BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 10 Nov 07 - 01:03 PM

Give them all prawn curry and tell them to shut up!

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 10 Nov 07 - 05:28 PM

OK, good point Teribus. But the only failure of UNSCOM itself was its failure to find WMD.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Nov 07 - 06:01 PM

You can't find something if it isn't there, and you can't PROVE it doesn't exist either! This was very handy for the Bush administration, because it gave Iraq no way to avoid being invaded, since you cannot prove a negative. They are attempting exactly the same gambit with Iran, and the Iranians may be naive enough to believe that having nothing to hide can actually protect them. It can't. The Bush administration doesn't care if there's nothing there to hide, anymore than they did with Saddam. It makes no difference to their policy, which is to wage unprovoked war at the time and place of their choosing...exactly what Hitler did whenever he wanted to...exactly what any of history's more infamous conquerors have done.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Rog Peek
Date: 10 Nov 07 - 06:05 PM

Seems to me, the only hope Iran has is to convince the Bush administration that they do have a nuclear capability and they are prepared to use it if attacked.

It's a bloody crazy, frightening world we live in, best not to think about it too much.

Rog

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Barry Finn
Date: 10 Nov 07 - 09:27 PM

Why is there no concern that the most unpleasant dictator that'll may be the most likely dictator to turn on US is also another one that we installed, our own Bush? He is at the moment just one national emergency call, one 911, one Katrina, one Mount Saint Helen telephone all to God away from declearing himself supreme I-a-told-ya from siting on the big throne (or toilet seat). He'll only have to talk to himself at that point, God won't matter, churh & state will really be a seperate issue by then, all the Evan-jellies will be kneeing in front of their new God & the rest of US will be sucking his hind-wind-ness.
Scary

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Nick E
Date: 10 Nov 07 - 09:56 PM

Wow, shure did not see this coming!

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Nov 07 - 01:12 AM

A Pakistani acquaintance of mine told me that it's not the Islamic extremists in Pakistan that Musharrraf is fighting. He said that Musharraf actually benefits from the presence of the extremists, and that in a number of different ways, he has actually supported them. My acquaintance said that the people Musharraf is fighting against and punishing in Pakistan is the moderates. The pro-democracy, pro-west moderates. Because those are the people who challenge his hold on power. Not the Islamic extremists.

He also said that with nuclear weapons in the hands of the Pakistani army, the nuclear weapons are already in the hands of extremists, and that it's the Pakistani military that is responsible for the spread of nuclear knowledge and materials from Pakistan to other countries. And he also said that as long as Musharraf is in power, there will never be peace in Afghanistan, because Musharraf and the Pakistani military see it as being in their interest to keep Afghanistan in a state of instability.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Nov 07 - 01:21 AM

My acquaintance also said that even if Bhutto becomes prime minister, the army will still be the ones wielding the real power in that country. He said it's the generals that the US has to stop supporting (not just Musharraf) if there's going to be any real change - any real progress toward democracy, in Pakistan.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Nov 07 - 06:01 AM

Read their terms of reference Fionn, neither UNSCOM, or their successors UNMOVIC, were ever directed to "find" anything in Iraq. What the Iraq Government signed up to at Safwan was to fully and openly declare the status and locations of their WMD programmes in order that firstly UNSCOM, and latterly UNMOVIC, Inspection teams could monitor and verify their destruction. This they singularly failed to do.

Neither the US, or the UK, lied or invented the amounts of WMD supposedly held in Iraq that was all detailed as unaccounted for by the UNSCOM Inspectors (Hans Blix and Scott Ritter among them) when they left Iraq in December 1998, their figures came from military inventories, research establishment records, manufacturing records and shipping records supplied by the Iraqi Authorities.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Nov 07 - 11:48 AM

Teribus--

Still waiting for you to indicate that you have the slightest inkling of the difference between bombing Iraq and invading it with the explicit goal of regime change.

