Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafesj

Post to this Thread - Sort Descending - Printer Friendly - Home


BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush

dick greenhaus 04 Dec 07 - 05:18 PM
Bobert 04 Dec 07 - 05:39 PM
Amos 04 Dec 07 - 05:53 PM
Amos 04 Dec 07 - 06:00 PM
Teribus 04 Dec 07 - 06:09 PM
Bobert 04 Dec 07 - 06:23 PM
Jim Krause 04 Dec 07 - 07:30 PM
wysiwyg 04 Dec 07 - 07:32 PM
beardedbruce 04 Dec 07 - 07:36 PM
Bobert 04 Dec 07 - 07:55 PM
Don Firth 04 Dec 07 - 08:11 PM
Amos 04 Dec 07 - 08:20 PM
dick greenhaus 04 Dec 07 - 08:50 PM
Little Hawk 04 Dec 07 - 09:16 PM
GUEST,282RA 04 Dec 07 - 11:07 PM
Barry Finn 05 Dec 07 - 02:22 AM
Barry Finn 05 Dec 07 - 02:31 AM
GUEST,PMB 05 Dec 07 - 06:17 AM
Rapparee 05 Dec 07 - 09:08 AM
Bobert 05 Dec 07 - 09:25 AM
bankley 05 Dec 07 - 09:42 AM
Donuel 05 Dec 07 - 09:43 AM
GUEST,Winds Of War 05 Dec 07 - 09:52 AM
Teribus 05 Dec 07 - 10:08 AM
dick greenhaus 05 Dec 07 - 10:42 AM
Donuel 05 Dec 07 - 11:05 AM
Stu 05 Dec 07 - 11:17 AM
Stu 05 Dec 07 - 11:31 AM
Bobert 05 Dec 07 - 11:46 AM
Rapparee 05 Dec 07 - 12:30 PM
beardedbruce 05 Dec 07 - 02:31 PM
beardedbruce 05 Dec 07 - 02:53 PM
Rapparee 05 Dec 07 - 02:59 PM
beardedbruce 05 Dec 07 - 03:00 PM
Barry Finn 05 Dec 07 - 03:08 PM
beardedbruce 05 Dec 07 - 03:24 PM
beardedbruce 05 Dec 07 - 03:58 PM
GUEST,petr 05 Dec 07 - 05:38 PM
GUEST 05 Dec 07 - 06:05 PM
Donuel 05 Dec 07 - 06:36 PM
Teribus 05 Dec 07 - 06:41 PM
beardedbruce 05 Dec 07 - 06:47 PM
beardedbruce 05 Dec 07 - 06:50 PM
beardedbruce 05 Dec 07 - 06:58 PM
beardedbruce 05 Dec 07 - 07:04 PM
beardedbruce 05 Dec 07 - 07:06 PM
beardedbruce 05 Dec 07 - 07:08 PM
McGrath of Harlow 05 Dec 07 - 07:18 PM
Bobert 05 Dec 07 - 08:24 PM
akenaton 05 Dec 07 - 08:49 PM
GUEST,Cruiser 05 Dec 07 - 08:55 PM
Arne 05 Dec 07 - 09:09 PM
Bobert 05 Dec 07 - 09:22 PM
GUEST,TIA 05 Dec 07 - 11:18 PM
dick greenhaus 05 Dec 07 - 11:41 PM
beardedbruce 06 Dec 07 - 12:07 AM
GUEST,dianavan 06 Dec 07 - 12:08 AM
beardedbruce 06 Dec 07 - 12:11 AM
Teribus 06 Dec 07 - 03:24 AM
Stu 06 Dec 07 - 05:01 AM
GUEST 06 Dec 07 - 05:15 AM
Teribus 06 Dec 07 - 05:17 AM
Teribus 06 Dec 07 - 05:32 AM
Stu 06 Dec 07 - 05:34 AM
Teribus 06 Dec 07 - 06:22 AM
Stu 06 Dec 07 - 11:23 AM
Teribus 06 Dec 07 - 12:26 PM
Amos 06 Dec 07 - 12:28 PM
Barry Finn 06 Dec 07 - 12:53 PM
beardedbruce 06 Dec 07 - 02:02 PM
Donuel 06 Dec 07 - 02:04 PM
beardedbruce 06 Dec 07 - 02:09 PM
beardedbruce 06 Dec 07 - 02:17 PM
Donuel 06 Dec 07 - 03:05 PM
beardedbruce 06 Dec 07 - 03:09 PM
Donuel 06 Dec 07 - 03:19 PM
beardedbruce 06 Dec 07 - 04:19 PM
Bobert 06 Dec 07 - 06:33 PM
Teribus 06 Dec 07 - 07:49 PM
Bobert 06 Dec 07 - 08:14 PM
beardedbruce 06 Dec 07 - 08:41 PM
Bobert 06 Dec 07 - 09:04 PM
Peace 06 Dec 07 - 09:08 PM
beardedbruce 06 Dec 07 - 09:39 PM
Bobert 06 Dec 07 - 10:05 PM
beardedbruce 06 Dec 07 - 10:28 PM
Bobert 06 Dec 07 - 11:04 PM
GUEST,dianavan 07 Dec 07 - 12:11 AM
beardedbruce 07 Dec 07 - 12:23 AM
beardedbruce 07 Dec 07 - 12:25 AM
GUEST,dianavan 07 Dec 07 - 03:28 AM
Teribus 07 Dec 07 - 06:04 AM
Bobert 07 Dec 07 - 08:59 AM
Teribus 07 Dec 07 - 09:31 AM
Bobert 07 Dec 07 - 09:47 AM
Teribus 07 Dec 07 - 10:53 AM
Donuel 07 Dec 07 - 11:22 AM
Amos 07 Dec 07 - 12:06 PM
Folkiedave 07 Dec 07 - 12:08 PM
Folkiedave 07 Dec 07 - 12:16 PM
Bobert 07 Dec 07 - 01:30 PM
Peace 07 Dec 07 - 01:51 PM
McGrath of Harlow 07 Dec 07 - 02:06 PM
GUEST,Homey 07 Dec 07 - 11:47 PM
GUEST,282RA 08 Dec 07 - 12:25 AM
Folkiedave 08 Dec 07 - 06:51 AM
Bobert 08 Dec 07 - 09:40 AM
Amos 08 Dec 07 - 10:06 AM
GUEST,Homey 08 Dec 07 - 10:19 AM
Bobert 08 Dec 07 - 11:27 AM
bobad 08 Dec 07 - 11:56 AM
McGrath of Harlow 08 Dec 07 - 07:51 PM
Peace 08 Dec 07 - 07:54 PM
Don Firth 08 Dec 07 - 08:02 PM
beardedbruce 08 Dec 07 - 09:58 PM
Bobert 08 Dec 07 - 10:30 PM
beardedbruce 09 Dec 07 - 12:17 AM
beardedbruce 09 Dec 07 - 12:22 AM
Nickhere 09 Dec 07 - 12:55 AM
Stu 09 Dec 07 - 08:32 AM
GUEST,Homey 09 Dec 07 - 08:38 AM
Bobert 09 Dec 07 - 10:52 AM
GUEST,Homey 09 Dec 07 - 06:47 PM
McGrath of Harlow 09 Dec 07 - 07:03 PM
Bobert 09 Dec 07 - 07:09 PM
Bobert 09 Dec 07 - 08:29 PM
Teribus 10 Dec 07 - 08:01 AM
Amos 10 Dec 07 - 10:33 AM
Teribus 10 Dec 07 - 11:43 AM
Amos 10 Dec 07 - 12:15 PM
McGrath of Harlow 10 Dec 07 - 12:16 PM
beardedbruce 10 Dec 07 - 02:23 PM
Teribus 10 Dec 07 - 05:22 PM
Bobert 10 Dec 07 - 05:35 PM
beardedbruce 10 Dec 07 - 06:10 PM
beardedbruce 10 Dec 07 - 06:14 PM
beardedbruce 10 Dec 07 - 06:21 PM
McGrath of Harlow 10 Dec 07 - 06:31 PM
Teribus 10 Dec 07 - 07:14 PM
McGrath of Harlow 10 Dec 07 - 07:42 PM
Bobert 10 Dec 07 - 08:04 PM
McGrath of Harlow 10 Dec 07 - 08:14 PM
beardedbruce 10 Dec 07 - 10:00 PM
beardedbruce 10 Dec 07 - 10:01 PM
GUEST,282RA 10 Dec 07 - 11:18 PM
GUEST,282RA 10 Dec 07 - 11:40 PM
Teribus 11 Dec 07 - 05:45 AM
Stu 11 Dec 07 - 06:08 AM
Teribus 11 Dec 07 - 07:46 AM
Stu 11 Dec 07 - 08:33 AM
Teribus 11 Dec 07 - 10:08 AM
Teribus 11 Dec 07 - 11:04 AM
GUEST,282RA 11 Dec 07 - 12:02 PM
Wolfgang 11 Dec 07 - 12:22 PM
Wolfgang 11 Dec 07 - 12:31 PM
