BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 15 Oct 02 - 09:01 AM

Where it would make a much bigger difference!! At least we are used to the idea!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Oct 02 - 08:40 AM

Teribus:

You're thinking on the high tech side. You really don't need much to conduct effective urban warfare except rifles, a few granades and a civilian population to use as shields. Ain't rocket science here, my friend.

Okay, imagine hundreds of Columbine High Schools except instead of a couple kids with rifles, now ya have a hundred or so in an apartment building and ya' have two choices: use you WMD in the apartment building or try to remove the bad guys surgically. The first option is tried and true but the PR is real lousy. The second option is lots of civilians killed and lots of body bags coming home in the C-5.

And now we learn that Bush doesn't even want advice from too many military people but has talked tactics with Newt Gingrich. Hmmmmmmm?

Bad enough going into a war that could be avoided but even worse with poor planning and no end game vision except setting up a "democracy" in a country where we should be more concerned about the folks from the north taking their ounce of revenge.

Heck, we don't hardly have democracy here at home for that matter...

Nevermind...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Oct 02 - 07:14 AM

Meanwhjuile "Al Qaida" get on on with carrying out their terrorist attacks, and rejoice at the prospect of Saddam being overthrown. (My enemy's enemy is by no means always my friend...)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Oct 02 - 06:10 AM

Hi Bobert,

You appear to set great store by Saddam's election returns, completely ignoring the fact that in Iraq you have to vote, or have a damn good reason for not voting, otherwise you tend to have to undergo a fairly strenuous interview to establish your political affiliations.

Now having ignored what happenned during Desert Storm with the bulk of his armed forces (i.e. the ones who surrendered in droves) lets take a look at the troops who can be assessed as the ones who will remain loyal.

Republican Guard:
Considered the elite element of Iraq's conventional armed forces. Currently made up of 7 Divisions, highly mechanised not best suited for urban warfare.

Special Republican Guard:
A special para-military unit specifically tasked with personal security for Iraq's President and for internal security. Numbers currently estimated at 26,000, organised into 17 Battalions. They are exclusively recruited from Saddam Hussein's tribal group within Iraq.

Fedayeen Saddam:
30,000 to 40,000 strong, another para-military group used for internal security and anti-smuggling patrols and operations.

Taking those three units Bobert, two of them (SRG & FS) are used to ensure the "good behaviour" of the Iraqi population and suppression of any dissident elements. While you may contend that they will fight, I do not believe that they can fight on the assumption that the general population will support them.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 14 Oct 02 - 11:03 PM

Tole yer and I tole yer, Bobert. But believe me? Nahhh -- you hadda go to a Ninglish Perfesser before you'd believe it. Hayull, boy, yore Wes Ginny Butt just one of them there acadeeemishuns in sheep's clothing is whut!! :>)

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Oct 02 - 08:46 PM

Well, danged! Why'd no one tell this ol' hillbilly this in the first place so I didn't have to comin'---yet again-- on hands and knees beggin' fir help? Nevermind. I get it. Thanks, McGrath...

Bobert

Ahhh, Amos: Nevermind starting a new thread. You'll never beleive what McGrath just taught me...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Oct 02 - 08:35 PM

You click on the blue star on the forum page (theb one with all tey threads), and up comes the first 50 posts, but upmthe top there is a (1) and a (2) and so forth - and when you click on each one, up come the appropriate set of 50 posts.

If it doesn't work, there's some problem to take up on the Help page (click the Help button atbteh topright of the page.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Oct 02 - 08:03 PM

Excuse my sorry Wes Ginny butt, but just what the HECK are you guys talkin' about???

So I like go back to the beginning of this thread and click on the blue number with the satr and still end up waiting for 180+ posts to load. Am I retarded, or what. (PLEASE say, ahhh, "what". Please.)

I gotta be missin' somethin' here.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Oct 02 - 07:56 PM

Here's the place for good old-fashioned computerism - http://www.dejavu.org/

But what's really handy with the upgrade is that with the preview you can check your links go to the right places.

I think the focus of this thread might have shifted on, in the aftermath of the Bali atrocity, and that this thread - "Massacre in Bali" might in effect be Part Nine.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 14 Oct 02 - 07:48 PM

C'mon guys -- this electric starter thingy isn't that hard to learn, and it won't break your arm like the old crankers do. Just click on the little bold blue number with the star, next to the thread name, and you'll get a choice of manageable segments -- just go to the last one to get the current yap. OK?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Oct 02 - 07:01 PM

Come on, Amos, go fir it. Just pretend that we're still drivin' the Model A and go for it.

Hey, it will load a little faster and make Little Hawk happy and make me happy.

Go fir it!

Go fir it!

