicemen had given the military consent to be part of the experiment. [New York Times 5/24/02]

1965-1967. As part of Project 112, the U.S. military performed a series of tests at the Gerstle River test site near Fort Greeley, Alaska, involving artillery shells and bombs filled with Sarin and VX, both of which are lethal nerve agents. The program was coordinated by the Desert Test Center, part of a "biological and chemical weapons complex" in the Utah desert. [Associated Press 10/9/02] Civilians may have been exposed to the gasses. [Reuters 10/10/02]

1965. As part of Project 112, the U.S. military sprayed a biological agent "believed harmless but later shown to infect those with damaged immune systems" on barracks in Oahu, Hawaii. The program was coordinated by the Desert Test Center, part of a "biological and chemical weapons complex" in the Utah desert. [Associated Press 10/9/02] Civilians may have been exposed to the gasses. [Reuters 10/10/02]

In May of 1967, the U.S. military tested the "effectiveness of artillery shells using Sarin in the jungle." The tests, code-named "Red Oak, Phase 1," were conducted in the Upper Waiakae Forest Reserve on Hawaii and near Fort Sherman in the Panama Canal Zone. According to reports released in late Oct. 2002, there was "no indication of harm to troops or civilians." [Reuters 11/1/02]

Sometime between 1962 and 1973. 'Tests' were also performed in Vieques, Puerto Rico. Its civilian population may have been exposed to dangerous chemical and/or biological weapons. [Reuters 10/10/02]

Sometime between 1962 and 1973. 'Tests' were also performed in Florida. The civilian population may have been exposed to dangerous chemical and/or biological weapons. [Reuters 10/10/02]

In 1962, the U.S. Government sprayed florescent particles of zinc cadmium sulfide over Stillwater, Oklahoma, but reportedly did not monitor how the application affected the populations. Author Leonard Cole explained to an Oklahoma TV news program: "Cadmium itself is known to be one of the most highly toxic materials in small amounts that a human can be exposed to If there were concentrations of it enough to make one sick, you could have serious consequences a person over a period of time could have illnesses that could range from cancer to organ failures." [KFOR, 4/25/03]

Shall I go on?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Gareth
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 03:33 PM

And Guest your point is ???

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 03:50 PM

Mr. Guest has only one possible point: prove that even airheads can stir up hatred!

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 07:06 PM

T-ster:

Guess yer a slow learner or maybe just a lousy reader or just be your usual self. Going back to my original post about Iraqi deaths, I *did not* qualify civialian verses military. But, apparently you have trouble thinking of military deaths as, well, *actual* deaths.

Now this is the second or third time that I've tried to get your attention off that little spot in your magnifying glass, but you seem way to distracted these days. And for obvious reasons, I might add. But can you get with the program? You used to at least read folks stuff before cranking up yet another epic post.

And, BTW, when you have your final story solidified about your guys lies, please let us know. We're all waiting for the final, final, final version.

BTW, Part B, what is your take on showing the pics of Saddams dead kids, if they are actually Saddam's kids. Reminds me of some kind of tribal thing. I heard that Bush is gonna have the heads shrunken and put up on sticks outside to the White House.

Ohhhh, and I'm still waitin' fir yer number of Iraqi deaths. If you wanta stick with your "thin air" number of 1400, that's fine with me, I'll use that and I'll be sure to credit you for that info...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 07:13 PM

Just in case you're still around Gareth (I see you slipped away from the Tolpuddle thread), thre were some interesting reports from Iraq on UK TV channels today. Two were concerned particularly with the complete indifference of coalition forces towards the collecting of eveidence abour human-rights crimes under the Saddam regime.

The New York based Human Rights Watch has amassed extensive documentation, eye-witness testimony etc, but is refusing to had it over to the CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) until it commits to some kind of judicial process (other than the Resident saying "these are bad people"). They refuse to help human-rights charities protect mass graves and gather forensic evidence, and coalition troops - the Americans more than the Brits it seems - treat the civilian population like scum. (See that US officer screaming - in English - at some bewildered villagers that either they provided information or he was coming back with heavy vehicles to trash the village?)

I remain of the view that equating the coalition army with anything to do with human rights shows a special order of ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Gareth
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 07:15 PM

Count the bodies Fionn.

And rejoice.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Gareth
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 07:30 PM

Sorry I did not bother reply to your inaccurate remarks over Tolpuddle, these have now been corrected.

I repeat "For possibly the first time since 1991 the US of A armed forces were acting as the armed wing of Amnesty International - and got a Good Result" - Where is the offence ?

Unless of course Fionn you believe that mass murder and torture by the regime was aceptable - as obvously you do.


Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 09:17 PM

I don't get. Some mass killings are bad and others are good. If the Martians were to land on Earth, how would they know the good guys from the bad?