Stu 11 Dec 07 - 01:48 PM
Teribus 11 Dec 07 - 01:58 PM
GUEST,282RA 11 Dec 07 - 04:43 PM
Bobert 11 Dec 07 - 05:17 PM
Arne 11 Dec 07 - 05:26 PM
Teribus 11 Dec 07 - 05:50 PM
beardedbruce 11 Dec 07 - 05:56 PM
beardedbruce 11 Dec 07 - 05:59 PM
beardedbruce 11 Dec 07 - 06:07 PM
Bobert 11 Dec 07 - 06:34 PM
Teribus 11 Dec 07 - 06:40 PM
beardedbruce 11 Dec 07 - 06:54 PM
beardedbruce 11 Dec 07 - 06:58 PM
Bobert 11 Dec 07 - 07:50 PM
Bobert 11 Dec 07 - 08:13 PM
Arne 11 Dec 07 - 08:28 PM
Arne 11 Dec 07 - 08:31 PM
Arne 11 Dec 07 - 08:41 PM
Bobert 11 Dec 07 - 08:46 PM
Amos 11 Dec 07 - 10:02 PM
beardedbruce 11 Dec 07 - 10:07 PM
beardedbruce 11 Dec 07 - 10:09 PM
beardedbruce 11 Dec 07 - 10:10 PM
beardedbruce 11 Dec 07 - 10:12 PM
beardedbruce 12 Dec 07 - 12:11 AM
Teribus 12 Dec 07 - 12:13 AM
GUEST,dianavan 12 Dec 07 - 12:23 AM
Teribus 12 Dec 07 - 12:53 AM
Stu 12 Dec 07 - 05:27 AM
Keith A of Hertford 12 Dec 07 - 09:14 AM
Donuel 12 Dec 07 - 10:46 AM
Bobert 12 Dec 07 - 12:07 PM
Donuel 12 Dec 07 - 02:05 PM
McGrath of Harlow 12 Dec 07 - 02:14 PM
beardedbruce 12 Dec 07 - 02:17 PM
beardedbruce 12 Dec 07 - 02:21 PM
beardedbruce 12 Dec 07 - 02:22 PM
beardedbruce 12 Dec 07 - 02:26 PM
beardedbruce 12 Dec 07 - 03:38 PM
Teribus 12 Dec 07 - 03:39 PM
Amos 12 Dec 07 - 03:58 PM
beardedbruce 12 Dec 07 - 04:11 PM
Bobert 12 Dec 07 - 05:18 PM
Stringsinger 12 Dec 07 - 05:28 PM
Bobert 12 Dec 07 - 05:29 PM
Bobert 12 Dec 07 - 05:30 PM
Teribus 12 Dec 07 - 06:34 PM
beardedbruce 12 Dec 07 - 07:47 PM
Bobert 12 Dec 07 - 08:37 PM
Don Firth 12 Dec 07 - 09:22 PM
beardedbruce 12 Dec 07 - 09:28 PM
beardedbruce 12 Dec 07 - 09:37 PM
beardedbruce 12 Dec 07 - 09:38 PM
beardedbruce 12 Dec 07 - 09:49 PM
Teribus 13 Dec 07 - 02:12 AM
Stu 13 Dec 07 - 04:35 AM
Stu 13 Dec 07 - 05:24 AM
GUEST,Homey 13 Dec 07 - 09:02 AM
Bobert 13 Dec 07 - 09:10 AM
Bobert 13 Dec 07 - 10:10 AM
Teribus 13 Dec 07 - 12:50 PM
McGrath of Harlow 13 Dec 07 - 01:01 PM
beardedbruce 13 Dec 07 - 01:44 PM
beardedbruce 13 Dec 07 - 01:47 PM
GUEST,Bobert at the Library 13 Dec 07 - 01:51 PM
beardedbruce 13 Dec 07 - 01:55 PM
beardedbruce 13 Dec 07 - 01:59 PM
Don Firth 13 Dec 07 - 03:47 PM
beardedbruce 13 Dec 07 - 04:32 PM
Don Firth 13 Dec 07 - 04:50 PM
Bobert 13 Dec 07 - 04:58 PM
beardedbruce 13 Dec 07 - 05:13 PM
Bobert 13 Dec 07 - 05:18 PM
beardedbruce 13 Dec 07 - 05:22 PM
beardedbruce 13 Dec 07 - 05:29 PM
beardedbruce 13 Dec 07 - 05:31 PM
Bobert 13 Dec 07 - 05:31 PM
beardedbruce 13 Dec 07 - 05:43 PM
Bobert 13 Dec 07 - 05:50 PM
beardedbruce 13 Dec 07 - 06:11 PM
Folkiedave 13 Dec 07 - 06:29 PM
Bobert 13 Dec 07 - 06:35 PM
Don Firth 13 Dec 07 - 06:56 PM
beardedbruce 13 Dec 07 - 07:31 PM
Bobert 13 Dec 07 - 07:45 PM
Bobert 13 Dec 07 - 07:51 PM
beardedbruce 13 Dec 07 - 07:55 PM
Don Firth 13 Dec 07 - 07:57 PM
beardedbruce 13 Dec 07 - 08:09 PM
Don Firth 13 Dec 07 - 08:14 PM
Bobert 13 Dec 07 - 08:18 PM
Teribus 13 Dec 07 - 08:43 PM
Bobert 13 Dec 07 - 09:26 PM
beardedbruce 13 Dec 07 - 10:11 PM
beardedbruce 13 Dec 07 - 10:25 PM
beardedbruce 13 Dec 07 - 10:27 PM
Don Firth 13 Dec 07 - 11:35 PM
GUEST,dianavan 14 Dec 07 - 01:07 AM
Teribus 14 Dec 07 - 08:31 AM
Bobert 14 Dec 07 - 08:42 AM
Teribus 14 Dec 07 - 10:36 AM
Barry Finn 14 Dec 07 - 11:26 AM
beardedbruce 14 Dec 07 - 01:56 PM
beardedbruce 14 Dec 07 - 02:01 PM
Teribus 14 Dec 07 - 03:16 PM
beardedbruce 14 Dec 07 - 03:21 PM
McGrath of Harlow 14 Dec 07 - 03:56 PM
Bobert 14 Dec 07 - 05:20 PM
beardedbruce 14 Dec 07 - 05:28 PM
GUEST,TIA 14 Dec 07 - 05:34 PM
beardedbruce 14 Dec 07 - 05:36 PM
Folkiedave 14 Dec 07 - 05:54 PM
Bobert 14 Dec 07 - 06:27 PM
beardedbruce 14 Dec 07 - 06:42 PM
beardedbruce 14 Dec 07 - 06:43 PM
beardedbruce 14 Dec 07 - 06:50 PM
Teribus 14 Dec 07 - 06:55 PM
Bobert 14 Dec 07 - 07:01 PM
Bobert 14 Dec 07 - 07:30 PM
beardedbruce 14 Dec 07 - 07:34 PM
McGrath of Harlow 14 Dec 07 - 07:55 PM
Bobert 14 Dec 07 - 08:12 PM
beardedbruce 14 Dec 07 - 09:16 PM
beardedbruce 14 Dec 07 - 09:22 PM
Teribus 15 Dec 07 - 04:08 AM
Stu 15 Dec 07 - 06:10 AM
Teribus 15 Dec 07 - 07:35 AM
Bobert 15 Dec 07 - 08:19 AM
McGrath of Harlow 15 Dec 07 - 08:26 AM
beardedbruce 15 Dec 07 - 08:58 AM
McGrath of Harlow 15 Dec 07 - 09:06 AM
beardedbruce 15 Dec 07 - 11:52 AM
Teribus 16 Dec 07 - 09:36 AM
Bobert 16 Dec 07 - 10:49 AM
Folkiedave 16 Dec 07 - 12:46 PM
Teribus 16 Dec 07 - 01:25 PM
Amos 16 Dec 07 - 01:50 PM
Bobert 16 Dec 07 - 03:10 PM
Stringsinger 16 Dec 07 - 04:13 PM
Bobert 16 Dec 07 - 08:17 PM
GUEST,TIA 16 Dec 07 - 10:45 PM
McGrath of Harlow 17 Dec 07 - 08:23 AM
GUEST,Keith A o Hertford 17 Dec 07 - 09:58 AM
beardedbruce 17 Dec 07 - 12:01 PM
beardedbruce 17 Dec 07 - 12:09 PM
beardedbruce 17 Dec 07 - 12:12 PM
beardedbruce 17 Dec 07 - 12:56 PM
Teribus 17 Dec 07 - 02:29 PM
Teribus 17 Dec 07 - 02:40 PM
Teribus 17 Dec 07 - 02:46 PM
McGrath of Harlow 17 Dec 07 - 05:43 PM
Amos 17 Dec 07 - 06:28 PM
Bobert 17 Dec 07 - 07:59 PM
GUEST,Homey 17 Dec 07 - 10:44 PM
beardedbruce 17 Dec 07 - 11:29 PM
Teribus 18 Dec 07 - 01:12 AM
Bobert 18 Dec 07 - 09:36 AM
Teribus 18 Dec 07 - 01:53 PM
