BS: One Thousand Gone

Subject: RE: BS: One Thousand Gone
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 03:44 PM

surely DougR gets enough stick without Amos laying into him before he's even posted? Anyway, I'm kind of glad he's no longer a lone voice here, because a sizeable proportion of Americans obviously think as he does (so far as such a stance can result from "thought").

The miniscule finds that Larry's alking about didn't add up to a row of beans, which is why not even Bush/Cheney have claimed they found WMD. WMD PROGRAMS are something else entirely - never offered to the UN by Powell as a basis for starting a war, and with good reason. Both US and UN experts are pretty much agreed that Iraqi infrastructure after the earlier war, the effect of sanctions and the chaos-inducing nature of the Saddam regime over the past 10 years militated against any prospect of developing a serious program.

I hope the report on which Doug relies (and which I have not read) is honest enough to make clear that any training facility or other co-operation with Al Qaeda was confined to those havens in which Saddam's writ did not run - ie the no-fly zones.

Subject: RE: BS: One Thousand Gone
From: katlaughing
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 08:29 PM

NYTimes Roster of the Dead

Subject: RE: BS: One Thousand Gone
From: Peace
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 04:25 PM

The weakness in the logic that the world is safer today because Hussein is sitting in jail: Why then is the world still nervous? Has the terrorist threat lessened with all that Bush has done? That's a question seeking an answer.

Subject: RE: BS: One Thousand Gone
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 04:44 PM

Safer does not mean safe.

Why did the US go to war against Germany in WWII? They did not attack us, Japan did. By the logic here, we should not have been in Europe, at all.

Oh, you say that Germany declared war on us? Well, guess what: The attack on Kuwait was a declaration of war- and as I stated in previous threads, there was no end to that war- see the reference to no-fly zones above- Armed flights over another country, shooting down their aircraft, and bombing any anti-air sites that lock up are not exactly peaceful.

Even Kerry ( at one point, before he flipped/flopped) agreed that with what was known AT THE TIME, we should have attacked Iraq. If we had done so 6 months earlier, can anyone here say that we would be worse off?

People here keep saying to look at the money trail for all the attack ads- but never look at the money trail for the violators of the UN sanctiona against Iraq. See who was making mony off Saddam- then tell me we should have waited until the French agreed to an attack.

Subject: RE: BS: One Thousand Gone
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 09:55 PM

"The attack on Kuwait was a declaration of war"

On the US? I don't understand. Why didn't Mr Bush mention that instead of carrying on about WMDs and all that other fooferaw? I'd have thought a declaration of war on us would be enough.

Mr Bush has said that there's no connection between Iraq and 911. though mr Cheney seems to differ.. Why did he interrupt the search for bin Laden, who was connected to 911 in order it attack Iraq at the price of all these deaths? (I learned just lately that troops were withdrawn from the Afghanistan conflict and sent to Iraq.)

Explain, please.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: One Thousand Gone
From: Bert
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 06:06 AM

Martin, You say "The nice ordinary folk Moslems are a minority and scared to death to speak out".

That wasn't my experience. I worked for over seven years in the Middle East and met hundreds of nice ordinary folk Moslems and never met one extremist. And most of those that I knew didn't have any problem discussing their religion politely and intelligently or speaking out.

Subject: RE: BS: One Thousand Gone
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 07:10 AM

Why did the US go to war against Germany in WWII? So asks beardedbruce. It continues to amaze me that millions of Americans don't know the answer to that question.

It wasn't anything to do with Churchill's pleading. And congress would not heed Roosevelt's advice either. The fact is that the US did NOT "go to war against Germany" at all. Hitler declared war on the US.

Subject: RE: BS: One Thousand Gone
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 07:39 AM

And Iraq, in attacking Kuwait, which had treaty ties to the US, declared war on US. THAT was my point.


"Mr Bush has said that there's no connection between Iraq and 911. though mr Cheney seems to differ.. Why did he interrupt the search for bin Laden, who was connected to 911 in order it attack Iraq at the price of all these deaths?


And why did we interrupt the war on Japan to attack Germany? You are implying that we should have just fought in the Pacific- yet we used vast resources in Europe that could have defeated Japan. Just possibly we have to look at the larger view.

Subject: RE: BS: One Thousand Gone
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 08:15 AM

Peter K (Fionn) -

". The fact is that the US did NOT "go to war against Germany" at all. Hitler declared war on the US. "


and I said that.

"Oh, you say that Germany declared war on us? Well, guess what: The attack on Kuwait was a declaration of war"

Subject: RE: BS: One Thousand Gone
From: sledge
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 09:57 AM

BB, look at what happened during the few months following Germany's declaration of war against the USA, U-boats decimated allied shipping on the east coast showing what a dangerous foe they were, one that could reach out to the US mainland almost, just try and look at the old newsreel footage that shows bodies and wreckage on Florida beaches, this was a shock to the US, one they weren't ready for.