Here, Bush and Blair order the droppin' of over 30,000 bombs, millions of rounds of small armed fire, countless tank and artillery rounds at Iraqi people, but thankfully according to Teribus only 1400 were killed. Well, Teribus acknowledges that the figure might be a tad low but, no matter. 1400 people are a lot of people and so I think that killing that many folks constitutes *mass killings*.

So back to the Martians who have just landed and unfortunately for them they have landed in the middle of Iraq. They're looking around and witness a vastly superior army having its way with a vastly inferior army and.... Get the picture, Gareth, and others?

There seems to be this loophole that allows very bad behavior to be looked upon as righteous and moral.

This ain't progress for mankind but a major step backwards. You Bush/Blair apologists, revisionists and rationalizationists may not see it that way. But, fortunately for the human race, lots of us do, thank you.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: mg
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 11:30 PM

You know...I am starting to think people are really stupid and it is getting hard for me to be even reasonably polite. But how in the hell can they drop 30,000 bombs, millions of rounds of small arms fire, countless tank and artillery rounds, and have killed 1400 people, much of it in reasonably populated areas, and have someone think that these highly trained and competent marksmen and women were aiming at the Iraqi people? They were trying to miss the Iraqi people, in general. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 04:24 AM

Bobert - Just to clarify things;

"Going back to my original post about Iraqi deaths, I *did not* qualify civialian verses military."

Your original post - "Why they had to kill off 100,000 innocent people and reduce the country to chaos is way beyond comprhension."

Now the adjective "innocent" when applied to people during a war, is normally applied to the civilian population. Those serving in the armed forces are normally referred to as combatants. Unless you believe that that distinction is a convenient categorisation - anyone in the Iraqi military who stood to and defended this regime can in no way be described as "innocent" in view of the extent of this regime's depredations revealled with the recent uncovering of the mass graves in Iraq. The bulk of Saddam's forces however threw off their uniforms and returned to civilian life, those who then continued the fight did so as non-innocent civilians, but thankfully most just returned home and stayed out of it.

I asked you to susbtantiate your figure of (Wait for it Bobert) 100,000 dead Iraqi's (Yes that was MY question) and you admitted that your estimate was based on 30,000 bombs dropped and applied a factor of 3 Iraqi's per bomb (incidently that works out at 90,000 Bobs - not 100,000)

In response I supplied figures for civilian casualties (innocents) and quoted the sources reporting those figures - Note Bobert, just in case you are a slow learner, or a poor reader, the figures 1250 - 1450 did not come from ME but from the BBC, various reporters for other networks including arabic stations, Ba'ath Party spokesmen and Coalition Central Command spokesmen. Just in case that has not sunk in, here are my exact words:

"Civilian casualties were put at around the 1,250 - 1,450 mark by most of the worlds press, Iraqi sources in Baghdad and by Coalition sources."

You then made the followind admission:
"Yeah, T-ster, I'll admit that I did pluck the 100,000 deaths out of "thin air" ..." - and invite me to "come up with a *realistic* number of total *total causualties* (military and civilian), heck, I'll be glad to use that figure."

I declined the invitation saying - "No Bobert, I will not pick a number, I prefer to quote from some source that can be verified and has some explanation of the composition of it's figures."

GUEST 22 Jul 03 - 01:43 PM provided a link to "Iraqbodycount.net counts the true human cost of war, not just "Our Side"

Thanking above Guest for the link I noted - "A read of how they compile their figures will also show that the human cost also includes Iraqi civilians killed by Iraqi civilians. It also lists all Iraqi deaths from the point in time the day the statue fell as civilian deaths, including the Iraqi soldiers who carried on fighting in civilian clothes. This sites worst case puts total civilian deaths at 7,782 - somewhat short of Boberts 100,000 figure. In that site links are provided - go through them there is one based in New Zealand that provides a breakdown." Had you bothered to go to the New Zealand based site you would have got a breakdown of:
- Iraqi military personnel killed and injured;
- Iraqi civilians killed and injured;
- US forces killed and injured;
- UK forces killed and injured;
- Other nationalities killed and injured.

You then ask; Bobert - 24 Jul 03 - 07:06 PM
Ohhhh, and I'm still waitin' fir yer number of Iraqi deaths. If you wanta stick with your "thin air" number of 1400, that's fine with me, I'll use that and I'll be sure to credit you for that info...

Don't put words into my mouth Bobert, anyone reading through this thread or this post will clearly see that any figure I have put forward, I have supplied information relating to where that figure came from - Dearly wish that you did the same, as opposed to bigoted, over emotional and hysterical claptrap.