GUEST,dianavan 18 Dec 07 - 02:38 PM
beardedbruce 18 Dec 07 - 02:41 PM
Bobert 18 Dec 07 - 04:43 PM
beardedbruce 18 Dec 07 - 04:53 PM
Bobert 18 Dec 07 - 04:58 PM
beardedbruce 18 Dec 07 - 04:59 PM
beardedbruce 18 Dec 07 - 05:00 PM
Bobert 18 Dec 07 - 05:11 PM
beardedbruce 18 Dec 07 - 10:40 PM
Teribus 19 Dec 07 - 02:00 AM
Bobert 19 Dec 07 - 08:49 AM
Teribus 19 Dec 07 - 12:21 PM
Bobert 19 Dec 07 - 04:37 PM
Barry Finn 19 Dec 07 - 05:06 PM
beardedbruce 19 Dec 07 - 05:09 PM
Bobert 19 Dec 07 - 05:15 PM
dick greenhaus 19 Dec 07 - 05:32 PM
Bobert 19 Dec 07 - 06:26 PM
beardedbruce 19 Dec 07 - 07:32 PM
Bobert 19 Dec 07 - 08:16 PM
beardedbruce 19 Dec 07 - 11:12 PM
GUEST,Homey 19 Dec 07 - 11:34 PM
Teribus 19 Dec 07 - 11:55 PM
Bobert 20 Dec 07 - 08:05 AM
Teribus 20 Dec 07 - 09:56 AM
Bobert 20 Dec 07 - 12:04 PM
Bobert 20 Dec 07 - 06:24 PM
GUEST,TIA 21 Dec 07 - 05:52 PM
Bobert 21 Dec 07 - 06:08 PM
McGrath of Harlow 21 Dec 07 - 07:20 PM
Bobert 21 Dec 07 - 07:27 PM
GUEST,Homey 21 Dec 07 - 09:24 PM
GUEST,dianavan 22 Dec 07 - 01:09 AM
McGrath of Harlow 22 Dec 07 - 07:01 AM
GUEST,Homey 22 Dec 07 - 08:27 AM
Bobert 22 Dec 07 - 09:06 AM
GUEST,TIA 22 Dec 07 - 10:12 AM
Barry Finn 22 Dec 07 - 02:01 PM
McGrath of Harlow 22 Dec 07 - 02:57 PM
Bobert 22 Dec 07 - 05:52 PM
GUEST,Homey 22 Dec 07 - 06:35 PM
Bobert 22 Dec 07 - 07:01 PM
McGrath of Harlow 22 Dec 07 - 07:07 PM
Bobert 22 Dec 07 - 09:11 PM
GUEST,dianavan 23 Dec 07 - 12:34 AM
Barry Finn 23 Dec 07 - 01:48 AM
Barry Finn 23 Dec 07 - 02:18 AM
Bobert 23 Dec 07 - 08:05 AM
GUEST,Homey 23 Dec 07 - 08:45 AM
Bobert 23 Dec 07 - 09:50 AM
Barry Finn 23 Dec 07 - 11:31 AM
Bobert 23 Dec 07 - 11:53 AM
GUEST,Homey 23 Dec 07 - 11:40 PM
GUEST,Homey 23 Dec 07 - 11:57 PM
Barry Finn 24 Dec 07 - 12:37 AM
GUEST,Homey 24 Dec 07 - 08:37 AM
Bobert 24 Dec 07 - 08:56 AM
GUEST,Homey 24 Dec 07 - 12:03 PM
Amos 24 Dec 07 - 12:26 PM
Don Firth 24 Dec 07 - 12:38 PM
Bobert 24 Dec 07 - 12:45 PM
Barry Finn 24 Dec 07 - 01:06 PM
GUEST,Homey 24 Dec 07 - 02:42 PM
Amos 24 Dec 07 - 03:05 PM
Bobert 24 Dec 07 - 03:30 PM
beardedbruce 24 Dec 07 - 06:07 PM
Bobert 24 Dec 07 - 07:33 PM
beardedbruce 25 Dec 07 - 01:06 PM
GUEST,Homey 25 Dec 07 - 03:06 PM
McGrath of Harlow 25 Dec 07 - 04:00 PM
Bobert 25 Dec 07 - 04:00 PM
Don Firth 25 Dec 07 - 04:30 PM
Bobert 25 Dec 07 - 05:04 PM
Don Firth 25 Dec 07 - 05:38 PM
McGrath of Harlow 26 Dec 07 - 06:51 AM
Bobert 26 Dec 07 - 08:59 AM
Barry Finn 26 Dec 07 - 12:33 PM
Bobert 26 Dec 07 - 12:45 PM
GUEST,Homey 30 Dec 07 - 04:22 PM
Barry Finn 30 Dec 07 - 10:22 PM
Bobert 31 Dec 07 - 08:48 AM
Donuel 31 Dec 07 - 10:13 AM
beardedbruce 31 Dec 07 - 05:51 PM
Bobert 31 Dec 07 - 07:41 PM
GUEST,Homey 01 Jan 08 - 12:24 PM
beardedbruce 01 Jan 08 - 12:41 PM
Bobert 01 Jan 08 - 12:58 PM
beardedbruce 01 Jan 08 - 05:22 PM
Bobert 01 Jan 08 - 07:15 PM
beardedbruce 01 Jan 08 - 07:40 PM
beardedbruce 01 Jan 08 - 07:54 PM
beardedbruce 01 Jan 08 - 07:56 PM
Bobert 01 Jan 08 - 08:18 PM
beardedbruce 02 Jan 08 - 03:36 PM
beardedbruce 02 Jan 08 - 04:27 PM
beardedbruce 02 Jan 08 - 05:19 PM
McGrath of Harlow 02 Jan 08 - 05:22 PM
Bobert 02 Jan 08 - 05:26 PM
beardedbruce 02 Jan 08 - 07:01 PM
beardedbruce 02 Jan 08 - 07:03 PM
beardedbruce 02 Jan 08 - 07:04 PM
beardedbruce 02 Jan 08 - 07:06 PM
McGrath of Harlow 02 Jan 08 - 08:15 PM
Bobert 02 Jan 08 - 09:17 PM
beardedbruce 03 Jan 08 - 12:41 PM
beardedbruce 03 Jan 08 - 12:43 PM
beardedbruce 03 Jan 08 - 12:49 PM
McGrath of Harlow 03 Jan 08 - 01:24 PM
Bobert 03 Jan 08 - 08:11 PM
beardedbruce 04 Jan 08 - 02:45 PM
Bobert 04 Jan 08 - 05:18 PM
beardedbruce 04 Jan 08 - 05:25 PM
McGrath of Harlow 04 Jan 08 - 06:53 PM
Bobert 04 Jan 08 - 07:27 PM
beardedbruce 04 Jan 08 - 08:39 PM
GUEST,TIA 04 Jan 08 - 11:40 PM
Bobert 05 Jan 08 - 09:11 AM
GUEST,Homey 15 Jan 08 - 10:36 PM
Don Firth 16 Jan 08 - 12:20 AM
Teribus 16 Jan 08 - 02:19 AM
GUEST,Homey 16 Jan 08 - 11:58 PM
GUEST,Homey 17 Jan 08 - 12:12 AM
GUEST,dianavan 17 Jan 08 - 02:19 AM
GUEST,dianavan 17 Jan 08 - 02:22 AM
Bobert 17 Jan 08 - 10:04 AM
Barry Finn 17 Jan 08 - 12:27 PM
Teribus 17 Jan 08 - 04:12 PM
Bobert 17 Jan 08 - 04:25 PM
beardedbruce 17 Jan 08 - 05:25 PM
Teribus 17 Jan 08 - 06:14 PM
Teribus 17 Jan 08 - 06:28 PM
Bobert 17 Jan 08 - 07:44 PM
Homey 17 Jan 08 - 09:25 PM
Homey 17 Jan 08 - 09:34 PM
Teribus 18 Jan 08 - 01:11 AM
Bobert 18 Jan 08 - 08:37 AM
Homey 18 Jan 08 - 08:53 AM
Teribus 18 Jan 08 - 12:53 PM
beardedbruce 18 Jan 08 - 02:51 PM
Bobert 18 Jan 08 - 07:18 PM
beardedbruce 18 Jan 08 - 07:46 PM
Don Firth 18 Jan 08 - 08:13 PM
Bobert 18 Jan 08 - 08:39 PM
Homey 18 Jan 08 - 10:04 PM
Teribus 19 Jan 08 - 02:21 AM
Teribus 19 Jan 08 - 05:11 AM
Bobert 19 Jan 08 - 08:44 AM
Homey 19 Jan 08 - 09:12 AM
Bobert 19 Jan 08 - 09:29 AM
Teribus 19 Jan 08 - 12:45 PM
Bobert 19 Jan 08 - 01:34 PM
Don Firth 19 Jan 08 - 04:04 PM
GUEST,dianavan 19 Jan 08 - 04:11 PM
Bobert 19 Jan 08 - 04:19 PM
Don Firth 19 Jan 08 - 04:40 PM
Bobert 19 Jan 08 - 05:09 PM
Little Hawk 19 Jan 08 - 06:01 PM
Bobert 19 Jan 08 - 06:28 PM
Teribus 19 Jan 08 - 06:38 PM
Bobert 19 Jan 08 - 07:56 PM