Looks like it will be a long wait.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Nov 07 - 06:06 PM

Ron, tell us who it was that wrote Regime Change in Iraq into official US Foreign Policy, clue it was the same man that attacked Iraq unilaterally in December 1998 without going to Congress or the UN Security Council. Then tell us the steps taken by GWB prior to the March 2003 invasion, compare the two, then tell us who had the greater respect for either institution.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Nov 07 - 06:19 PM

Who invaded Iraq with the explicit goal of regime change? Clue: it was not in 1998. Try 2003.

We've seen this movie before. Your attempts to blame Clinton for Bush's invasion are getting, shall we say, a bit tired. Are you really that bankrupt of ideas?

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Nov 07 - 01:36 AM

Check your facts Ron Davies and come back and tell me that the people who advised Clinton and pointed up Iraq as posing the greatest threat to US interests in 1998 were the same as advised GWB of the same thing in 2002. Clinton believed what his security advisors and intelligence agencies were telling him and so did george W Bush, neither really had much option.

Main difference was 911 proved that the US was vulnerable and open to attack (Please note Ron Davies that is not in any way stating or implying that Iraq had anything whatsoever to do with 911). Clinton actions were ineffective, he believed it to be possible to "contain" Saddam (The truth about the extent of the oil smuggling and "Oil for Food" scandal, blew that particular falsehood sky high). George W Bush on the otherhand went to the international community and requested that they act, when they didn't he did, a damn sight more effectively than did Clinton. Clinton would have right to do the same in 1998, GWB was definitely correct to do so in 2003. Progress is being made, corners have been turned, it will still take some time but I have always said that.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Nov 07 - 03:49 AM

Iraq......"A real and present danger"    nobody with one ounce of political savvy believed that at the time we were being softened up to accept invasion.

Teribus has been posting one excuse after another for years, but the crux of the matter will always be .....Was Iraq a real and present danger?   Never let them forget that.....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Barry Finn
Date: 12 Nov 07 - 07:43 AM

Teribus: "George W Bush on the otherhand went to the international community and requested that they act, when they didn't he did, a damn sight more effectively than did Clinton. GWB was definitely correct to do so in 2003. Progress is being made, corners have been turned"

Please tell me you're kidding!!
This war was /is a good move????? Have you no vision, not even hindsight??

You must be joking, you're still in support of this war effort??

After 4yrs you think progress is finally being make. We are only playing catch-up in hell!!

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Nov 07 - 06:14 PM

Tell me Barry, if none of this had happened, what do you think Saddam's reaction to the news of Iran's secret uranium enrichment facilities would have been?

My guess is that the second Iran/Iraq War would have been kicking-off any month now.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 12 Nov 07 - 06:31 PM

Teribus, the UNMOVIC terms of refernce have nothing to do with the fact that the US admin treated Blix with contempt.

I said here well before the invasion of Iraq (citing Schwarzkopf and Powell from 1991 among others) that to remove Saddam with no thought for the consequences would create a vacuum that the neighbouring countries, Syria, Iran and Turkey would rush to fill.I said then and still think that of these, Turkey may turn out to cause the greatest instability. It beggars belief that you could think then, or now, that this was a smart move.

What I could not have foreseen was that Bush would not just take out the regime, but with it - in pig-headed defiance of all rational advice - the army, the police and just about every tier of national and local government. I suppose this is the bit you like best of all about the whole criminal adventure.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 12 Nov 07 - 07:34 PM

"My guess is that the second Iran/Iraq War would have been kicking-off any month now."

Assuming your guess is right, what does that say about the number of lives that have been lost since the U.S. invaded Iraq? What does that say about the loss of infrastructure in Iraq? If the U.S. went home tomorrow, would Iraq be in a better or worse position than if the U.S. had never invaded?

Now, of course, Iraq is in such tatters that they can't defend themselves from anyone without the help of the U.S.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Nov 07 - 10:58 PM

Teribus--

GWB never had much of an option other than to invade Iraq? What are you (still) smoking? How about the option of actually letting intelligence data come to him other than just information supporting the invasion he had already decided on?