Bobert's Lies:
1. By Admission
"Why they had to kill off 100,000 innocent people and reduce the country to chaos is way beyond comprhension."
2. Proven
"...but thankfully according to Teribus only 1400 were killed."

Seems to me Bobert that you feel perfectly entitled to fabricate things based on absolutely damn all, and to continually repeat things that you know to be totally false - and you've got the brass neck to criticise George W - all his decisions have at least been based on some form of information.

Latest Bobert Sensationalist Rubbish:
"I heard that Bush is gonna have the heads shrunken and put up on sticks outside to the White House."

You seem to be extremely selective on what you hear and want to believe. You obviously do want to believe it Bobert otherwise you would not have repeated what you heard "on the street". And if that is the sort of thing that people do say on the streets around you Bobert - I'd advise you to move, mind you it does explain your total irrationality.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 07:51 AM

From Fionn - we got:

"They refuse to help human-rights charities protect mass graves and gather forensic evidence, and coalition troops - the Americans more than the Brits it seems - treat the civilian population like scum. (See that US officer screaming - in English - at some bewildered villagers that either they provided information or he was coming back with heavy vehicles to trash the village?)"

Interesting article in the Telegraph today written by Jonathon Foreman of "The New York Post", the title of the article:

"American soldiers aren't spoilt, tigger-happy yokels"

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 11:12 AM

Well, T, just what I expected from you. Now lets say that the roles were reversed and the Iragi Army was the one with the hihg tech weapons and invaded the US and lets say they dropped 30,000 bombs on our army, many of them on forts and barracks and lets say they killed a lot (since numbers are a distraction for you) of our soldiers, amny who were fast asleep. Would you not consider the deaths of these men to be "innocents"? I would. Maybe that's where we have a different way of looking at things.

Now, especially as the facts surrounding the fabrrications used in justifying the invasion in the first palce are slowly coming to light, I don't think it is farfetched to include many, if not a majority, of those "combatants" wyho were trying to "defend" their country, as "innocents". Do you really believe that a majority of those in the Iraqi army had personally killed, tortured or maimed a fellow countryman, T.? I don't. And I would doubt that you could argue the other side effectively. But then again, we don't know.

Now, as fir the *shrunken heads* remark, if you took that *literal* than this in itself speak volumes about your little world in the middle of your magnifying glass. Puffery, when blatently obvious, is not lieing, my friend. We both know it. Now if I had said that Bush was going to bring the bodies here for viewing, well, that, given Bush's personality is fiesable and there fore would certainly be out of bounds fir this ol' hillbilly. But I didn't say that.

BTW, if you can come up wigth that *actual* Iraqi death total (civilian and "combatants"), I'll be more than glad to use it in future posts...

BTW, T, what's your take on why the kids were shot up so bad? What, do you think they continued to defend themselves after taking the first half a dozen rounds?

And lastly, T, I'm real curious why more effort was not made to capture these guys. You'd think they could provide a lot of information. Seems like your administration seems to be in some big hurry all the time. Hust like when they were selling the war. Big hurry. Like, what's the big danged hurry, T. Seems to me that a lot more effort could have gone into trying to get these guys alive. Oh, yeah, that would have lost the *distraction* effect that Bush so desperately is seeking.

There, T'zer, I given you lots of thinks to but into the T-Blender and ponder but I'm fully confident in yer ability to twist it all up to fit yer perspective, so have at it. You do have that knack for, in the words of Bob Dylan, "turning the daytime black...".

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Alba
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 11:30 AM

This is a question...I am not too savvy on these matters but I have to ask, as something that Bobert has brought up also, has been bothering me these last two days
"Im curious as to why more effort wasn't made to capture these guys"
Like I say I am ignorant on these matters so here goes, Does the Army have gases of some kind that could have rendered these people helpless...ie Tear gas or Calmative agents. If they do then maybe that way these Men could have been taken into custody and made to stand trial, which for the Iraqi people may have been a better way to see Jusitce done and also to gain useful information about Saddam Insane himself.
So are there non lethal gases of this nature that can be used legally in War or was it not an available option?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 12:04 PM

Alba, the reason why no effort was made to keep the suspects alive, is because they are of no propaganda value for the Anglo American "coalition" alive. Their propaganda value is directly related to their being dead, so that the so-called 'coalition' doesn't have to be bothered with following international law and the Geneva Convention regarding prisoners of war, trials, etc. The Bush/Blair Anglo American Imperial Coalition is ESPECIALLY vehement towards the backers and supporters of the International Criminal Court:

Website of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

As to whether there are ways to incapacitate suspects in a stand-off sort of situation, the answer is yes. Police often use those measures, unless there is a hostage situation, or there is extreme danger to people in the immediate vicinity. The latter didn't seem to make much difference to the US military, who waged this "fierce gun battle" without, apparently, evacuating the residential neighborhood where the gun battle took place. In the video footage I saw on the news last night, it specifically showed the large holes in the front and back walls of the villa made by US troops, for the express purpose of seeing what was going on inside. Tear gas and smoke bombs could easily have been fired in through those holes, but that also creates difficulties for those going in after the suspects. However, there may been a way to force the suspects out of the building, or to have laid siege to the place until the ammo ran out. The suspects may or may not have cooperated with being taken alive--that is something the US troops wouldn't have had any control over, regardless of their advantages over the suspects.