Don Firth 19 Jan 08 - 10:34 PM
GUEST,TIA 19 Jan 08 - 10:35 PM
dick greenhaus 19 Jan 08 - 11:14 PM
GUEST,dianavan 19 Jan 08 - 11:15 PM
Teribus 20 Jan 08 - 04:36 AM
Homey 20 Jan 08 - 08:20 AM
Bobert 20 Jan 08 - 09:15 AM
Don Firth 20 Jan 08 - 02:07 PM
GUEST,dianavan 20 Jan 08 - 10:59 PM
Teribus 21 Jan 08 - 01:17 AM
Don Firth 21 Jan 08 - 01:58 PM
GUEST,Don Firth 21 Jan 08 - 02:19 PM
Bobert 21 Jan 08 - 04:15 PM
GUEST,TIA 21 Jan 08 - 04:30 PM
beardedbruce 21 Jan 08 - 04:35 PM
Teribus 21 Jan 08 - 06:38 PM
Bobert 21 Jan 08 - 08:11 PM
Don Firth 21 Jan 08 - 10:10 PM
Teribus 22 Jan 08 - 01:16 AM
Don Firth 22 Jan 08 - 12:51 PM
beardedbruce 22 Jan 08 - 01:01 PM
Don Firth 22 Jan 08 - 01:02 PM
beardedbruce 22 Jan 08 - 01:05 PM
Don Firth 22 Jan 08 - 01:15 PM
Bobert 22 Jan 08 - 01:37 PM
beardedbruce 22 Jan 08 - 04:12 PM
beardedbruce 22 Jan 08 - 04:14 PM
Bobert 22 Jan 08 - 04:18 PM
beardedbruce 22 Jan 08 - 04:56 PM
Don Firth 22 Jan 08 - 06:23 PM
beardedbruce 22 Jan 08 - 06:31 PM
beardedbruce 22 Jan 08 - 06:33 PM
Don Firth 22 Jan 08 - 07:45 PM
Teribus 23 Jan 08 - 03:39 PM
Bobert 23 Jan 08 - 06:25 PM
Don Firth 23 Jan 08 - 09:51 PM
Don Firth 23 Jan 08 - 11:06 PM
Teribus 24 Jan 08 - 01:23 AM
Teribus 24 Jan 08 - 11:43 AM
Don Firth 24 Jan 08 - 01:11 PM
Don Firth 24 Jan 08 - 01:19 PM
GUEST,Bobert 24 Jan 08 - 01:56 PM
Don Firth 24 Jan 08 - 03:42 PM
Teribus 25 Jan 08 - 12:47 AM
Bobert 25 Jan 08 - 08:55 AM
Homey 25 Jan 08 - 09:35 AM
Amos 25 Jan 08 - 10:45 AM
Don Firth 25 Jan 08 - 03:07 PM
Bobert 25 Jan 08 - 03:46 PM
Teribus 25 Jan 08 - 03:48 PM
Bobert 25 Jan 08 - 04:16 PM
Don Firth 25 Jan 08 - 08:53 PM
Bobert 25 Jan 08 - 09:05 PM
Don Firth 25 Jan 08 - 09:11 PM
Teribus 26 Jan 08 - 05:31 AM
Bobert 26 Jan 08 - 08:54 AM
Homey 26 Jan 08 - 09:29 AM
Teribus 26 Jan 08 - 09:33 AM
Don Firth 26 Jan 08 - 02:54 PM
Teribus 27 Jan 08 - 03:01 AM
Homey 27 Jan 08 - 09:11 AM
Don Firth 27 Jan 08 - 01:18 PM
Don Firth 27 Jan 08 - 03:20 PM
Don Firth 27 Jan 08 - 03:33 PM
Teribus 27 Jan 08 - 05:49 PM
Don Firth 27 Jan 08 - 06:49 PM
Barry Finn 27 Jan 08 - 07:08 PM
Don Firth 27 Jan 08 - 08:47 PM
Bobert 27 Jan 08 - 09:03 PM
Homey 28 Jan 08 - 08:42 AM
Teribus 28 Jan 08 - 11:51 AM
Barry Finn 28 Jan 08 - 02:39 PM
Don Firth 28 Jan 08 - 02:44 PM
Teribus 28 Jan 08 - 04:34 PM
Bobert 28 Jan 08 - 06:12 PM
Barry Finn 28 Jan 08 - 06:29 PM
Homey 28 Jan 08 - 09:20 PM
Don Firth 28 Jan 08 - 09:54 PM
Homey 28 Jan 08 - 10:00 PM
Homey 28 Jan 08 - 10:08 PM
Donuel 28 Jan 08 - 10:14 PM
Don Firth 28 Jan 08 - 10:42 PM
Homey 28 Jan 08 - 10:46 PM
Homey 28 Jan 08 - 11:23 PM
Don Firth 29 Jan 08 - 03:18 PM
GUEST 29 Jan 08 - 04:03 PM
Don Firth 29 Jan 08 - 05:19 PM
Teribus 29 Jan 08 - 06:35 PM
GUEST,TIA 29 Jan 08 - 07:25 PM
Bobert 29 Jan 08 - 07:27 PM
Don Firth 29 Jan 08 - 10:57 PM
Teribus 30 Jan 08 - 02:12 AM
GUEST,petr 30 Jan 08 - 03:21 AM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Jan 08 - 05:59 AM
Teribus 30 Jan 08 - 10:49 AM
Don Firth 30 Jan 08 - 01:11 PM
Teribus 30 Jan 08 - 01:16 PM
Don Firth 30 Jan 08 - 01:47 PM
Don Firth 30 Jan 08 - 03:42 PM
Don Firth 30 Jan 08 - 03:56 PM
TIA 30 Jan 08 - 07:58 PM
Bobert 30 Jan 08 - 08:10 PM
Teribus 31 Jan 08 - 12:44 AM
GUEST,petr 31 Jan 08 - 12:43 PM
Don Firth 31 Jan 08 - 01:42 PM
Don Firth 31 Jan 08 - 02:22 PM
Teribus 31 Jan 08 - 03:00 PM
Don Firth 31 Jan 08 - 03:58 PM
Don Firth 31 Jan 08 - 05:28 PM
Bobert 31 Jan 08 - 06:40 PM
Nickhere 31 Jan 08 - 06:59 PM
Bobert 31 Jan 08 - 07:39 PM
Teribus 01 Feb 08 - 01:03 AM
Teribus 01 Feb 08 - 01:13 AM
Nickhere 01 Feb 08 - 01:36 AM
Teribus 01 Feb 08 - 11:03 AM
Don Firth 01 Feb 08 - 01:38 PM
GUEST,dianavan 01 Feb 08 - 10:10 PM
Teribus 02 Feb 08 - 09:41 AM
Teribus 02 Feb 08 - 10:32 AM
Barry Finn 02 Feb 08 - 01:54 PM
Bobert 02 Feb 08 - 02:13 PM
Nickhere 02 Feb 08 - 06:01 PM
Teribus 03 Feb 08 - 07:54 AM
Nickhere 03 Feb 08 - 03:34 PM
Teribus 03 Feb 08 - 06:12 PM
Teribus 03 Feb 08 - 06:13 PM
Barry Finn 04 Feb 08 - 01:30 AM
Teribus 04 Feb 08 - 03:12 AM
CarolC 04 Feb 08 - 04:13 AM
Teribus 04 Feb 08 - 07:20 AM
Teribus 04 Feb 08 - 07:25 AM
CarolC 04 Feb 08 - 12:58 PM
Barry Finn 04 Feb 08 - 01:44 PM
Teribus 04 Feb 08 - 05:42 PM
CarolC 04 Feb 08 - 06:11 PM
GUEST,dianavan 04 Feb 08 - 10:17 PM
Teribus 05 Feb 08 - 03:05 AM
Teribus 05 Feb 08 - 03:20 AM
Barry Finn 05 Feb 08 - 05:48 AM
Teribus 05 Feb 08 - 06:08 AM
CarolC 05 Feb 08 - 10:21 AM
Teribus 05 Feb 08 - 12:17 PM
GUEST,dianavan 05 Feb 08 - 12:33 PM
CarolC 05 Feb 08 - 12:48 PM
GUEST,dianavan 05 Feb 08 - 12:58 PM
Teribus 05 Feb 08 - 01:26 PM
beardedbruce 05 Feb 08 - 01:28 PM
Teribus 05 Feb 08 - 01:32 PM
CarolC 05 Feb 08 - 01:43 PM
Nickhere 05 Feb 08 - 02:40 PM
Teribus 05 Feb 08 - 02:46 PM
Nickhere 05 Feb 08 - 02:49 PM
Nickhere 05 Feb 08 - 02:51 PM
Nickhere 05 Feb 08 - 02:58 PM
Teribus 05 Feb 08 - 02:59 PM
CarolC 05 Feb 08 - 03:03 PM
CarolC 05 Feb 08 - 03:11 PM
CarolC 05 Feb 08 - 03:24 PM
GUEST,dianavan 05 Feb 08 - 03:28 PM
Teribus 05 Feb 08 - 03:29 PM
Teribus 05 Feb 08 - 03:45 PM
CarolC 05 Feb 08 - 05:57 PM
CarolC 05 Feb 08 - 06:24 PM