A reasonable and prudent leader looks at more than one side of an issue--above all when considering when war is necessary. I'm sorry to have to break it to you that your hero Mr. Bush does not qualify. I hope you can still sleep tonight.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Barry Finn
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 01:28 AM

T, if none of this had happened, we would be richer by nearly 4000 military lives, Iraq would be richer by tens to maybe hundreds of thousands of civilian lives. Iraq would be a whole nation as it was before US & in a much healthier state Yes, even under Saddam). I could go on but you get the point, right??????
The US would not be getting ready to file chapter 11 nor would it be split nor wor would it be hated by the rest of the world.

A pre-empted move because of what you think Iran may or may not plan is just as wrong & as poor a choice as the pre-empted move GWB made. You are kindred spirits, may you both someday backdown, backout & backup because neither of you have been going forward in a healthy direction.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Stu
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 04:46 AM

Of course, it's always encouraging to hear Bush apologists spout forth their tired dogma when they are defending his actions in the Middle East. It takes courage to admit you're wrong and in some cases that courage is lacking as sure as their moral courage is lacking too.

Because that's what the Iraq debacle has exposed to the world - the lack of moral integrity of the world's biggest superpower. Torture, kidnap and the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilans at the hands of the American Military and their mercenary cohorts has shown the American dream to be a sham and their political leadership to be morally corrupt capitalist whores (as are their close international allies - it's just that not everyone touts Liberty, Justice and Freedom as being their sacred aims quite as hypocritically).

The Hawks that are gunning for Iran now are not interested in anything except maintaining an open market for selling American products into the region and securing the flow of oil out of it while it lasts. Even as this sorry affair is being played out the Americans are beginning the process of replacing their aging nuclear arsenal with new nukes - hardly the actions of a sensitive government genuinely concerned about the proliferation of WMD's.

It's time we focussed on the reality here: The US and many of our governments don't give two shades of shit about you, me or anyone else in the world. They don't have your best interests at heart. They don't care about dead civilians, dead GI's or dead babies. They don't care if they have to torture people, kill them when they get in the way ('baiting' being the current favourite tactic) or imprison them even if they are totally innocent or they have no evidence of any wrongdoing. They certainly don't care about democracy - to them this word is interchangeable with 'capitalism', another example of their corruption of politcal ideals.

There is no moral leadership, no integrity and complete indifference to anyone who isn't a direct customer of corporate America - even their own citizens are disenfranchised from the American dream.

Teribus is getting a kicking here for defending US government/corporate policy but at least he seems to realise that in the end these people don't give a fuck about the moral high ground (they probably can't even read the map) and don't give a fuck about anything but money.

And they sure as hell don't give a fuck about you.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 09:29 AM

Excuse me Fionn, but these are your words aren't they:

"...the only failure of UNSCOM itself was its failure to find WMD."

If they are then the terms of reference of both UNSCOM and the organisation that assumed its role are highly relevant, and as previously advised, if you read them you will find that neither UNSCOM or UNMOVIC were ever directed to "find" anything in Iraq.

Also I do not believe that I have ever said that the move to invade Iraq was smart. What I have said is that on the best advice available at the time considering the circumstances I can see why certain decisions went the way they did and agree with them. There is I believe a difference in those stand points.

Did anyone lie to force the issue - No I don't believe they did

Members of both Chambers of Congress in the US and both Houses of Parliament in the UK were fully briefed, certain members being briefed in far greater detail than anyone on this forum at the time. In the immediate aftermath of 911 it was the House Secuity Committee in the US, NOT GWB or any member of his administration, who identified Iraq as posing the greatest threat to the United States of America and the interests of the United States of America and her Allies - That Fionn is a simple matter of public record. In this, their own independent evaluation, they were in total agreement with the combined security and intelligence agencies of the United States of America who had given GWB's predecessor exactly the same advice three years earlier.

IF and its a big IF the good Doctor, Hans Blix was indeed shown any disrespect it was richly deserved, because he failed to act to the full extent of his remit as was required of him. Resolution 1441 was Saddam and Iraq's "last chance", full unhindered co-operation and pro-active support was required on the part of the Ba'athist regime in Baghdad and even up to his last report to the Security Council Blix was still detailing patchy co-operation or lack of co-operation - It was Blix's job to demand it from Day 1.