Go fir it!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Oct 02 - 05:02 PM

Oh, my...well, what won't they come up with next! These young whippersnappers with all their newfangled notions. This means there will never be a part Nine. How sad. :-)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 14 Oct 02 - 03:33 PM

Not an issue of nerve, LH -- it is a necessity superseded by advanced technology as discussed in a recent thread about the upgrade. You can load only the last 50 or so posts by clicking on the starred bumber next to the thread title -- the thread automagically gets divided into manageable sections. So "Part xx" of long discussions is no longer needed.

A.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Oct 02 - 03:18 PM

Some good posts there, starting with Doug and moving on to the rest of you...it is true that people just naturally are attracted to information that jibes with their already established viewpoints, and
EVERYONE operates at least partly on faith in forming their opinions.

Be that as it may, it is pretty plain to virtually the whole world that Iraq is no serious danger to the USA, and that for one country to openly devote itself to "regime change" in another country is blatant aggression and should be considered in violation of international law. But hell, Poland started World War II by attacking a German radio station, remember? (ludicrous Nazi propaganda which was believed by most Germans at the time...a fake Polish attack was arranged by the Germans, using some unfortunate expendable prisoners who were dressed up as Polish soldiers and conveniently shot) So why shouldn't certain loyal Americans believe that Iraq is a threat to the whole world? If Bush wants his war badly enough, I'm sure he will find a way to arrange it. That's what great powers do, they find a way, any way that works.

I see that no one has the nerve to start a Part Nine of this discussion... ;-)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 14 Oct 02 - 01:33 PM

[[[[[[[[[[applause]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Oct 02 - 01:10 PM

I do not know of any American president who has displayed more eagerness to go to war that George W. Bush. Now, Doug, try to grasp this: I don't care whether it's Bush, Gore, Nader, or Mother Theresa who wants to go to war this badly; I don't care if it's a Republican, a Democrat, a Green, or any party you care to name, this sort of pit-bull aggressiveness is not something I care to see in any human being. It is totally unconscionable in an American president.

Rather than acting on intelligence that he doesn't care to share with the American public, Bush is ignoring the advice and reservations of many members of the military. He is also ignoring warnings by the CIA that an attack on Iraq would not prevent but would guarantee terrorist attacks on the United States (he was angry because of the report itself, and he was furious that the report was made public—so what else does he want to keep hidden?). He is ignoring the reports of weapons inspectors who have been on the scene and who say that Saddam's weaponry is nowhere near as dangerous as Bush claims. He continues to assert Saddam's involvement with 9/11, but has failed to make a convincing connection (if he had one, don't you think he would trumpet it loudly to the world?). He is ignoring the Constitution, and while he's at it, with his Patriot Act and Homeland Security legislation, he is undercutting the Bill of Rights and endangering the very legal and moral foundations upon which this country was built.

Granted, it is a matter of opinion—but—it is an opinion held by much of the world, and by an increasingly large number of Americans, that Bush's desire to go to war with Iraq has much to do with attempting to divert attention from a failed domestic policy in which the economy is a mess, unemployment is on the increase, unchecked corporate greed, corruption, and wholesale thievery have become matters for daily headlines, and already inadequate social, health, and welfare programs are being gutted further still (e.g., his push to turn the Social Security system over to the mercies of Wall Street). German Justice Minister Herta Dauebler-Gmelin said as much, and her remarks caused such a stir that she was forced to resign, not because what she said was untrue, but because she was undiplomatic enough to say it. Also, Bush's desire for a regime change in Iraq has more to do with the fact that Saddam's keister is firmly planted over forty percent of the world's oil reserves that it does with any threat that Saddam might pose or any concern Bush might feel for the welfare of Iraqi citizens.

If indeed Saddam Hussein poses a threat to the United States and/or the rest of the world, then let whatever preventive action deemed necessary be undertaken by a coalition of nations who agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat, and let it be undertaken with the approval of the United Nations. For the United States to launch a preemptive attack against any country, including Iraq, is illegal, immoral, unethical, unconstitutional—and un-American.

It should come as no surprise to you that I don't like George W. Bush. But if it were Al Gore instead of George Bush, I would be just as strongly opposed. It is the intent that is wrong. Not the man per se.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 14 Oct 02 - 12:05 PM

Well spoken, again and as usual. I concur with your sentiments, while still scanning the information horizon for hard data to support Bush's rabidity.

"Exactly why is it you are foaming at the mouth, Mister Resident?"

"That's how we make the pie higher where I come from...."


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 14 Oct 02 - 11:43 AM

You're right, Doug, much of it is this is opinion. But I also note that you have yet to forward one single, substantiated fact. You have faith in the Bush government.

Know what? Governments LIE. They lie when they think it's for the good of the people and the lie when they are cruel and despotic -- usually the motivations are somewhere in between. It's the nature of government and has been true at least since the Greeks. Blindly believing anything any government tells you is foolhardy. Our Founding Fathers knew this -- that's why our government has review after review after review, finally leading up to the civic responsibility of the voters.