Teribus 05 Feb 08 - 07:26 PM
Nickhere 05 Feb 08 - 07:43 PM
Nickhere 05 Feb 08 - 07:52 PM
Nickhere 05 Feb 08 - 07:58 PM
CarolC 05 Feb 08 - 08:01 PM
Teribus 06 Feb 08 - 09:08 AM
CarolC 07 Feb 08 - 02:02 AM
Teribus 07 Feb 08 - 02:16 AM
Teribus 07 Feb 08 - 08:50 AM
CarolC 08 Feb 08 - 01:57 AM
CarolC 08 Feb 08 - 02:52 AM
Teribus 09 Feb 08 - 03:29 AM
GUEST,petr 09 Feb 08 - 05:24 PM
Teribus 10 Feb 08 - 05:58 AM
GUEST,petr 10 Feb 08 - 05:04 PM
Teribus 10 Feb 08 - 06:10 PM
beardedbruce 10 Feb 08 - 07:28 PM
CarolC 11 Feb 08 - 01:19 AM
GUEST,petr 11 Feb 08 - 02:22 PM
Amos 11 Feb 08 - 04:55 PM
Teribus 12 Feb 08 - 09:10 AM
Teribus 12 Feb 08 - 09:18 AM
CarolC 13 Feb 08 - 03:34 AM
Teribus 13 Feb 08 - 11:30 AM
beardedbruce 13 Feb 08 - 03:53 PM
CarolC 14 Feb 08 - 02:05 AM
CarolC 14 Feb 08 - 03:39 AM
Teribus 14 Feb 08 - 11:06 AM
CarolC 14 Feb 08 - 12:09 PM
Teribus 14 Feb 08 - 12:14 PM
Teribus 14 Feb 08 - 12:38 PM
CarolC 14 Feb 08 - 02:47 PM
beardedbruce 14 Feb 08 - 03:37 PM
Teribus 14 Feb 08 - 04:01 PM
GUEST,Joseph de Culver City 14 Feb 08 - 05:38 PM
CarolC 14 Feb 08 - 05:42 PM
CarolC 14 Feb 08 - 05:44 PM
CarolC 14 Feb 08 - 06:23 PM
Teribus 14 Feb 08 - 06:27 PM
CarolC 14 Feb 08 - 07:27 PM
Teribus 15 Feb 08 - 03:08 AM
Teribus 15 Feb 08 - 03:49 AM
Teribus 15 Feb 08 - 03:59 PM
beardedbruce 15 Feb 08 - 04:26 PM
CarolC 15 Feb 08 - 05:41 PM
Barry Finn 15 Feb 08 - 11:22 PM
CarolC 15 Feb 08 - 11:53 PM
Teribus 16 Feb 08 - 04:16 AM
Teribus 19 Feb 08 - 10:33 AM
Barry Finn 19 Feb 08 - 10:47 AM
beardedbruce 19 Feb 08 - 12:57 PM
CarolC 19 Feb 08 - 01:25 PM
CarolC 19 Feb 08 - 02:08 PM
Teribus 19 Feb 08 - 03:32 PM
beardedbruce 19 Feb 08 - 05:30 PM
beardedbruce 19 Feb 08 - 05:35 PM
CarolC 19 Feb 08 - 06:28 PM
CarolC 19 Feb 08 - 06:31 PM
Teribus 19 Feb 08 - 07:07 PM
CarolC 19 Feb 08 - 07:16 PM
beardedbruce 19 Feb 08 - 08:23 PM
CarolC 19 Feb 08 - 08:44 PM
beardedbruce 19 Feb 08 - 08:49 PM
CarolC 19 Feb 08 - 08:59 PM
GUEST,TIA 19 Feb 08 - 10:31 PM
CarolC 19 Feb 08 - 11:29 PM
Teribus 20 Feb 08 - 02:17 AM
Barry Finn 20 Feb 08 - 02:21 AM
CarolC 20 Feb 08 - 02:30 AM
Teribus 20 Feb 08 - 06:56 AM
Folkiedave 20 Feb 08 - 09:19 AM
Teribus 20 Feb 08 - 10:46 AM
Folkiedave 20 Feb 08 - 03:17 PM
beardedbruce 20 Feb 08 - 03:59 PM
Teribus 20 Feb 08 - 05:41 PM
Don Firth 20 Feb 08 - 05:54 PM
CarolC 20 Feb 08 - 06:42 PM
CarolC 20 Feb 08 - 06:50 PM
Folkiedave 20 Feb 08 - 07:13 PM
Keith A of Hertford 21 Feb 08 - 04:32 AM
Teribus 21 Feb 08 - 04:40 AM
Folkiedave 21 Feb 08 - 06:04 AM
beardedbruce 21 Feb 08 - 07:52 PM
CarolC 25 Feb 08 - 12:00 AM
Teribus 25 Feb 08 - 01:28 AM
CarolC 25 Feb 08 - 02:26 AM
CarolC 25 Feb 08 - 02:41 AM
beardedbruce 25 Feb 08 - 08:07 AM
Teribus 25 Feb 08 - 09:33 AM
CarolC 25 Feb 08 - 02:27 PM
CarolC 25 Feb 08 - 02:35 PM
Teribus 25 Feb 08 - 03:21 PM
CarolC 25 Feb 08 - 04:11 PM
CarolC 25 Feb 08 - 04:43 PM
Teribus 25 Feb 08 - 06:06 PM
CarolC 25 Feb 08 - 06:58 PM
Teribus 26 Feb 08 - 01:24 AM
CarolC 26 Feb 08 - 08:28 PM
Barry Finn 27 Feb 08 - 08:30 AM
Teribus 27 Feb 08 - 10:11 AM
Teribus 27 Feb 08 - 11:02 AM
Barry Finn 27 Feb 08 - 12:55 PM
beardedbruce 27 Feb 08 - 02:55 PM
CarolC 27 Feb 08 - 08:25 PM
beardedbruce 27 Feb 08 - 10:42 PM
CarolC 27 Feb 08 - 11:13 PM
Barry Finn 28 Feb 08 - 12:29 AM
TIA 28 Feb 08 - 12:49 AM
Teribus 28 Feb 08 - 02:27 AM
Teribus 28 Feb 08 - 10:07 AM
Barry Finn 28 Feb 08 - 02:21 PM
Teribus 28 Feb 08 - 04:29 PM
beardedbruce 28 Feb 08 - 04:35 PM
CarolC 28 Feb 08 - 10:22 PM
CarolC 28 Feb 08 - 10:37 PM
Teribus 29 Feb 08 - 02:01 AM
GUEST,dianavan 29 Feb 08 - 02:22 AM
Teribus 29 Feb 08 - 02:31 AM
Teribus 29 Feb 08 - 06:19 AM
CarolC 29 Feb 08 - 10:30 AM
Teribus 29 Feb 08 - 11:06 AM
CarolC 29 Feb 08 - 11:30 AM
Teribus 29 Feb 08 - 02:03 PM
CarolC 29 Feb 08 - 02:05 PM
beardedbruce 29 Feb 08 - 02:19 PM
Teribus 29 Feb 08 - 03:15 PM
CarolC 29 Feb 08 - 03:51 PM
beardedbruce 29 Feb 08 - 05:30 PM
beardedbruce 29 Feb 08 - 05:33 PM
beardedbruce 29 Feb 08 - 05:54 PM
beardedbruce 29 Feb 08 - 06:01 PM
beardedbruce 29 Feb 08 - 06:04 PM
Teribus 29 Feb 08 - 06:27 PM
CarolC 29 Feb 08 - 06:49 PM
CarolC 29 Feb 08 - 07:08 PM
beardedbruce 29 Feb 08 - 08:39 PM
beardedbruce 29 Feb 08 - 09:06 PM
Barry Finn 01 Mar 08 - 12:07 AM
CarolC 01 Mar 08 - 02:01 AM
Teribus 01 Mar 08 - 02:57 AM
CarolC 01 Mar 08 - 12:19 PM
GUEST,dianavan 01 Mar 08 - 01:13 PM
CarolC 01 Mar 08 - 01:27 PM
Teribus 02 Mar 08 - 07:23 AM
Barry Finn 02 Mar 08 - 07:45 AM
Teribus 02 Mar 08 - 08:25 AM
Barry Finn 02 Mar 08 - 10:31 AM
Teribus 02 Mar 08 - 10:44 AM
Barry Finn 02 Mar 08 - 11:25 AM
beardedbruce 02 Mar 08 - 04:40 PM
beardedbruce 02 Mar 08 - 04:43 PM
beardedbruce 02 Mar 08 - 04:47 PM
beardedbruce 02 Mar 08 - 04:50 PM
beardedbruce 02 Mar 08 - 04:52 PM
beardedbruce 02 Mar 08 - 04:54 PM
Barry Finn 02 Mar 08 - 06:17 PM
Teribus 03 Mar 08 - 01:16 AM
beardedbruce 03 Mar 08 - 01:37 PM
CarolC 06 Mar 08 - 02:22 AM
beardedbruce 06 Mar 08 - 09:16 AM
beardedbruce 06 Mar 08 - 02:59 PM
beardedbruce 06 Mar 08 - 03:10 PM
Don Firth 06 Mar 08 - 05:09 PM
Bill D 06 Mar 08 - 08:22 PM