Surveillance flights how many were made Fionn? None, they were forbidden by Saddam although required under the terms of 1441, what did Blix do about it - sweet FA. That was not what the man was there for, throughout he was weak, undecisive and unimposing. The whole world knew that the clock was ticking, Blix however was determined to dither, the United States of America under Bush wasn't and that message was given clearly and unequivocably from the outset.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 10:57 AM

Ah Baz:

"if none of this had happened, we would be richer by nearly 4000 military lives"

At the cost of how many civilian lives?


"Iraq would be richer by tens to maybe hundreds of thousands of civilian lives."

Not if Saddam and his sons had held to their averages in which case around 411,000 Iraqi's would have died since March 2003

"Iraq would be a whole nation as it was before US & in a much healthier state Yes, even under Saddam)."

As far as I know Iraq still is a whole nation, definitely as whole a nation as ever it was under Saddam, with the added advantage of being ruled for the first time ever by the majority, an elected majority at that Barry. Healthier Barry? But then I suppose that would depend on how you define healthy, care to ask any of the 605 Kuwaiti Nationals that Saddam adbucted in 1991, after all they as "outsiders" could give you a fairly impartial comparison with regard to life under Saddam and - Oh sorry, my apologies, the guy who you would rather see back in charge murdered them didn't he. Now that must have given ol' Saddam a bit of a problem in complying with UN Security Council Resolutions because he had to return those people didn't he - bit awkward if they're dead, eh Baz? Or maybe you could ask the Ma'daan Barry, I am absolutely certain that they would agree with you in welcoming the return of Saddam's rule if such were possible - go look up what that twat did to them Barry then come back and talk about "healthier", or did you just mean healthier for Saddam and his sons.

"I could go on but you get the point, right??????"

You no doubt will go on spouting the same rubbish, it would be nice once or twice if you actually came up with some substantive evidence to support some of the nonsense you come out with. You can't, so you won't, doesn't alter the fact one jot that it does not matter how many times you repeat your myths they remain simply myths to any who care to carry out even the most rudimentary examination of them.

"The US would not be getting ready to file chapter 11"

Not even close to it Barry.

"nor would it be split"

You mean to tell me that it was not already split in February 2001? Come on Baz you're pullin' my leg.

"nor wor(?) would it be hated by the rest of the world."

The US generally has never been "loved" by the rerst of the world Barry, envied yes, loved no. Most intelligent thinking folks think highly of the USA and admire what she has accomplished and done for the world, America is far from "hated" by the rest of the world, by the chattering left and a few Islamofascists yes, but not by "the rest of the world".

Please show me where GWB has stated that he will mount a pre-emptive attack on Iran. If you cannot do that stop wittering on about it as though it were fact when plainly it is not.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 12:29 PM

More than a million non-combatants have been killed in Iraq as a direct result of the US invasion and occupation.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 12:52 PM

TGeribus, I think you are so far locked into a military mindset that you confuse an honourable attempt to avoid war with "dithering." As Little Hawk spelt out immediately after my post, the failure of the UN inspectorate to deliver what Bush wanted - evidence of WMD - was perhaps because, er, there were no WMD.

Your contention that no-one lied is arguable. I don't know about what evidence/intelligence was considered on Capitol Hill, but some of that presented to the British parliament was outrageously hyped. And before banging on too mouch about 1441, try re-reading the assurances Negroponte gave about that resolution's limitations, when he was persuading members to vote for it. Compare that with US admin explanations later of why the "second resolution" was not necessary. No-one lied???

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Barry Finn
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 01:24 PM

This nation was not divided before 911 & after 911 it was never more united (to a fault I might add), after Bush's moves, it's now a house, senate, congress & country divided. This nation was never more sympathized with by the world after 911, it's now despised in a way that it's never been before.
We are not going down the road of chapter 11, T? You must be kidding. Have you looked at our dollar lately? Have you no awareness of what's been happening here?
Most Iraqi's that that could have fled! What's left are on their knees praying that we had never come to free them. They are free to either flee or die, it's worst not better than when the MadMan was in control. But you see it better, you should be so lucky!