I seem to recall reading one report on the day, that one of Hussein's sons was said to have a wound consistent with a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head. That isn't an uncommon outcome in cases where a suspect has holed themselves up, and is surrounded by police.

But really, like I said, there was no propaganda value to the Bush/Blair administrations to taking these suspects alive, if they truly believed they had both sons in the villa, and that is why we are now seeing the grisly photos, etc. Those grisly photos have tremendous propaganda value in Iraq and in Britain and the US, where the governments are currently besieged themselves over the Iraq war.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 04:56 PM

Hi Teribus.

The issue of the violation of UN treaties is a red herring. The Bush Administration has no intention in honoring any UN resolution unless it serves their political agenda. This is true of the current administration and past right-wing ones.

Today, the world countries can be interpreted as being our neighbors and unless we pay attention to their needs and eliminate the need for any conquest by one country over another, we can expect an escalation of the arms race again and the propensity for the use of WMD's.

In the meantime, the US has it's right-wing madrasas that are inculcating a warlike attitude in our young people. A young lady in an elementary classroom was heard to say, "Well, Hitler was just doing what he thought was right!"

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 05:18 PM

Hi Teribus,

Thanks again.

Picking up from where we left off,

3. Iraq's Nuclear Programme

Saddam Hussein is a ruthless and brutal dicator but not a homicidal maniac. He is a politician. The world opinion against him was growing steadilly until Bush intervened and made it "his" issue. I guess it's a matter of interpretation as to who would be classified as a homicial maniac these days. The dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima would have to be classifed as the epitomy of such an abberation. No, Iraq only had the potential of effective WMD's when the former Bush administration provided this possibility in it's paranoia about Iran.


The worst/best case scenario concluded by the UK intelligence group is a highly politicized determination. It's analogous to the "clear and present danger" scenario that the States lived through in the
Cold War. It has to be repeated that the men who masterminded and executed 911 did not come from Iraq but from Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
As Pogo (Walt Kelley) said somewhat succinctly which is applicable to the present Iraq policy, "We have met the enemy and it is us!."

I think the report given in 1999 might have been exaggerated and as the inspection team later found out in the 2000's, new information made that evaluation questionable.

I, for one, am glad the Dr. Blix was circumspect in not wanting to rush to hasty conclusions. It's to his credit.

At this point, I want to go on record as saying that I in no way am condemning Bush for his incorrect assessment of the Iraqi situation. I prefer to give Bush and Blair the benefit of the doubt in their belief that they were doing good by their blundering mistake. I believe though that the present Adminstration has a political agenda and is operating under that umbrella and the business of "security" has reached a disproportionate level of fear-mongering that at present is crippling rather than aiding the country. The Ashcroft "paranoia" is equivalent to the internment of the American Japanese citizens in World War II.


I believe that experts can make blunders.

What you interpret as a luxury, I see as a calumny. Any excessive military solution to an existing world problem today is putting a band-aid on a cancer.

More later.

Frank Hamilton

With regard to the current stance of the UK Intelligence services on attempts by Iraq to acquire material for their nuclear programme. All that is clear at the moment is that one piece of evidence has been discredited, they have stated that they still believe attempts were made and have evidence to support that contention. Call that a red-herring if you will, it does not alter the fact that it cannot be totally dismissed or ignored.

4. Iraq's Oil

Your refernce to US involvement in the Banana Republics of Central and Soiuth America, and to Afghanistan - now they are red-herrings and have nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq, its oil and what will happen to the income derived from the sale of that oil.

The contention put forward was that America saw Iraq as a ripe plum just waiting to be plucked - of course it isn't and never was viewed as such. I merely pointed out the amount of effort that has to be put in, in terms of time and money, to restore Iraq to it's pre-1990 levels of production. Your contention that oil revenue will not be used for the benefit of the Iraqi people at present is totally unfounded opinion, please do not present that as a fact or basis for any arguement.

Germany, under the terms of a full scale military occupation, with all the freedom of action that implies, took five years hard and concerted effort to rebuild. Why do you, and others, expect that the problems facing the rebuilding of Afghanistan and Iraq are any less and should be capable of being accomplished overnight - such a view-point is as ridiculous as it is unrealistic.