If you think something is true only because the government says so, there's no point in continuing this discussion.

But the Bush administration has failed to convinced other countries of this folly. On one hand we have the Bush administration, and on the other hand we have every other intelligence gathering country in the world. Why? Because they don't have any evidence to present, only suppositions.

Madeline Albright, when asked about the deaths of 5,000 children a month in Iraq due to the sanctions merely stated, "We think the price is worth it."

I'm sorry, but I don't think the slaughtering of children, civilians, or the deaths of American servicepeople is "worth it" when all there are are suppositions. If the Administration can bring FACT to the table that shows that Saddam is a greater threat than the lives that will be lost in a war, then it might be worth considering. But there isn't any FACT coming out the administration, because they *don't have any.* Instead they pass off theories and suppositions and old information as truth, when half of it is lies and the other half is mere rhetoric.

Sorry, I don't have "faith." Not when lives are at stake.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Oct 02 - 11:39 AM

The Bali business couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that the US Government supported one of the most vicious dictatorships in the world in Indonesia for over half a century, could it? Or is Al-Quaeda now to be held responsible for everything nasty on the face of the earth? Puh-leeze!

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 14 Oct 02 - 11:03 AM

I am really interested to see what Bush's warrior crowd will do in response to the slaughter of 2,000 innocent men and women in Bali, Indonesia on Sunday. The Indonesia government affirms that this is evidence of al-Quaeda organizations in Indonesia.

Of course, Indonesia is less oil-rich, but otherwise it seems we have a more overt and equally vicious opponent in place than even the dreaded Hussein!! What ever will Bush&Co do???

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Oct 02 - 10:32 AM

Speaking of opinions, Doug. Bush is of the opinion that the Iraqis hate Saddam more than they hate the idea of being attacked by the US. His handlers keep making references of mass defections. I would go so far as to say, that Bush is betting on it. There is a referendum being held today in Iraq where Saddam may get an unprecidented 100% approval, which would indeed send a message to Bush and Co. that their defection assumptions should not be chizzeled in stone.

Now I'll be the first to admit that Iraq has Katherine and Jeb beat out on manipulating elections but it is important to keep in mind, be it 90% or 100%, I don't think a war plan based heavily on the enemy quitting is too well thought out. Like I've said before and reserve the right to repeat. Any member of Bush's "axis of evil" who digs in rather than rolling over has the potential of beating the US in an urban war unless the US is willing to absolutely destroy entire cities, which would be an insane decision...

Iraq has allready signaled how it will respond to an invasion and has been preparing it's people for such with it's own PR campaigns so for you drum beaters, beware of what you ask for...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Oct 02 - 09:17 AM

I am fairly sure that the information the Russians have is a damn sight better informed - their contacts in Iraq are a better. The crowd who have been silent so far as making comment or appearing in print are Mossad, Israels intelligence service - their contacts in the region are usually the best. Downstream of them will be the Americans who will receive anything the Israelis turn up.

Rhetoric aside - nobody thinks that an attack on Iraq is a good idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Oct 02 - 07:31 AM

I imagine that the information that the Russians have, for example, it comparable to that which the US administration has. (And if you'll recall, the head of the CIA doesn't appear to think that an attack on Iraq is a good idea.)

I gather there is a fair amount of support inside the USA for the idea of an attack on Iraq by the USA regardless of the UN. But there is precious little in the rest of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 14 Oct 02 - 12:59 AM

DougR:

Excellent progress. Opinion versus opinion. Quite right.

Certainly nothing to get het up about, right?

I mean, we're mature people and we know opinions are liukely to differ and we don't let that over-ride our basic esteem for each other, correct? We certainly aren't going to start mortal name-calling over it, 'cuz, well, we're men and women of the world.

As for throwing stones, or resorting to violence over it, why, it would be madness.

I guess....


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 14 Oct 02 - 12:19 AM

Uh, Don, that's what I have been trying to point out. I do not believe that anyone on the Mudcat has the information that is available to the administration. If they do, then one would have to wonder even more about the competency of our Intelligence Agencies. Anyone who feels that the general population should be privvy to the same information that the president and his closest advisors is privvy to is simply whistling Dixie (to insert a slight inference to a musical reference).

We have OPINIONS! That's all they are! We agree with the information we hear, see, or read and probably believe whatever is closest to what we personally believe. Nicole, you, Bobert, Amos, and others (including those on my side) find something on the Internet, or in a newspaper, or hear something on TV or the radio, that supports what we "think" and we glom on to it. It is FACT, because it supports our point of view.

Then there are those who consider themselves above it all. It matters not what the Administration says, what their own government's Administration or their leaders say, they KNOW better. Well, it's still opinion, in my opinion, and one person's opinion is as good as another (IMO).