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 02:06 PM

"CarolC - PM
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 12:29 PM

More than a million non-combatants have been killed in Iraq as a direct result of the US invasion and occupation. "

Source, please. Why should we take your word for it?

** IF ** true, then please allow me to state that the number KILLLED by coalition forces is on the close order of 200,000 at most- THUS you have stated that the ones we are fighting have killed at least 800,000, and you want us to let them have complete control of the country?????


Please let me know how this is to the benefit of the Iraqi people.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 02:19 PM

"This nation was not divided before 911 "


I guess everyone agrees that the 2000 election was fair and that Bush won it, then...


Seems to me there was quite a bit of division.

Just my opinion, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 03:51 PM

http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=78


** IF ** true, then please allow me to state that the number KILLLED by coalition forces is on the close order of 200,000 at most- THUS you have stated that the ones we are fighting have killed at least 800,000, and you want us to let them have complete control of the country?????

This is a straw man argument. The reality on the ground, which is being created by the approach that the US forces are and have been taking in Iraq, combined with the US and Britain's imperialist agenda in the region, are creating the insurgencies. We need to remove the US occupation and replace it with an international peace keeping force that is comprised in large part of people from the region, and not predominantly Western colonialists/imperialists.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 05:37 PM

BTW, to quote Bobert:

"Ahhhh, who were these folks, (name removed)??? Do you have a list of their names and nationalities??? This is another bogus number that you couldn't prove if your life depended on it... Oh sure, you can finf links of folks who have come up with these numbers but the folks who ciome up with these numbers have agendas..."




As for your "reality on the ground", you may make any claims you want- I will consider those that you support with valid facts.

I am sure that you would want the same right in respect to any claims that I made about the situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 05:46 PM

I have no idea what Bobert was trying to say in that bit you quoted from him, so if you intend for me to understand what your meaning is, I think you'd better find a way to communicated it in your own words.

As for the reality on the ground, all you have to do is look at the difference between the success that the UK forces have had using entirely different methods and that of the US forces. Our government is only interested in maintaining a permanent presence in Iraq and establishing permanent bases. So we don't see it as success if the various factions in Iraq are getting along with one another.

But even if I can't prove this, we certainly have a conflict of interest in having our forces in Iraq (we want their oil, and we want to use Iraq as a staging ground for other military adventures), and withdrawing our forces, ending the occupation, and allowing an international peace keeping force to take over in Iraq removes any appearance of that conflict of interest.

Nevertheless, I think the people of Iraq are in a better position to say whether or not their family members have been killed than the government that has a vested interest in maintaining a permanent occupation of another, supposedly sovereign country.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 05:59 PM

"we certainly have a conflict of interest... "


IN YOUR OPINION.

Should you provide other than hearsay to support this opinion, I might upgrade it to possibility or likelyhood.


I do not see much "certainly " in it, at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 06:06 PM

I've provided plenty of proof in other threads, beardedbruce. For instance, the legislation that the US is trying to cram down the throat of the Iraqi legislature calling it a "benchmark" and making it a requirement if Iraq wants to get reconstruction aid from the US. The legislation that if the Iraq legislature passes it, will sign over rights to most of Iraq's oil to foreign oil interests.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 06:39 PM

How would we go about getting people on the opposite sides of a political argument to agree on what is a "valid fact"?

It's not completely impossible...it's just highly improbable.

The routine most people go through regarding "facts" is this: they look up as many so-called "facts" as they can find that seem to support their chosen argument. They then bombard the opposition with those and ONLY those "facts", and they disregard all others.

That is how people deal with "valid facts".

Add to that that most of the so-called "valid facts" they have acquired have come from some quote from some person or organization which ITSELF has an agenda to push...therefore the "facts" may not be so factual after all...and the whole thing becomes more ridiculous than ever.