The Germans had greater rescouces and technology than Japan, they would have been able to deploy this against the US sooner or later if they had been left alone, it made sense to remove them first, even if most people couldn't see this at the time.

I can see what you are saying here but I don't see it as holding up.

Just a quick question, did Kuwait and the US actually have a defense pact or was it just assumed?


Cheers

Sledge

Subject: RE: BS: One Thousand Gone
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 10:07 AM

sledge:

Look at it this way:

"The Iragis had greater rescouces and technology than Al Queda, they would have been able to deploy this against the US sooner or later if they had been left alone, it made sense to remove them first, even if most people couldn't see this at the time."



IMHO, the information that was availible at the time, from British, Russian, and US sources ( now suspect, but so what- one has to act on what one has) indicated that Iraq presented a "clear and present danger" to the US. In even giving the UN the time to act that Bush did, he was NOT acting in the best interests of the US.

And I cannot consider those who protested the US actions against Iraq to be for peace- if they were, WHY did none of them ask Saddam to comply with the UN resoulutions of the previous 12 years? Not one sign, that I could see- but a lot telling the US not to act.

As for the treaties with Kuwait, I will be honest- I do not know. But we had UN resolutions there, just as we did in Korea.

Subject: RE: BS: One Thousand Gone
From: sledge
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 10:42 AM

In that case, the resolutions post date the initial war, rendering the whole analogy invalid.

As for any Iraqi threat to hit the US, even after a war that was a stunning humiliation for Iraq, they had never made any move to strike the US, or did they,? I am sure you will tell me. Was their infrastructure even capable of doing so anymore anymore? the most they did was switch on a few radars and make a few catch me if you can flights into the no fly zones, more of a move to salvage some self respect than any kind of threat.

I just think that the whole response by the Bush administration was excessive, so he ignored a few UN resolutions, thats not something that new in the history of the UN, the US was as one point in serious debt to the UN by failing to pay up its financial obligations to the tune of $365 million in the early 90's, this of course was period when Washington sort of liked the UN thanks to their support following the invasion of Kuwait, they only did so "when they saw fit" but not enough to counter their eventual debt of around $1.5 billion. Obligations to the UN should be a 2 way street then, resolutions or not I think.

The size of this debt has been part of US goverment policy for quite a while, when the US could command a majority in the UN which they did for some time, only those unfriendly to the US were pressured for payment as was the case with the Soviet union. However as their influance waned they sought to regain it by refusing to pay, putting pressure on the UN that way. Its a big stick to carry. While there are other countries who are in arrears none are ever as in debt as the US, who, could more easily settle her debt.

Sledge

Subject: RE: BS: One Thousand Gone
From: sledge
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 10:54 AM

As an aside, the US action in Afghanistan was one I fully supported, I felt that the ties between the Taliban and Al-queda were such that they were almost the same organisation and as such were as culpable as each other in the atrocity that was 9/11.

Regards

Sledge

Subject: RE: BS: One Thousand Gone
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 11:14 AM

If the money that was channeled into the military expedition against Iraq had been instead spent on infrastructure (roads, water, pipelines, schools and plumbing) in Afghanistan, it could have been turned into a Model Muslim Democracy, if such is possible, and the envy of Middle Eastern nations.

THAT would have reduced extremism and won some hearts and minds.

How come Rove and his puppet were too stupid to change history that way instead of the old way (invasion and violence) which has failed for centuries?

A

Subject: RE: BS: One Thousand Gone
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 11:14 AM

not sure I understand:

"In that case, the resolutions post date the initial war, rendering the whole analogy invalid."

In both Kuwait and Korea, one side invaded the other, and then the UN passed resolutions authorizing force.


"As for any Iraqi threat to hit the US, even after a war that was a stunning humiliation for Iraq, they had never made any move to strike the US, or did they,? I am sure you will tell me. "

Have you read the British report on the Iraqi capacity for WMD, or seen the news about the Russian warning that Iraq was planning to attack the US?

REGARDLESS of how true they were, they were the best information that was available- and after 9/11, to NOT act at a credible threat would have been irrisponsible, and met with far more noise here than the war has.

One CANNOT blame Bush for NOT acting on the information about 9/11, before the act, and then blame him for acting on information that I would say was more credible and substantiated about Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: One Thousand Gone
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 11:26 AM

Excuse me: I misspoke in my last statement.

One can blame Bush, if one is more interested in being part of the problem than of the solution.

Subject: RE: BS: One Thousand Gone
From: sledge
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 12:05 PM

BB,

What I meant to put over was that you stated there were some agreements between Kuwait and the USA, when I asked what they might be you stated that you were not sure but that there were UN resolutions in place. These resolution came into after the invasion of Kuwait and as such bears no place in your analogy whereby you say that Iraq effectivley declared war on the USA because of existing treaty obligations with Kuwait. So with the UN resloutions in force, if they had done it again then I would of course be wrong.