Most of you believe the Bush Administrations sucks. Ok. I accept that! But there is a very small minority on the Mudcat that thinks that it doesn't. So?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Oct 02 - 07:15 PM

OF course Bush vetoed the war crimes treaty. You don't hand a stick to someone who likely to beat you with it.

If death row inmates wrote the laws they would do the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Oct 02 - 06:34 PM

So it seems to break down to a matter of opinion. Is a matter of opinion enough to make one willing to consign tens if not hundreds of thousands of Americans and Iraqis to the slaughter?

Not good enough for me!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Oct 02 - 04:37 PM

I take it that "nope" includes Mr Bush. (And Mr Blair for thta matter.)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 13 Oct 02 - 03:44 PM

Amos: Nope.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 13 Oct 02 - 03:07 PM

Doug:

The difference between conclusions and hard data is the critical issue here. Not "information".

Have you been provided with hard data other than the opinions and conclusions offered by Senor Hemp? I mean, Mister Pie-Higher Bush?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 13 Oct 02 - 02:50 PM

Thank you, Nicole, for providing those links that point out specifically what Saddam is SUPPOSED to do. Neither of those sources report WHAT he is doing.

If you are relying on the three Congressmen who just returned from Iraq for your information on how the Iraqi people feel about Saddam, well, I just don't know what to tell you. You cannot be naieve enough to believe that they were given unfettered access to the citizens of Iraq do you? I note that you have no comment about that portion of my post. I cannot imagine why. After all NPR is the darling of folks who share your POV of things political.

Most of you keep insisting on getting "more information" from the administration. Were they to supply it you wouldn't believe it.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Oct 02 - 02:13 PM

One thing struck me there (among others) "Iraq has insisted that the oil-for-food program be converted to euros rather than dollars, an act that is costing Iraq several hundred million dollars a year in income. "

Why should changing money from dollars to euros cost anything anyway? What financial enterprise in the USA or wherever is stealing that money? (Because that is what it amounts to.)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 13 Oct 02 - 01:58 PM

Holy moley, Nicole!!

Thanks for posting that -- it completely changes the picture Bush is tring to paint.

The simplest solution to the whole situation, in that light would be to abandon sanctions and allow Iraq's economy to be self-defining; continue to insist on unconstrained inspections regarding WMD; and put the nation of Iraq on notice that violations of international law will immediately result in internationally-based disciplinary action.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 13 Oct 02 - 01:48 PM

Troll,

I'm not sure Saddam has spent a lot of money rebuilding his military machine. The only sources I have seen that says so are the same ones stirring up rhetoric. It is reasonable to expect that he would rebuild his forces (given the huge number of hostile troops on his borders), but I don't see the massive build-up that is being asserted. If he is getting the money, it's probably through the black market, but it's not through the Oil For Food Program.

To address your question about why the US is being blamed for the humanitarian disaster, it's a complex issue. Here's an interesting transcipt of a chat with the former UN Humanities Coordinator for Iraq, Dennis Halliday, from Jan 2001. Needless to say, his focus on Iraq is about the humanitarian issue, and since this is prior to the current issues, it doesn't really address political issues. But it is enlightening -- this is a man who knows as much about the humanitarian issue inside Iraq as anyone.

(Since it looks like this page is dying and links starting to go haywire, I'll post the whole thing.)

http://www.cnn.com/COMMUNITY/transcripts/2001/01/16/halliday/

CNN Moderator: Welcome to CNN.com, Denis Halliday.

Denis Halliday: Thank you. I'm pleased to be with you.

CNN Moderator: David Welch, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for international organization affairs, points out that the oil-for-food program produces billion of resources "that can be used to address humanitarian concerns of the Iraqi people." David Cortright, president of the Fourth Freedom Forum and co-author of "The Sanctions Decade," says that the responsibility for the humanitarian situation lies with the Iraqi regime's "malicious, diabolical strategy" to gain international sympathy.

Why should the U.S. or the international community bear the brunt of the blame for Iraq's humanitarian crisis when Saddam Hussein refused to accept the oil-for-food deal until the worst of the humanitarian crisis had passed?

Denis Halliday: Since the oil-for-food program began at the end of '96, Iraq has pumped and sold some 35 billion dollars worth of oil. Of that money, the U.N. has taken 35 percent off the gross amount. To date, Iraq has received food and medicines equivalent to some 10 billion dollars over the four-year period.

You might ask: Where is the rest of the money? Ten billion dollars over four years divided by 22 million people, believe me, is not adequate funding to feed and provide medical care for the Iraqi people. In addition, it falls very much short in dealing with the damage of the Gulf War bombing by the U.S. and with other sectors of Iraq which were damaged by the war, such as agriculture, health care and education.

One of the reasons the U.S. is blamed for the humanitarian crisis is because politics have been used within the Security Council to block expenditure of oil revenues to meet the basic needs of the Iraqi people. The Iraqis rejected the first offers for oil-for-food until 1995, when calorific intake had fallen below 1,000 calories per day. They did so acknowledging that they were giving up their sovereignty over oil resources, but they did so in the best interests of the Iraqi people.