Share Thread
more
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:













Subject: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 05:18 PM

"I view this report as a warning signal that they had the program, they halted the program," Mr. Bush said. "The reason why it's a warning signal is they could restart it."

The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) "provides an opportunity for us to rally the international community – continue to rally the community to pressure the Iranian regime to suspend its program," Bush said.

The new NIE, made public Monday, said Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003 partly because of international pressure and scrutiny.


NOW THAT WE HAVE LOST SIGHT OF OUR OBJECTIVES, WE MUST REDOUBLE OUR EFFORTS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 05:39 PM

Yeah, I mentioned something about this on the Maliki thread, Dick...

Seems that Bush was told that Iran had curtailed its nuclear program in 2003 *before* he made the speech about Iran and World War III!!!

The boy just can't stop telling lies...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Amos
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 05:53 PM

The man is clearly a psychotic, who when assured that the enemy he is frothing about is not there just takes that as proof that the enemy is being unusually wily.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Amos
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 06:00 PM

From Time, the observation that Bush's administration had to bless this National Intell Estimate (NIE) before it became public:

"...And explode is what the hawks in and outside the Administration are about to do. They were counting on Bush being the one President prepared to take on Iran. As recently as last month, Bush warned of World War III if Iran so much as thought about building a bomb. Bush's betrayal is not going to go down well. The neocons, clinging to a sliver of hope, will accuse the intelligence community of incompetence, pointing out that as late as 2005 it estimated "with high confidence" that Iran was building a bomb.

Bush's National Security Adviser, Stephen Hadley, put the best face on the new report, claiming that it was our diplomacy and saber rattling that forced the Iranians to back down. As for the intelligence community, it explained its reversal by hinting that new intelligence had surfaced.

Neither explanation is entirely accurate. The real story behind this NIE is that the Bush Administration has finally concluded Iran is a bridge too far. With Iranian-backed Shi'a groups behaving themselves, things are looking up in Iraq. In Lebanon, the anti-Syrian coalition and pro-Syrian coalition, which includes Iran's surrogate Hizballah, reportedly have settled on a compromise candidate, the army commander General Michel Suleiman.

Bombing Iran now would upset the fragile balance in these two countries. Not to mention that Hizballah has threatened to shell Israel if we as much as touch a hair on Iran's head.
Then there are the Gulf Arabs. For the last year and a half, ever since the Bush Administration started to hint that it might hit Iran, they have been sending emissaries to Tehran to assure the Iranians they're not going to help the United States. But in private, the Gulf Arabs have been reminding Washington that Iran is a rabid dog: Don't even think about kicking it, the Arabs tell us. If you have to do something, shoot it dead. Which is something the United States can't do.

So how far is Iran from a nuke? The new NIE says 10 to 15 years, maybe. But that's a wild guess. The truth is that Iran is a black hole, and it's entirely conceivable Iran could build a bomb and we wouldn't know until they tested it.
Yet for now we should at least be happy with the good news: Armageddon is postponed."


Robert Baer, a former CIA field officer assigned to the Middle East, is TIME.com's intelligence columnist and the author of See No Evil and, most recently, the novel Blow the House Down"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 06:09 PM

He did not "lie" as you put it. When asked specifically about that he said that last August all he been told by his Intelligence Agencies was that there was new information under evaluation. He was not told that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons programme.

Many have often mocked your President for his use of language. In Dick Greenhaus's open post in this thread, where he is quoting what the President said, I think I would only change one word for it to make perfect sense. I would substitute the word renounce for the word suspend:

"I view this report as a warning signal that they had the program, they halted the program," Mr. Bush said. "The reason why it's a warning signal is they could restart it."