It's laughable. It's ludicrous.

And so are the endless demands for one's opponent to provide "valid facts" made by various pontificating, grandstanding people here who are merely intent on wasting someone else's time if they possibly can, for the sake of their raging little tormented ego that MUST always be RIGHT!!!

FUCK your rightness! You aren't always right, you're never going to be always right, you're never going to have all the facts...or even half of them...you're never going to be able to sort out the propaganda from the truth without making errors here and there, and you're never going to be anything more than a vain, empty noise bellowing to an online audience that frankly doesn't give a damn.

But it will keep your idle mind busy...right? And you'll FEEL right. That's enough for most idle minds.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 07:42 PM

"and you want us to let them have complete control of the country?????"

The question, of course, is who the hell are we to give or take control from another country?

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 11:29 PM

Teribus--

You were going to tell us how Mr. Bush examined evidence, from many different sources, including those which pointed out the bad blood between Osama and Saddam, and those which denied a link between Saddam and 9-11, as well as delving into the reliability of "Curveball"---all before deciding to start a war against Iraq.

Can't imagine why this slipped your mind.

But at least you've dropped your pathetic mantra of "Clinton made Bush do it" (the invasion).
So maybe there's some hope that you may have heard of the idea of personal responsibility--supposedly a conservative principle--that even Mr. Bush may have to take some responsibility for his own decisions, much as apologists such as your good self try mightily--and very creatively, I might add--- to blame Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 02:25 AM

Ron,

I know that you do not read, or listen to, material from source, that you admitted to when you told us that on the "Propaganda" Thread ages ago.

Now once again for the umpteenth and whatever time, get it into your thick head it is YOU who are linking Saddam and OBL.

The question that was asked of the Security and Intelligence Agencies of the United States of America and the task that was set the House Security Committee was to identify what was the greatest threat to the United States of America, the interests of the United States of America and to her Allies. This was done in the wake of the Al-Qaeda attacks of 11th September, 2001. Please note Ron Davies et al, they were not asked to identify who was responsible for those attacks.

The greatest threat to the United States of America was identified as follows:
a) An attack carried out by an international terrorist organisation (Please Note there were no names of international terrorist organisations named here)
b) Involving the use of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, biological or chemical).
c) That such weapons, material and technology is furnished to the international terrorist group by a rogue government or regime (Again please note there were no names of such rogue governments or regimes given at that point, that was a further question and evaluation)

The above combination of a + b + c = "The Axis of Evil".

The term Axis of Evil never, ever, described any form of alliance between Iraq, Iran, North Korea.

Having been identified the House Security Committee and the Intelligence Agencies were then asked to identify potential "Rogue States". They did and came up with a list in which, ranked in order of threat, Iraq topped the list, then Iran and then North Korea. Now the fact (well documented) that Saddam publically praised those responsible for 911 may have drawn attention to Saddam's feelings about the US, but let's face it it was not Saddam's wisest move, there again he will not be remembered for making wise decisions will he.

Now go and check Ron, the same people within the US intelligence and security communities who carried out this evaluation were the same people that three years previously had advised Bill Clinton - Any surprises there Ron - I don't think so.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Stu
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 02:53 AM

"please allow me to state that the number KILLLED by coalition forces is on the close order of 200,000 at most"

Well that's alright then.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 08:55 AM

And the number killed by Saddam, because they depended on the UN sanctions from 1992 until 2002 to change his behaviour?

But I guess that is alright, then, as well.




Show me the people who protested SADDAM not complying with the UN Resolutions, and I will listen to THEIR comments as to how the US should have taken no action after Saddam's failure to comply with UNR 1441.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 09:00 AM

Good summary, T.

Too bad there are those here who seem to have the motto " I know what I believe: Don't confuse me with the facts."


BTW, I predict the Dems will win the 2008 election, and that there will be a thermonuclear war ( one with at least two parties using nuclear weapons) by about July 2009. 40 million to 2.6 million dead.

But that will be alright, too.

After all, the UN will make everything all better.