CNN Moderator: Iraq has insisted that the oil-for-food program be converted to euros rather than dollars, an act that is costing Iraq several hundred million dollars a year in income. Why shouldn't Saddam Hussein have to answer for taking so much money away from the humanitarian needs of his people?

Denis Halliday: I think converting from U.S. dollars to euros was simply a political gesture. If there is any loss of revenue, it seems to me a waste. Nevertheless, due to U.N. controls, Iraq has an unspent balance in United Nations' accounts of some 6 to 10 million dollars. Therefore, money is not the first problem; it's the ability to spend it properly. That's the problem Iraq faces. And the Security Council is playing politics with the humanitarian crisis.

CNN Moderator: In the program, David Cortright also expressed the opinion that, "It's hard to avoid the conclusion that the Iraqi regime has little or no concern for the suffering of its own people. It has actually consciously manipulated and allowed that suffering to take place in order to gain the sympathy of people in the West and other countries in order to have sanctions lifted."

Why should we lift the sanctions when Iraq has done little to comply with the ceasefire terms he agreed to on April 6, 1991?

Denis Halliday: The history of the Baath Party in the 1970s and 1980s shows huge investments in the well being of the Iraqi people. Billions of oil dollars were spent in health care and education. To my mind, it is Western propaganda to say now that Baghdad does not care about its children. The fact is, it's the U.S. that is in control of the Iraqi economy. And the fact is that politics are being played, both in Baghdad and in Washington, at the cost of the Iraqi people.

CNN Moderator: Wasn't Iraq having serious economic problems prior to the U.N. sanctions because of its eight-year war against Iran?

Denis Halliday: Yes. After the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq owed some 30 billion dollars to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. That was one of the issues between Kuwait and Baghdad. Iraq wanted to increase the price of oil in order to pay back its debts and to rebuild the country. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were flooding the world market with cheap oil and, at the same time, demanding Iraqi repayment. That set off the crisis that tragically and illegally led to the invasion of Kuwait.

Question from the chat room: What is the Baath Party doing now for the Iraqi people?

Denis Halliday: The Baath Party -- as led by President Saddam Hussein, of course -- handles the entire oil-for-food program. That means they do the contracting; they do the handling and processing of, for example, wheat into flour; and they handle distribution of these foodstuffs in the country. According to my current successor in Baghdad, who is an expert on the world food program, Baghdad does an extremely efficient job of food distribution.

Comment from the chat room: We get the impression that Saddam would rather see his people suffer than open his weapons development sites for inspection.

Denis Halliday: I realize that is the impression that's been given in the West, in the United Nations, but the fact is that in Iraq today, many younger people are angry with Saddam Hussein because they feel he has compromised too often under pressure from the United Nations and the United States. They're angry because they feel the honor and the dignity and the sovereignty of Iraq have been compromised.

There is more to any country than food and medicines; it's much more complex than that. We have to accept that the Iraqis are a very proud, ancient Arab people and, despite the suffering and facilitated by the economic sanctions, they continue to support the government in Baghdad.

Question from the chat room: Aren't you concerned that by lifting sanctions now, you could give Saddam Hussein a major political victory and increase his prestige among the Iraqi people?

Denis Halliday: Yes, undoubtedly, he will claim a victory and, of course, he will also undoubtedly stay in power. If one considers the alternative, using UNICEF data, some 4-5,000 children are dying unnecessarily each month. I don't believe loss of face on the part of Washington or London is important if we can save the lives of the Iraqi people. I think we should do that, regardless of a victory or not a victory for Baghdad.

CNN Moderator: If the economic conditions are so dire and if Saddam Hussein is concerned about his people, especially the children, why won't he comply with the weapons inspection regulations and other terms of the sanctions?

Denis Halliday: At the moment, there only is one issue and that is the issue of weapons of mass destruction. According to some of the experts, including Scott Ritter, Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction capability today. Even Hans Blix, who is the chairman of UNMOVIC (United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission), which replaced UNSCOM (United Nations Special Commission), has said that he does not believe that Iraq has redeveloped weapons of mass destruction.

I believe that today we see a huge demonization of Iraq, an exaggeration of Iraq's threat "to the neighborhood" and a huge capacity for military aggression amongst the neighbors of Iraq. Today, in fact, it is Iraq that is disarmed and surrounded by countries, such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia, which are heavily armed by Europe and North America. This is not a situation that encourages Baghdad to cooperate. And it is further compounded by Washington's decision to finance the overthrow of President Saddam Hussein himself.

Question from the chat room: Do Iraqis not see that Saddam compromised their integrity in the world with the invasion of Kuwait?