Axis of Oil stated that Iraq was the worlds second biggest source of oil - that is not true, it never has been, at full production pre-1990 levels it accounted for less that one seventeenth of the worlds oil needs. So the point Axis of Oil was wishing to make was and still remains a load of bollocks. Your reply regarding what Halliburton may or may not do - they will not make Iraq the worlds second biggest source of oil.

And if, or maybe, about it Iraq today is currently exporting oil. FACT.


5. Who Crippled Iraq?

Saddam Hussein - plain and simple, muddy the waters as much as you like, nothing will alter that truth.

Iran was demonised in the minds of the American people long before the advent of the Iran-Iraq war. Saddam's war on Iraq had no dimension that related to US-Iran, or US-Iraq relations. It was a purely opportunist, offensive action on the part of the Ba'athist regime in Iraq to gain control of the Shat-al-arab waterway and the south-western oilfields of Iran at a time when Saddam Hussein believed Iran was weak enough for such plans to succeed.

6. Oil Related Contracts

Please refer me to any industry publication or company press release that shows any company or corporation pushed for war.

The two contracts awarded so far relate purely to repair of oilfield infrastructure, pipelines and facilities damaged during hostilities. Such damage has fortunately been very slight, mainly due to actions by Iraqi civilian oil workers subverting the plans of the Ba'athists to destroy those facilities. So far, subsequent to the ending of hostilities Saddam's sympathisers have attacked two pipelines, the damage caused was slight and the lines returned to operational staus very quickly. If as you, and Axis of Oil, contend, that the revenue resulting from exploitation of Iraqi oil is only going to go into the pockets of US corporations, those attacks would not have taken place - to attack them would have been counter-productive to their arguement that the oil was being stolen. Saddam's sympathisers know that Iraq's oil will benefit the entire population of Iraq - that is why those pipelines were attacked - no other reason.

That work is based on cost plus 2% as defined in letters between Waxman and the Army and Waxman and the GAO.

7. Iraqi Infrastructure

No water treatment plant in Iraq has been bombed since the cessation of hostilities of "Desert Storm". FACT.

Also fact Iraq's schools and hospitals are now open and operating. What is not being taught in Iraq's schools today is the slavish adoration of Saddam Hussein and the bountiful benefits to be enjoyed living under the wonderful Ba'ath regime. Your contention that the coalition forces in Iraq today influence and control what is taught throughout the country is ludicrous.

The required up-front inward investment of 7 billion US$ and potentially 5 years work has nothing to do with the contracts that have been let. As previously stated they relate to a fairly specific area. The investment relates to up-grading and modernising existing infrastructure to increase current production to pre-1990 level - it has nothing to do with existing Halliburton contracts.

8. Iraq - Israel and relations with neighbouring states

As long as Saddam Hussein remained in power in Iraq hopes for any peaceful settlement in the middle east would be slight. That comes from a desire to successfully eliminate the state of Israel that dates back to 1948. Saddam Hussein fled Iraq to Egypt, he was an ardent supporter of Gamal Abdul Nasser and Pan-Arabism, he continued down that path on his return to Iraq and his successful coup within the Ba'ath organisation which brought him to power.

You will not hear one word of complaint from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria or Iran that this man and his regime have gone. They may express concern over who or what will replace him and that is both natural and understandable - but none regret his passing.

9. Afghan Pipeline

Axis of oil said this pipeline project was underway - bollocks it is not and it is highly unlikely that it will proceed. If there is no pipeline then it can hardly be regarded as expansionism on the part of anyone.

10. US Intentions

"Iran, Syria and other oilcountries may soon be attacked and robbed of their oil - using more lies and more terror if they are required." This is the "all-too-obvious truth"? If so there is little or no evidence of it."

I'll stand by that, I have seen nothing that would indicate that the US has any intention whatsoever of attacking Iran, Syria or any other oil producing country.

Your response - "There is some evidence that some US Administrations have been associated with "Banana Republics". This might act as some kind of evidence." A total red-herring and completely irrelevant - you seem all too prepared to accept very dubious and far fetched assumptions on certain things and yet decry and condemn others for doing likewise on far better grounded intelligence and evaluation of that intelligence.

11. CEO's

Chief Executive Officers, of companies, corporations, etc. Responsible and accountable to their respective Boards of Directors for the running of their companies and business health of those companies. The Boards of Directors in turn are responsible and accountable to the shareholders of those comapnies - Who are the shareholders - Banks (Who have their own boards and shareholders), Insurance companies (Who have their own boards and shareholders) private investors (people like you and me). By law at least once a year they have to present themselves and account for their actions to all shareholders. FACT

They are not all powerful and can, and have, been brought down by their shareholders for whom they work.