The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) "provides an opportunity for us to rally the international community – continue to rally the community to pressure the Iranian regime to renounce its program," Bush said.

But I am pleased no-one seems to be in any doubt that Iran did have a secret weapons programme running.

Your President is perfectly correct, action by the international community as a whole is required to induce Iran to abandon their nuclear weapons programme not merely halt it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 06:23 PM

"Iran is pursuing the technology that could be used to tpoduce nuclear weapons and abllistic missiles of increasing range that could deliver them"... Bush Ocober 23rd...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Jim Krause
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 07:30 PM

Wouldda, couldda, shouldda, mightta....seen it all before. It's really all about oil.

Jim Krause


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: wysiwyg
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 07:32 PM

I'm SHOCKED! ;~)

~S~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 07:36 PM

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/


"Iran is pursuing the technology that could be used to tpoduce nuclear weapons and abllistic missiles of increasing range that could deliver them"... Bush Ocober 23rd... "

And what part of this do you think is a lie?

Are you claiming the IAEA is wrong about the centrifuges?


FACT:

* I * can build a nuclear device right now, if I had the weapons grade material.

FACT:

The number of cascaded centrifuges Iran has implemented allows for the real likelyhood of weapons grade material.

Are you claiming that the Iranians are less competant than I am? That they are so dumb they can't do what a college grad in Physics can?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 07:55 PM

Back to screaming, bb???

That always means you are on shakey grounds as you are here in your loyal-Bushite-dog defense...

Are you so partisan that you don't understand the implications of what Bush said on October 23rd of this year???

I mean, geeze... Is there any lie that Bush could tell that you wouldn't defend???

He said that "Iran is pursuing..."

Fact:

No, Iran was not, according to the intellegence community "pursuing"... "Pursuing" is an active verb... It says that someone is ***actively*** doing something... The US intellgence community has said that is not true... In other words, it is a lie...

Now I know how you love to split hairs on what is or isn't a lie but your dog won't hunt... Bush lied... Iran is not "pursuing"... Okay, Iran might have "pursued"... Taht would be an accurate statement but "pursuing" is present tense...

I can't wait to hear the crapola you are going to write that changes the entire way in which English is spoken... This oughtta be a bb doozie of crapolla...

(No, Bobert... Bb will probably just try to outSCREAM you since he has no defense here...)

Normal... Some things never change...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 08:11 PM

Bush's remarks included something about preventing the Iranians from learning how to make a nuclear bomb.

Hell's bells, any competent physics student knows how to make a nuclear bomb. I'm no physicist, and I know how to make a nuclear bomb.   Whether I have the engineering skill to do so is something else, but I know the principles of how both a fission bomb and a thermonuclear bomb work. From that point on, it's a matter of getting the necessary material together, and combining it with the ability to run a screwdriver!

Our president—once again demonstrating that he is a clueless twit—has seen far too many John Wayne movies!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Amos
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 08:20 PM

WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 — A new assessment by American intelligence agencies released Monday concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen, contradicting a judgment two years ago that Tehran was working relentlessly toward building a nuclear bomb.


Senator Harry Reid said the assessment was "directly challenging some of this administration's alarming rhetoric" on Iran.
The conclusions of the new assessment are likely to reshape the final year of the Bush administration, which has made halting Iran's nuclear program a cornerstone of its foreign policy.

The assessment, a National Intelligence Estimate that represents the consensus view of all 16 American spy agencies, states that Tehran is likely to keep its options open with respect to building a weapon, but that intelligence agencies "do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."

Iran is continuing to produce enriched uranium, a program that the Tehran government has said is intended for civilian purposes. The new estimate says that the enrichment program could still provide Iran with enough raw material to produce a nuclear weapon sometime by the middle of next decade, a timetable essentially unchanged from previous estimates.

But the new report essentially disavows a judgment that the intelligence agencies issued in 2005, which concluded that Iran had an active secret arms program intended to transform the raw material into a nuclear weapon. The new estimate declares instead with "high confidence" that the military-run program was shut in 2003, and it concludes with "moderate confidence" that the program remains frozen. The report judges that the halt was imposed by Iran "primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure."

It was not clear what prompted the reversal. Administration officials said the new estimate reflected conclusions that the intelligence agencies had agreed on only in the past several weeks. The report's agnosticism about Iran's nuclear intentions represents a very different tone than had been struck by President Bush, and by Vice President Dick Cheney, who warned in a speech in October that if Iran "stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose serious consequences."

The estimate does not say when intelligence agencies learned that the arms program had been halted, but officials said new information obtained from covert sources over the summer had led to a reassessment of the state of Iran's nuclear program and a decision to delay preparation of the estimate, which had been scheduled to be delivered to Congress in the spring.

The new report came out just over five years after a 2002 intelligence estimate on Iraq concluded that it possessed chemical and biological weapons programs and was determined to restart its nuclear program. That estimate was instrumental in winning the Congressional authorization for a military invasion of Iraq, but it proved to be deeply flawed, and most of its conclusions turned out to be wrong.

Intelligence officials said the specter of the 2002 estimate on Iraq hung over their deliberations on Iran even more than it had in 2005, when the lessons from the intelligence failure on Iraq were just beginning to prompt spy agencies to adapt a more rigorous approach to their findings."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 08:50 PM

"Look, Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous, and Iran will be dangerous, if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon," Mr. Bush said, sounding defensive at times, during a news conference dominated by questions about the assessment, known as a National Intelligence Estimate. "What's to say they couldn't start another covert nuclear weapons program?" GWB

":FACT:

* I * can build a nuclear device right now, if I had the weapons grade material."   BB

Conclusion? We should bomb Bearded Bruce


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 09:16 PM

Good old Lapp-Goch! Gotta love it. The pre-emptive self-defence techique for homicidal maniacs once advertised by National Lampoon as a ridiculous joke has had the USA presidential stamp of approval ever since 2003. What was once a joke goes mainstream.

Hitler and Tojo's interesting approach to national defence has thereby been exonerated by the Bush administration as just "good common sense in a dangerous world". Yes, it IS okay after all to attack others first, just because you think they might someday pose a threat to you. It must be all right or the president wouldn't have done it. Would he?

Yes, dick, there does appear to be solid evidence that Bearded Bruce poses a dire threat to the world, because he has stated that HE KNOWS how to make a nuclear bomb... Pretty worrisome! He is clearly an unstable maniac who must be stopped, and we can't take the military option off the table or he won't take us seriously.    Mind you, he doesn't have the fissionable material yet (or at least we don't think he does...), so now is the time to move decisively and make sure he NEVER gets it. To do this, I think the powers that be should freeze his assets, shut down all his bank accounts forthwith, suspend his driver's license, remove his cookie, and set his credit rating at zero. Then apply sanctions and suspend trade till he sees reason. Turn off his power too. And his water. That should teach him a lesson.

While he mulls all that over, surround his residence with a heavily armed swat team, ready to attack at a moment's notice if any sign of aggression by Bearded Bruce or the intent to commit future aggression is detected! (Such signs could include frowning, turning red in the face, yelling, and/or the use of foul language and rude gestures.)

I call this program of firm action "Tough Diplomacy...the Road to Peace and Freedom". Bearded Bruce is either going to knuckle under and meet all the conditions for peace and freedom that the Free World demands of its members or he is going to pay the consequences...

;-) Tough love. Tough diplomacy. Lapp-Goch. First strike. Shock and Awe. It's how you get things done in the modern world.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 11:07 PM

>>>I * can build a nuclear device right now, if I had the weapons grade material."   BB

Conclusion? We should bomb Bearded Bruce<<<

Let's not be rash. I want to be totally fair about this.

Bruce, please prove to us that you are not building a nuclear bomb. This is your last chance to disarm.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Barry Finn
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 02:22 AM

Oh shit! Bearded Bruce was just spotted in West Africa trying to buy enriched yellow cake flowers! We are 45 just minutes away from Blooming Blossoms, flower power is our only option, we've hit pay dirt, plant the bastards now!