Denis Halliday: I think many Iraqi people are very conscious of the high price that Iraq has paid for the invasion of Kuwait. Every day, they see children in their neighborhood die or fall sick. Nevertheless, by attacking their head of state, the United Nations and the United States have strengthened their support for the president. That's what happens with an embargo; it tends to work completely upside-down, so to speak.

Question from the chat room: Can we be assured that assistance would go to the children, given Saddam Hussein's history?

Denis Halliday: I don't believe it's a matter of assistance. I believe that if the economy was restored to Iraqi management, the Baath Party would continue its policies of investing in health care, education, good water systems, electric power and employment.

Before the war, all Iraqi children were given breakfast and lunch in the school system. So, the fact is that we, the United Nations of the West, have demolished the human rights of the Iraqi children. There's no history of the Baath Party not meeting the basic human rights of Iraqi children. In summary, I think we have no basis to be suspicious of Baghdad's approach to its own children.

Question from the chat room: If you don't support sanctions against Iraq, what would you support?

Denis Halliday: What I support, as simply as possible, is to reopen a dialogue with Baghdad, as President Clinton has successfully done with North Korea. Secondly, we should maintain the embargo on weapons of mass destruction, not only for Iraq, but also for all the countries of the Middle East. Thirdly, we should end the economic sanctions and, fourthly, work with Iraq on rebuilding its infrastructure and its economy for the well being of its people.

I should add that Iraq has its own obligations to meet. They must correct their own human rights violations. They must resolve their differences with the Kurdish minority and they must rebuild their relationships with countries like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

Comment from the chat room: All they have to do is allow inspectors in; end of problem.

Denis Halliday: I believe that if that were true, Baghdad would be very much inclined to do that, but it's not true. As I said already, Washington has passed legislation financing the overthrow of President Saddam Hussein. The question to the person who made that statement is: Can you really expect cooperation from a man that you are committed to overthrow?

CNN Moderator: In the program, you state that, "We cannot have the United Nations, the guardian of well-being, sustaining a regime of embargo or sanctions against a people that impacts only on the people, not on the government." You go so far as to call the sanctions genocide. However, can we have the United Nations rewarding a nation with financial aid after what many consider genocidal action against the Kurds and others?

Denis Halliday: That's a good question. But I think one needs to correct the impression of aid or assistance to Iraq because there is no assistance to Iraq. The government of Iraq finances everything Iraq receives under the oil-for-food program.

Secondly, we have a United Nations today that is governed by a Charter. Articles 1 and 2 of that Charter require that the sovereignty of member states be respected and that the United Nations work towards the well being of the people of the world. However, with the embargo in Iraq, we have a United Nations whose decisions in the Security Council have led to the deaths of possibly more than one million people in ten years. Now that is a tragedy. And that begins to meet some of the definitions of the United Nations Convention on Genocide.

Comment from the chat room: Saddam has NEVER cooperated. Let him and his country reap what they have sown.

Denis Halliday: First of all, Iraq cooperated successfully with UNSCOM for many years and, as we saw on the CNN film, hundreds of thousands of tons of weapons were destroyed. Secondly, Iraq has cooperated effectively on oil-for-food. Thirdly, Iraq has accepted a new border with Kuwait. And lastly, no matter what we may think of President Saddam Hussein, nothing justifies killing the children of Iraq; nothing.

CNN Moderator: Couldn't Saddam Hussein be charged with human rights violations for the way he has treated the Kurds and other Iraqi citizens? Isn't he guilty of humanitarian violations?

Denis Halliday: Under the new International Criminal Court, which President Clinton reluctantly signed just recently, there is a requirement that individuals, including heads of state, be prosecuted for crimes against humanity and that would include gross violations of human rights.

Now we have seen violations of human rights against the Kurds, against the Kuwaitis, against the Jews in the Second World War, against the Africans under slavery and against the Native Americans. And there are many other terrible examples in recent history. In the Gulf War itself, we saw breaches of international law by the United States and its allies. We saw the use of depleted uranium, which is in breach of the Geneva Conventions.

What I'm saying is that both sides of this conflict and many conflicts are guilty. If we can accept that, then I think we would see many military leaders, heads of state, facing prosecution.

CNN Moderator: Thank you for joining us today, Denis Halliday.

Denis Halliday: Thank you. I hope this was helpful to those of you who had issues to raise.

Denis Halliday joined the Gulf War Chat via telephone from New York City. CNN.com provided a typist. The above is an edited transcript of the chat, which took place on Tuesday, January 16, 2001.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Oct 02 - 09:10 AM

"There may be a difference of perspective about weapons of mass destruction, there is one certain way to find out and that is to let the inspectors back in to do their job."

That's about as sensible a summary of the situation as I've read. It's Putin, the Russian President talking. The quote comes from this article,in (yes) the Guardian (well, it's the paper I read) - Putin demands proof over Iraqi weapons - "Blair dossier on weapons of mass destruction scorned as sceptical leader calls for return of inspectors."