12. Osama bin Laden

Has been stripped of his Saudi citizenship. FACT

Was exiled by the Government (Saudi Royal family). FACT




"Bush has close oil-business ties to the Saudi royal family," - That "all-too-obvious truth" can equally be applied to anyone with a pension plan or shares in any oil company!!!"

I believe the Saudi government might be taking the Bush Administration for a ride. The point being made here is that the rank-and-file employee of an oil company has little to do with the workings of the hierarchy. It's not the employees that will benefit as much as the corporate CEO's. This is the current pattern of American economics under this Administration.


Even in the light of your excellent post - My opinion has not changed one iota. What was written by Axis of Oil is nonsensical rubbish.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 05:29 PM

Alba:

Right you are. And there would have been yet another reason to make every effort to capture them. It would have been a small step in restoring the US's image as a people of laws. We have cated so law*less* that the world no longer trusts us and we're gonna have to tackle that one one small step at a time. But I guess that Bush ain't the guy. It just goes against the way he's been brought up...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 05:45 PM

Hey, Boy! Capturin' sand niggers ain't no fun! Ya gots to KILL 'em off! Ain't like they're human or nothin' like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 05:51 PM

Dear Mr. Hamilton: Someone defined an intellectual as "one who is knowledgeable in one field but speaks only in another". Congratulations on your ascention to the status of intellectual.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Gareth
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 07:19 PM

The issue of the violation of UN treaties is a red herring. The Bush Administration has no intention in honoring any UN resolution unless it serves their political agenda. This is true of the current administration and past right-wing ones.

Today, the world countries can be interpreted as being our neighbors and unless we pay attention to their needs and eliminate the need for any conquest by one country over another, we can expect an escalation of the arms race again and the propensity for the use of WMD's.

Good, acurate, just one comment - delate US and insert the Country of your choice.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 07:31 PM

Gareth:

I would gladly try your little exercise but you've asked me to replace "US" with the name of any other country, yet the word "US" doesn't appear in the quote you want me to replace it in???? Is this a trick question 'er you been drinkin' from the same water fountain as Teribus?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Gareth
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 07:43 PM

Me ? Drink water ? No my spectacles were dirty. Delate Bush and insert country of your choice.

Still it nice to see that you clutch at any straw to defend your prejudices.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 07:58 PM

Danged, this is gettin more' and more complicated by the minute....

Jus' funnin'...

But in all seriousness, Gareth, if the US tells the UN to "stick it where the sun don't shine" how many other countries can be reasonably expected to follow resolutions? Bush has driven a stake thru the heart of the United Nations! It has been reduced to joke status...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: GUEST,pfv
Date: 26 Jul 03 - 02:44 AM

I think the US has always treated the UN with a certain amount of arrogance. Please correct me if I'm wrong -- but wasn't the US the only country (or major country, at least) that didn't pay its UN dues for years and years, even when the UN needed the money?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Jul 03 - 08:46 AM

Yep, that's the way I heard it, too. Seems Ted Turner had to threaten to pay the US's dues in order to get the government to pay up. The US has a way of going about being the arrogant *do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do* world power. Doesn't particularly matter what the issue is, i.e. the World Court, non-proliferation, global warming, etc...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: GUEST,Frankham
Date: 26 Jul 03 - 09:39 AM

I apologize to all of you for reposting Teribus' long post. I forgot to delete the part that was already posted. Forgive my indiscretion.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Jul 03 - 08:07 PM

Shoot, Frank, don't much amtter since T's post are all the same. Like muzac in the elevator or dentist's office.... I'm sure no one actually reread the danged thing. I've gotten to skimming the things first and then trying to read them at one sitting but that ain't easy. Usually takes two or three sittings to get through one of T's posts. Sure does write alot to say, ahhhh, very little. But that's how these academic folks are..... verbose...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: DougR
Date: 27 Jul 03 - 07:24 PM

Hey Bobert,
I read the message Teribus wrote that you called him to task for. It seems clear to me, and I would think anyone who can read would not have a problem understanding it either. Teribus just wants folks to toss out figures that can be supported, not those just "made up" to support a point of view.

Seems reasonable to me. It sort of defines the difference between "reporting" and "pontificating."

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Jul 03 - 09:07 PM

Well, danged Dougie, yer getting more and more like T everyday. You read only what you want to read and ignore the rest for fear of some of the *truth* gettin' on ya'. Now we wouldn't want none of that to get on ya'.

Truth be told, there may have been 100,000 Iraqi deaths. T wants to keep the number down by strictly defining the word "deaths" to non-combatants. I never said in mym orginal post anything about qualifiers. I said "Iraqia", Doug. But, I'm sure you missed that just as yer hero the T-Bird missed it.