I may be wrong, certainly in your eyes I am, but I do blame Bush jr, surely the leader of the most powerful military nation on the planet with all the destrucive potential at his command could have forced compliance through more peaceful means, UN inspectors etc. I know they worked slowly which you don't seem to like but they did not lead to countless deaths as they worked, they may have cost a few millions of dollars, but a lot less than all the bomb and missiles dropped to date.

Didn't Hans Blick the UN appointed weapons inspector say that there were no WMD, surely that should have been enough for most rational people. Even Scott Ritter, someone who seemd quite dedicated stated that the weapons were no longer there, ok so his information was dated but so was that included in the UK government report, remember the dubious inclusion of a dated student thesis.

Bruce, you also critisize those who said Bush "don't do it", but try not to be to hard on them, I am sure that each time a news report starts with "another coalition soldier was killed today" they derive no satisfaction from being proved right to a degree, in fact those who were most vocal are, I imagine deeply saddened each time it happens, I know I am.

Sledge

Subject: RE: BS: One Thousand Gone
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 02:48 PM

Beardedbruce, under what treaty was an attack on Kuwait an attack on the US? Wise up. And on what basis do you say IMHO, the information that was availible at the time, from British, Russian, and US sources ( now suspect, but so what- one has to act on what one has)[my emphasis]? I don't know about the US, but certainly for the UK it was something of a first to kick off a war on the basis of intelligence alone. There was surely an obligation to make sure the intelligence was based on something before setting about the slaughter of innocent people in their thousands? Simply "to act on what one has" is just crass stupidity.

Subject: RE: BS: One Thousand Gone
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 03:49 PM

and 9/11 was something of a first...

You have a call from 2 neighbors and someone living with you that a known criminal who has violated parole before has a gun and is about to attack your house. How much investigation do you do before you call the police?


Read the Senate report- the administration thought that the information was valid.

Simply to NOT act on the information one has is even greater stupidity.

IMHO means In My Honest Opinion. Yours may be different- but on what basis would you IGNORE such information?

Subject: RE: BS: One Thousand Gone
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 04:34 PM

"You have a call from 2 neighbors and someone living with you that a known criminal who has violated parole before has a gun and is about to attack your house. How much investigation do you do before you call the police?"

In this case, the police inspected the neighbor's house and said he didn't have a gun. Mr Bush then had his people attack the house, destroying a good deal of it, and killed the neighbor's children and some other people who were staying there, though not the neifghbor. What they call "Lynch Law." At the cost of the lives of many of Mr Bush's own people.

An attack on Kuwait was not a declaration of war on the US. GWB or Cheney would have made a point of mentioning it, and they wouldn't have needed the WMD pretext.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: One Thousand Gone
From: Peace
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 04:38 PM

"but on what basis would you IGNORE such information?"

That would be a good question to ask the FBI and CIA. They did ignore information, as did Bush I think, and they could answer that, bb.

Subject: RE: BS: One Thousand Gone
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 04:49 PM

so, having found out thatthey had ignored the information about 9/11, you would want them to have ignored what they had on Iraq???????????

As I said, if you want them to have acted about 9/11, on poor intelligence, you can't reasonably complain when they did act on Iraq.
Unless your point is to deny that the US is EVER right in it's actions.

Subject: RE: BS: One Thousand Gone
From: GUEST,brucie
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 04:53 PM

You want the bread buttered on both sides. That's why it's hard to hold.

The US was right in the Gulf War. It was NOT right this time to do with Iraq. And look at what you are saying. The intelligence source was the same for both 9/11 AND Iraq this time. Sooner or later, yer gonna get a sore foot if you keep putting rounds in it.

Subject: RE: BS: One Thousand Gone
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 04:58 PM

"The US was right in the Gulf War. It was NOT right this time to do with Iraq."

FROM what we knew at the time, it WAS right.



"And look at what you are saying. The intelligence source was the same for both 9/11 AND Iraq this time. "

So we should have paid attention for 9/11, and ignored it on Iraq???
It sounds like YOU are the one shooting yourself in the foot.

We were WRONG to have ignored it before 9/11, but there was a different mindset- we were innocent, and did not think that things like that could happen to us.

Subject: RE: BS: One Thousand Gone
From: GUEST,brucie
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 05:07 PM

Oklahoma City didn't teach y'all anything?

Subject: RE: BS: One Thousand Gone
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 05:09 PM

nope.


We STILL don't really believe that such things can happen to us- and I expect they will again, before we really understand.

Subject: RE: BS: One Thousand Gone
From: GUEST,brucie
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 05:44 PM

I think there are two issues that are not at all connected.

1) Terrorism and 'pending' attacks on countries around the world.

2) Iraq.

One doesn't have anything to do with the other.

Subject: RE: BS: One Thousand Gone
From: GUEST,laurine
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 11:05 PM

who sings mothers love is a blessing