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Troll
Date: 13 Oct 02 - 07:44 AM

If the UN is administering and monitoring the Oil for Food money to see that it is used for it's intended purpose, why are we told that children are starving and that it's our fault? Where is the money being used?
Not for food and medicine apparently.
Where has Saddam gotten the money to rebuild his military machine?
If not from the sale of oil, then where?
In this last weeks Newsweek there was an article which looked at the the view that the Iraqi people have of Saddam and of the US. If my memory serves me, they don't like Saddam but they HATE the US. The article was written by, I believe, an Arab.
As far as PR programs run by Psy-Ops using such things as shortwave radio, those broadcasts are only a small part of an overall campaign and pre-suppose that the target population have access to the radios and the power (battery of public utility) to operate them.
My father spent 30 years in Military Intelligence and I grew up around it. I am familiar with Psy-Ops and what they can do. It takes time to mount an effective campaign, and we may not have time.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Oct 02 - 03:31 AM

Come on, Doug. Where's your documentation?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Oct 02 - 11:33 PM

Dougie, my friend:

Hey, pal. I hate to say it but you're downright slackin' here. You keep askin' Nicole for sources and the girl provides one after another and then you just dismiss her work by saying that her sources are biased or anit-Bush. Well, yeah, anything that might be served up as evidence against *your guy*, you dismiss.

But here's the real kicker. When we ask you for your sources all we get is either silence or the same old *bumper sticker* answers. Come on, I know you are smarter than this, Doug. Would it be asking too much to have you actually go a step beyond the PR rhetoric that is being spoon-fed to the entire population, which is not based on actual facts but supposition, speculation and imagination.

We are still waiting for the evidence. It doesn't matter how amny folks of postion march before the world and do their best huff and puff routines, a lot of us, like millions... are still awaiting the proof.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 12 Oct 02 - 10:31 PM

Gotta love a gal that does her homework!!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 12 Oct 02 - 09:26 PM

No, Doug, there you go again failing to provide any kind of counter evidence, except to say "the administration says so."

My source for the current popularity of Saddam comes form many sources, including the Congressmen who recently visited Iraq, numerous radio interviews over the past several years in which Iraqis expressed their support for Saddam and their distruct of all things American, specifically stating it was because of the sanctions.

On the Oil For Food Program, Doug, I might refer you to the UN Sanctions Committee, the current and former UN Humanities Coordinator for Irag, and CNN. I refer you to UN Resolution 986, particularly paragraphs 7-9 and 15, Resolution 1051, which establishes the monitoring program.

Of course, you could read all about it directly from the UN Office of the Iraq Programme Oil For Food . But it's so much easier to believe unsubstantiated propaganda from the President, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Oct 02 - 07:44 PM

If the Iraqi population do get blown to smithereens, I think it is very likely that the survivors will not feel too keen on Saddam, whatever they may feel now.

However I think it is also pretty likely that, together with most people in other Arab and Muslim countries, they will feel very hostile indeed towards America (and the UK, assuming Blair stays "on side" and manages to pull a reluctant country with him). And I anticipate that this will result in a significantly greater likelihood of low-tech and borrowed tech terrorist reprisals. September 11th was a chilling indication of how devastating that can be. Who needs "weapons of mass destruction"?

And as I have said before, this will in my view be exactly what Bin Laden (or whoever) has had as the game plan all along.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 12 Oct 02 - 07:17 PM

What you are expressing, Kevin, is an opinion. Nothing wrong with that. Were Nicole to have expressed herself in the same way, this thread would have had one less posting to it. On the other hand, she may have a credible source to back up both of her statements. If so, it would be interesting to know what that source is.

You may be right that the Iraqi people will rally around Saddam because of his strong stand against the U. S., but on the other hand they may not rally because they might veiw their leader as being responsible for getting the Iraqi population blown to smithereens.

My point is, I doubt we know for certain what their reaction to Saddam is.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Oct 02 - 06:48 PM

It may be true or it may not be true - but the fact that Bush and company, and a bunch of other leading politicians has said so doesn't make it any more likely to be true. (Note, I said "leading" - there are decent and honest politicians, but they generally aren't "leading", or so it seems. In any party, in any country.)

Just by instinct I would imagine that Saddam is a lot more popular in Iraq now than he was a few month back. For the same reason that Bush appears to be more popular than he was before September 11th. When your country seems to be under attack, there's a tendency to rally round the leader. Even when it's a pretty unpleasant leader. Americans and Iraqis aren't so very different.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 12 Oct 02 - 04:57 PM

Nicole: there you go again! Bush and company, even the leadership in both houses of the congress have informed the American people that Saddam has been skimming the oil for food program in order to continue to build his weapons program. You state unequivocally that he is not.

Unless you have some super source for information (not some article published in a anti-U.S. publication) the president and the congress do not have, I must doubt that you are correct. Respectfully.