Then, tryin' to keep some harmony here in the Catbox, I offered (and reoffered)... (and re-reoffered) to use any number of "Iraqi" deaths that T wanted to use. But did T take me up on this? Well kinda, then no. The kinda part was T telling folks that after 30,000 bombs, a few million rounds of rifle, tank and artillery rounds, that about 1400 Iraqi's died!!! Well, I was shocked at the low number, especially since 80% of the bombs were 'sposed to be a lot smarter than that!

Heck, Doug, I ain't no rocket scientist but I figured that the "smart bombs" ougtta kill one 'er two folks and the millions of other ounds could accidently kill a few more and so I didn't figure that 100,000 was that unreasonable????

But now T won't budge off the 1400...

So, Dougie, yer a learned man. If you were the Commander in Chief and Tommie Franks came ot and said, "Ahhh, we dropped 30,000 bombs, several million rounds of artillery, tank and small arms fire at the enemy and we think we got 1400 of 'em..", like, what would you think?

I'll be waitin' on this answer, fir sure....

Meanwhile, glad to have ya back, Dougie. Fir real...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Jul 03 - 02:35 AM

Bobert,

So I have not shifted from "my number" (Not really - that number was sourced from reports by others - a fact that you seem to have some trouble grasping)

"GUEST 22 Jul 03 - 01:43 PM provided a link to "Iraqbodycount.net counts the true human cost of war, not just "Our Side"

Thanking above Guest for the link I noted - ......This sites worst case puts total civilian deaths at 7,782."

According to my maths Bobert, that is a shift of some 537%. But whatever, you persist in your statements Bobert, as they only serve to demonstrate your bigotry, lack of objectivity and total absence of rational.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: GUEST,guest
Date: 28 Jul 03 - 06:02 AM

Teribus Who is paying you and how much?
I suppose that the future computer voting in the states will be all above board as well. Are you standing?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: ard mhacha
Date: 28 Jul 03 - 06:30 AM

Another five innocents murdered by US forces in Iraq, while these trigger-happy US forces remain there will never be peace. Ard Mhacha

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 28 Jul 03 - 04:40 PM

Ard, certainly tragic about those latest civilian deaths. I believe one of the victims was disabled. I wouldn't call it murder, but the US troops in particular seem to be hopelessly prepared for what they're doing. And it isn't as though there was any shortage of voices warning in advance about the difficulties of managing the post-war situation. Maybe, on reflection, I would call it murder on Bush's part.

Even the White House seems to have abandoned that hilarious objective of "winning hearts and minds." I don't suppose the irony will have been lost on you, Ard, of US troops getting training from the Brits in how to be an occupying force!

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jul 03 - 05:14 PM

Man, things must not be all warm and fuzzy in yer tent these days, Teribus. Accusin' ol' Bobert of "bigotry" is a new low for you, my friend. Let me see if I have this right. You are the one who has shown blind loyalty to some pretty messed up foriegn policy decisons, and I am the bigit? You are the one who posts one post after another defending authoritative and military solutiojs to world rpoblems and I am the bigot? Like I said, times must be purdy tough in your tent to go callin' a pro-hman, pro-world, pro-environment and pro-peace hillbilly a bigot.

And just for the record: *Shame on you*!

And just for the record, Part B: No, make that *double shame on you*!

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Gareth
Date: 28 Jul 03 - 07:07 PM

No Bobert, you are the person who posts post after post in a gut reaction, that whatever the Bush does is wrong. And when you can not find facts to support your prejudice, you invent them.

Actually I'll make up a fact myself ! Bobert is a paid agent of the Republican Party to used to discredit genuine fears about the conduct of the US of Government.

Now disprove that !!!

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jul 03 - 08:36 PM

Well done, Gareth. Just what I expected from someone so closed minded. You'd follow Teribus off a cliff in a heart beat.

What, all of a sudden no one wants to talk about the number of Iraqis killed? Oh, this guy doesn't friggin' count because he was in the Army. What isn't known is that he never raped a woman, nor hurt anyone but had three kids and wife to support. But he doesn't friggin' count, does he, Gareth????

Like I've said all along, give me a "realistic" number and I'll use it!!!! That's more than fair and more than you guys who parrot the company line ahve to offer. You just hide behind Bush spin folks!

Real brave!

Real couragous!

I'm sure you go to bed at night thinking that you did something to carry mankind a little further down the road...

And, I'm the bigot here????

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Jul 03 - 03:46 AM

Fionn - 28 Jul 03 - 04:40 PM

"Even the White House seems to have abandoned that hilarious objective of "winning hearts and minds."

If they have, and I don't believe for a minute that that is indeed the case - Then they definitely are on a hiding to nothing - they will be repeating the disasterous mistakes that led to them totally losing the plot in Vietnam.