Like in Rwanda, Cambodia, Serbia, Iraq, Iran, Somalia, North Korea...

Just don't let anyone else try to take action.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Stu
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 09:09 AM

Well said bruce - let's enforce those UN resolutions, because that's what it's all about.


By the way, whilst you're out with your gun-totin' buddies enforcing the UN resolutions, would you enforce this one too and go and give China a good kicking because they've ignored three resolutions since 1959 and continute to torture and oppress the Tibetans since, and as Saddam doing it offended you so much I'm sure you won't want to let these injustices go unpunished.

Good lad.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 09:30 AM

MY point was the failure to enforce the resolutions, then demanding MORE unenforced resolutions, such as you have presented, in order to solve the problem. If China does not comply, what is the UN going to do? When Iraq did not comply, what did the UN do? And who stood to profit from Saddamn's failure to comply? Just France, Germany, Russia... The ones who prevented the UN from any meaningful action.



For all that some here say the US is in Iraq over oil, it seems to me that they would have a little concern over the present support for Iran byt those nations that will profit from Iranian oil: China comes to mind. A major reason thet the US will not take military action against Iran is the likelyhood of Chinese actions: They might not want to have their oil supply destroyed, or made radioactive.

A significant problem is that Israel, if attacked by nuclear weapons, will probably make the Middle East oil supplies unusable for everyone.
After all, when you are already destroyed, you might want to cause SOME damage to the ones who dit it, and not be overly concerned about the ones who stood by and did nothing effective to stop that destruction.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 09:36 AM

Back to the thread: From the Washington Post:

The Answer in Pakistan

By Thomas R. Pickering, Carla Hills and Morton Abramowitz
Tuesday, November 13, 2007; Page A19

Every day that Gen. Pervez Musharraf refuses to reverse his imposition of martial law and restore Pakistan's constitution brings another round of disturbing reports -- lawyers beaten, journalists arrested, mass protests for democracy crushed -- and another day of embarrassment for the military government's foreign backers. The Bush administration's aims of securing support for the "war on terror" and stability for a nuclear power will continue to be right, but as a nation of 160 million people rapidly frays under repression, it will only become more obvious that military dictatorship is not the answer.

This realization is already settling in. Many in the Bush administration and Congress have been sending clear messages of disapproval to Musharraf. The Pentagon, however, has been more ambiguous, and it is unclear whether military aid will continue as if nothing happened on Nov. 3.

The United States must go beyond verbal condemnations and show with actions that it believes Musharraf is on the wrong track.

If there is a recent analogy to what is happening in Pakistan, it is the Philippines of Ferdinand Marcos in late 1985 (though the stakes are much higher today). During President Ronald Reagan's second term, the administration came to recognize that, despite his and earlier administrations' acceptance of the dictator, Marcos's desire to maintain political power at all costs was destroying democracy and prospects for stability in his country.

His personal ambition was casting the Philippine armed forces in the role of popular repressor rather than national protector, tainting their legitimacy in the eyes of the people. More than anything else, that fact had undermined the Philippines' battle against militant Islamist and communist rebels.

Today, the alternative to Musharraf's military rule is not a mob of radical Islamists -- this is not Iran in the 1970s. The alternative, as in the Philippines, is a moderate, secular political opposition organized into political parties. Both the Pakistan People's Party under Benazir Bhutto and the Pakistan Muslim League under Nawaz Sharif are opposed to the jihadi movements. They have publicly committed themselves to combating not only al-Qaeda but also the political and military leadership of the Taliban living in Pakistan, a point on which Musharraf has been notably reluctant to act.


Poll after poll has found that if fair and free elections were held under constitutional protections and monitored by national and international observers, the result would be a moderate, pro-Western, anti-extremist government in Pakistan. A September survey by the International Republican Institute forecast the two moderate opposition parties winning 64 percent of the vote. The conservative Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid would get 16 percent, it found. All the religious parties combined would get barely 15 percent of the vote.