You also appear to have an uncanny source of information about how the Iraqi people feel about Saddam. I heard a reporter for the New York Times (it could have been the New Yorker ...I'm sure it wasn't The Guardian)on NPR who was interviewed by Diane Rhemes' temporary replacement last week. He had gone to Iraq specifically to see if he could find out how the people feel about Saddam. Since it is against the law to criticize Saddam (and people have lost tongues for doing so according to the reporter)it is impossible, he reported, to say HOW the people feel about Saddam.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 12 Oct 02 - 01:07 PM

Troll, after 11 years of sanctions, Iraqi support for Saddam has never been higher. 11 years ago they wanted his boney butt out -- now they think of him as a hero for standing up to the evil Americans and Brits for destroying their water treatment plants, food processing plants, medical facilities and embargoing dangerous military items like medicine.

For the record, money generated under the Oil For Food program does NOT go to Saddam. It goes into a trust account in New York that he can't touch and CAN'T spend on weapons. He never has control over that money, the UN does and only the UN.

As for mounting a PR campaign, Psy-Ops does it all the time. Shortwave radio is still very much alive and well in poorer countries, and it's the primary source of news in many places.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Oct 02 - 01:06 PM

"Here lies a politician",
I do not know his name;
Death has not changed him much at all -
he's lying, just the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Troll
Date: 12 Oct 02 - 12:38 PM

Amos, how in the world do you mount a massive PR campaign in a country where criticizing the ruler can get you disappeared? Besides, the Iraqi people KNOW what Saddam is and they don't like him but they hate the US. They blame us for the sanctions that have brought them so much misery even though they were imposed by the UN.
As we both know, those sanctions didn't work for a number of reasons, not the least of which were the refusals of France and Russia (among others) to give them more than casual lip service. But the money garnered in that trade did not go to rebuild Iraq. Instead, it went to rebuild Saddams war machine.
So how far do we let it go before we finally act? Until he has nuclear bombs with which to play nuclear blackmail?
If that is the case, we WILL have nuclear war in the Middle East. Saddam isn't stupid but he IS reckless at times and if he threatens or strikes at Israel, they will blow Bagdad off the map along with a lot of other Arab real estate.
We need the THREAT of war to make sure he cooperates fully with the inspectors unlike the way he did in the 90's.
And the longer we wait, the more time he has to hide stuff and work on existing projects.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST,Bobert
Date: 12 Oct 02 - 08:52 AM

Now, Kendall, calm down. Just remember the guy walking thru the cemetray and saw a grave stone with the following inscription carved out under the name: Here lies a politican and an Honest Man". Well, the feller got that puzzled look and said to himself, "Danged, they've gon to burying two folks in the same grave."

Now, as I have pointed out in the past, ain't too wild about either the Repubs or Dems but it does seem that the Dems get caught lieing about getting laid which I'll admit is rather lame. The Repubs on the other hand tell lies that have the potential of getting a lot of folks seriously hurt or worse. But ya' gotta hand it to 'em in that they are purdy danged good when it comes to telling the *big* lie.

(Well, Bobert, they ought to be. Heck, they've just spent millions of taxpayers dollars on PR men who have fine tuned the art of telling the *big* lie.)

OH, did I mention the PR firms and the millions of tax payers bucks?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: kendall
Date: 12 Oct 02 - 06:44 AM

Doug, why do we believe the president's critics and not him? Simple, I have two problems with Bush,
1. I don't believe him,
2 I don't trust him.

My own Senator, Collins(R) said to me in a letter not more than aweek old, that she has serious reservations about war with Iraq. Good. For once we agree. But, then just the other day, she voted to give Bush the power to go to war.

We have a republican running for governor, and, his main thrust is lying about the democrat who is also running.
We have a republican running for rep. to Congress; His main thrust is defaming the democrat who is also running. The republican party here is running ads that are simply not true, and one local TV station has exposed their half truths and mis information. Those arrogant assholes are STILL running those mean nasy untrue ads!
Neither of the democrats have stooped that low.
And to think, I used to be one of them!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 12 Oct 02 - 05:50 AM

Doug -- My argument against your POV would go like this:

Fifty years ago last spring I got a job as a deputy sheriff in North Idaho. Boundary County. You didn't have to have a Police Science degree then, had to learn on the job. One thing I learned was

Shooting somebody because you think he might shoot you someday isn't self defense. No matter who told you he's going to shoot you someday. Even if he's a rotten guy.

There are good reasons behind that rule if you think about it; shooting that guy might work out good one time, but as a code of conduct it's destructive; it's gangster ethics. Think about it.

And that's what's wrong with pre-emptive attacks. Gangster ethics. You don't need a quote from the CIA, or Geo.W. Bush, or Bob Woodward; all you need is common sense and/or common decency.

Clint

--and pre-emptive attacks kill more than that one rotten guy.