As for

"I don't suppose the irony will have been lost on you, Ard, of US troops getting training from the Brits in how to be an occupying force!"

Irony? - don't think so - the track record of UK forces in precisely this role has been fairly effective. Malaya, Borneo and Northern Ireland. And before you jump in with any comments regarding the latter - I have a question for you - How many members of whatever paramilitary group have actually saved lives in Northern Ireland? (Note I do not count bombers who have managed to blow themselves up, either in making their bombs, or, in transporting those bombs to their designated targets.

Both Malaya and Borneo, were both conflicts that ran at the same time as the US were involved in Vietnam. It was in Malaya that the phrase "Hearts and Minds" was coined. Malaya and Borneo are the only two examples where communisted backed and inspired insurrections were defeated, mainly due to the adoption of the "Hearts and Minds" philosophy - major military power involved - The Brits.

Does it work? - Number of British casualties in Iraq since May? Number of incidents of attacks on UK forces?

Taking the whole picture into account the number of incidents are minute, and it must be remembered that the US forces are operating in the harder areas, they are largely peaceful - as I have previously said, the success stories are not reported.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jul 03 - 08:33 AM

According to a Washington Post story last week the Bush adminsitration is pondering yet another change of plans in post-invaded and now occupied Iraq. That would make the third plan, T. Hmmmmmm? Even Paul Wolfowitz has admitted that the administration erred badly in their pre-ivasion assessment that the Bathe Party would just fold up its tents and cooperate.

And on the government controlled media (NBC) nightly news it was reported that US troops are being attacked on an average of 2 dozen times a day. Doesn't say much for Bush's proclaimation last week after Saddam's sons were killed that *now the war is indeed over* or something very close to that. Looks to me that its just moving into a different phase and the unstability that many folks here warned of before the invasion is starting to rear its head.

And, meanwhile, back at the ranch, we have millions of folks working their butts off to pay for Bush's little joy ride and an unprecidented deficit and now end in sight for either...

Pretty ill thought out foriegn policy as far as I can see...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Jul 03 - 08:48 AM

Grave error Bobert, anyone could have predicted that "the Bathe Party" would not have folded it's tents - they could well have pulled the plug though.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 29 Jul 03 - 05:41 PM

Don't know about Borneo, Teribus, but I've met several people who served in Malaya. Three were psychiatric patients, two of them in-patients detained under the (UK) mental health act, and all of them traumatised by British atrocities they'd witnessed or been forced to participate in.

I notice you didn't mention Kenya, where British soldiers were offered financial inducements/incentives to kill blacks - quite often blacks who had opposed the Mau Mau. But then as British officers blandly explained: mistakes were understandable, as all blacks looked the same. Several thousand people were killed by the Brits in Kenya - a measured response, I suppose you'd say, to the 30 or so Mau Mau murders.

In Northern Ireland the behaviour of the British Army on the ground has been counter-productive beyond belief. I have witnessed behavour by the Greenjackets and the paras that led me to conclude that any group of men, given some modicum of power, is capable of almost any depravity. (Squaddies, almost by definition, are not usually the sharpest knives in the box to start with.)

How much the behaviour is down to individuals and their officers, and how much it is institutional can be argued. But the damage it causes is a fact. Which points to another fact: an army - any army - is a hopelessly blunt instrument to use in any kind of peace-keeping role.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Gareth
Date: 29 Jul 03 - 06:58 PM

It would be interesting to learn where this self proclaimed expert Fionn has aquired his knowledge from and in what context.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jul 03 - 04:00 AM

Fionn,

You are wandering way off topic here, you mentioned how laughable the "Hearts and Minds" philosophy was, and how ironic it was that the "Brits" were instructing US forces in it's practice - I, in response, gave you examples where this has been effectively employed by British troops acting in a role where they operate in aid of the civil power. I did not state, or mean to imply, that that was the overall case, I neither would, or could, ever make that contention.

Borneo (Sarawak, Brunei and Sabah) was an amazing success, primarily because we had won the "Hearts and Minds" of the civilian population both in the towns and in the country. Our greatest asset in thwarting Indonesian incursions from the Kalimantan were the villagers, the occupants of the long-houses, the Ibans and Dyaks. They decided from the outset to side with us, their knowledge of the ground, hunting and tracking skills, enabled ambush after ambush to be laid, so effectively that not one single successful infiltration was ever made.

The butchers bill for Northern Ireland is over 3000 people killed, and goodness knows how many scarred and injured, physically and mentally. Generations of children growing up in an atmosphere of fear and hate. Of those killed and injured the paramilitaries are responsible for about 90% of those casualties - I note that you make no reference to their activities in your wanderings.

I also note that you have not answered the question I asked you with regard to those who have saved lives in Northern Ireland.