Musharraf has relied on an alliance with the religious parties, some of which have clear ties to jihadi groups that are themselves linked to Taliban terrorists. After the 1999 military coup installing Musharraf, they achieved their parliamentary majority only through a rigged election in 2002. In a free vote, extremists don't stand a chance. It is only Musharraf who props them up -- out of fear of what a democratic election would bring.

Indeed, the same Republican Institute poll showed that 74 percent oppose Musharraf's reelection.

In the 1980s, Congress began pressing for a halt to military aid to the Philippines, and in the face of massive popular opposition to Marcos, Reagan finally told Marcos that neither the United States nor his own people could continue to accept his efforts to stay in power. Today, the United States must make it clear to Pakistan that our relationship -- including military cooperation, training, support for the F-16s Washington allowed Pakistan to purchase and other aid not directly linked to counterterrorism -- will fundamentally change unless there is a return to democracy.

This means revoking the declaration of martial law; restoring the constitution, the judiciary and fundamental freedoms; and the release of all political detainees. Musharraf must give up his post of army chief and abide by any Supreme Court decision on his eligibility for the presidency. A neutral caretaker government should be formed, in consultation with all opposition parties, to oversee the polls, and the Election Commission of Pakistan should be reconstituted. Free, fair and transparent elections can then be held -- something that is impossible under martial law.

The Bush administration and Congress urgently need to make clear that the United States will not support a repressive military regime that inevitably will threaten Pakistan's stability as well as U.S. security.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 09:49 AM

"40 million to 2.6 million dead."

Should have been

'40 million to 2.6 BILLION dead.'

Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Stu
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 10:35 AM

"BTW, I predict the Dems will win the 2008 election, and that there will be a thermonuclear war ( one with at least two parties using nuclear weapons) by about July 2009. 40 million to 2.6 million dead.

But that will be alright, too."

Brilliant. You can't deflect an argument using supposition and some bizarre flight of fancy as evidence against. Mind you, it is entertaining, so keep them coming.

"A major reason thet the US will not take military action against Iran is the likelyhood of Chinese actions: They might not want to have their oil supply destroyed, or made radioactive."

This massively oversimplifies the relationship between the US and China and you need to look closer to home or across the Taiwan Strait for the reasons that relations will sour between those two countries.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 11:23 AM

The thermonuclear war is going to come when the Bush administration wages war against Iran. It's going to start with their own (the Bush people) use of nuclear weapons. Of course, if the Bush people don't manage to get that accomplished I fully expect the next administration to try to do it, even if that administration is made up of Democrats.

I've noticed that you keep using nuclear blackmail on behalf of Israel, beardedbruce. Is the government of Israel also saying those kinds of things publicly?

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 01:32 PM

CarolC,

"The thermonuclear war is going to come when the Bush administration wages war against Iran."

I do not agree with your opinion. IMO, it will START with the use of an Iranian supplied weapon by Hezbollah against Israel, as they have repeated threatened.


" It's going to start with their own (the Bush people) use of nuclear weapons. "

Nope.

"Of course, if the Bush people don't manage to get that accomplished I fully expect the next administration to try to do it, even if that administration is made up of Democrats."

IMO, the US will NOT use a nuclear weapon until after someone else has used a WMD on the US, or treaty partner.

"I've noticed that you keep using nuclear blackmail on behalf of Israel, beardedbruce."

No again. I am pointing out that IF Israel is destroyed by a nuclear weapon ( and it would only take one to do so), the Israelis would have no reason not to use thier 200 - 400 warheads on those they believed had destroyed Israel.


" Is the government of Israel also saying those kinds of things publicly? "

I do not speak for the Israeli government, just as YOU do not speak for Hezbollah or Iran, now do I?

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 01:45 PM

it will START with the use of an Iranian supplied weapon by Hezbollah against Israel, as they have repeated threatened.

Please show me these threats by Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 01:48 PM

CarolC,

MY comment was "by Hezbollah against Israel, as they have repeated threatened."

Will you make the claim that HEZBOLLAH has NOT repeatedly declred it's intent /desire to destroy Israel?????

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 01:49 PM

100