Barry


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Barry Finn
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 02:31 AM

Georgie's gonna have to find a new enemy to refocus or redirect the national attention on, who or what's it gonna be?? Please don't dicusss or bring up health or education reform or ending the war, those topics are taboo, maybe he'll want to tackle the Mid East disagreement/conflict & start redrawing a few more road maps or maybe he can focus on whaling, whoops, that might get him to close to the topic of global warming! And we all know that he doesn't want to go there either.

Barry


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,PMB
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 06:17 AM

Who cares about the facts? If you really believe something to be true, it's true for you, and it's showing disrespect for another's faith to oppose them with mere evidence.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Rapparee
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 09:08 AM

I too could build both fission and fusion weapons. I've know how ever since I was in high school. Or go read the book "The Circle of Binding Energy."

'Tain't hard to build a gun-type fission weapon. And you can even trigger it with a suicide-type fanatic (I can find plenty around here who would do it because killing "Liberals" will insure their entry into Heaven, the provision of 144 wild virgin bikini dancers and an eternity of light beer).

A human-triggered fission weapon wouldn't have the yield of a well-engineered one or an implosion weapon, probably only about .8 KT and a LOT of fallout -- mind you, that's the equivalent of about 800 tons of TNT and a "dead zone" of radioactivity.

Don't go bad-mouthing BB or Don Firth -- they're dead right about building nukes.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 09:25 AM

Well, okay...

Lets do a little review here...

Bush says that if Iran had a nuke that would be the beginning of WW III... Right??? 'Cept now it appears that Iran isn't do that at all but...

Well, if bb is "pursuing the technology that could be used to produce nuclear weapons" would that also be the beginning of WW III??? I've got the WGSR down on the bomb shelter workin' on this one...

"144 wild virgin bikina dancers and an eternity of light beer", Rap??? Where do I sign up???

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: bankley
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 09:42 AM

I somehow see W. replacing Slim Pickens in Dr. Strangelove, riding the Big One like a wild horse all the way down.... then again that would take guts which, along with brains, are sadly lacking in this man.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 09:43 AM

I found him in a hidey hole. bb won't be bobmbing anyone again.

So the NIE ganged up on poor ol George Jr. I remember when they got the exact reports that they ordered up like breakfast at the Silver Diner.

Not to worry Georgie, if you and your MIC friends ever need a war in Iran it won't matter what anyone says after one singular little tiny nuke goes off in the region. It won't even matter if its ours :) heh heh (of course it is) All you need to do is pay some experts to declare the uranium signiture is that of Iran and repeat it every ten minutes for 2 weeks on FOX.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,Winds Of War
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 09:52 AM

A new U.S. intelligence analysis claims that Iran halted its nuclear weapons research program in 2003. This is odd, since the report was created by an agency that answers to the president of the United States. But the people creating the Iran weapons section have a reputation for pro-Iran opinions. Moreover, the "halt" angle has very little to back it up.

This new analysis seems to be more for political than intelligence effect, as it throws cold water on U.S. politicians who are calling for an attack on Iran (which would mainly help the unpopular religious dictatorship there, as it would rally the people behind them).

However, the United Arab Emirates has demanded the return of three islands in the Persian Gulf, which Iran seized by force in 1971, and refuses to give back. The UAE will require help from the USA to back up their demands.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 10:08 AM

"Bush says that if Iran had a nuke that would be the beginning of WW III... Right???" Wrong Bobert - He most certainly did not.

If you wish to actually read the question that was asked and the complete answer that was given here it is:

Question put during a press conference dated 17th October 2007: But you definitively believe Iran wants to build a nuclear weapon?

THE PRESIDENT: I think so long -- until they suspend and/or make it clear that they -- that their statements aren't real, yeah, I believe they want to have the capacity, the knowledge, in order to make a nuclear weapon. And I know it's in the world's interest to prevent them from doing so. I believe that the Iranian -- if Iran had a nuclear weapon, it would be a dangerous threat to world peace.

But this -- we got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously. And we'll continue to work with all nations about the seriousness of this threat. Plus we'll continue working the financial measures that we're in the process of doing. In other words, I think -- the whole strategy is, is that at some point in time, leaders or responsible folks inside of Iran may get tired of isolation and say, this isn't worth it. And to me, it's worth the effort to keep the pressure on this government.

And secondly, it's important for the Iranian people to know we harbor no resentment to them. We're disappointed in the Iranian government's actions, as should they be. Inflation is way too high; isolation is causing economic pain. This is a country that has got a much better future, people have got a much better -- should have better hope inside Iran than this current government is providing them.

So it's -- look, it's a complex issue, no question about it. But my intent is to continue to rally the world to send a focused signal to the Iranian government that we will continue to work to isolate you, in the hopes that at some point in time, somebody else shows up and says it's not worth the isolation."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 10:42 AM

My original posting was intended to point out that logic is not a governing force in this Administration. What's being said is essentially: We must force Iran to stop doing something that we say they stopped doing four years ago, because they might start doing it again. (And, implicitly, we're willing to go to war with them to accomplish this.)
    What the Intelligence analysis suggests that since hostilities are not imminent, it may be possible to utilize more pacific means of diplomacy to make sure that what got stopped stays stopped.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 11:05 AM

It is not against any international law to refine Uranium for reactors.

Diane Reams had several NIE experts on her show today regarding this thread subject. I was happy to hear 2 points that I brought be discussed on the show.

At any rate none of us will have any influence on foreign policy or war plans except in a slow motion election manner.

Like 1914 a single bullet could become the excuse for the WWIII that Bush chuckled about when he chided "if anyone wants to avoid WWIII they ought to..."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Stu
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 11:17 AM

"So it's -- look, it's a complex issue, no question about it. But my intent is to continue to rally the world to send a focused signal to the Iranian government that we will continue to work to isolate you, in the hopes that at some point in time, somebody else shows up and says it's not worth the isolation."

That last paragraph gave me the best belly laugh I've had for ages. Are you posting this shite in defence of Bush?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Stu
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 11:31 AM

"We found the weapons of mass destruction." –President Bush, in an interview with Polish television, May 29, 2003

"Already, the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations." –President Bush, 2004 State of the Union Address

"I heard somebody say, 'Where's (Nelson) Mandela?' Well, Mandela's dead. Because Saddam killed all the Mandelas." -George W. Bush, on the former South African president, who is still very much alive, Washington, D.C., Sept. 20, 2007

"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more." - President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003).

The last one is nearly as funny as the quote Teribus posted.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 11:46 AM

Sorry, T, but as per usual, you are on the fictional side of the "facts"...

October 17th: " If Iran had a nuclear weapon, it would be a dangerous threat to world peace. We got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Isreal. So I told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be inter4ested in preventing them from having knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weaspon. And... take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously"... George Bush

Seems to me that I fairly well paraphrased what Bush said...

And keep in mind here, T-Bird, that this statement was also made after Bush had been informed that Iran had curtailed its nuclear program back in 2003...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Rapparee
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 12:30 PM

Sorry, the book I referred to is entitled "The Curve of Binding Energy."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 02:31 PM

Back to ignoring anything resembling facts, Bobert???

Sorry if pointing out that a statement is fact seems to upset you.



D.,

"It is not against any international law to refine Uranium for reactors."

No, but it is a violation of the NPT that Iran signed, according to the IAEA.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 02:53 PM

"We got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Isreal. "

And what part of this do you disagree with?

Please look at what you have put out, and try to see what Bush was saying:

"So I told people that

*** if ***
you're interested in avoiding World War III,

it seems like you

*** ought ***
to be interested in preventing them from having knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weaspon."

Plain and simple. How do you get *** your *** ( Emphasis, not yelling) interpretation out of what he said????


So, You, Bobert, are *** not *** ( please note emphasis, not yelling) interested in avoiding World War III??????????

How does this entitle you to call anyone a liar?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Rapparee
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 02:59 PM

If you have uranium and the proper equipment, you can seperate out U235 from U238. It's a relatively simple process, but I won't detail it here.

If you have U235 you can use that for a fission weapon, or you can further work on it to make Plutonium 239. Pu239 can also be used in fission weapons.

U235 and Pu239 can also be used in electricity-producing reactors.

Just as with sinning, it's often a matter of intent.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 03:00 PM

This is my post from the other thread:

********************************************************************
Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: beardedbruce - PM
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 04:47 PM

Bobert, Bobert, Bobert...

"So when Bush made a statement about Iran trying to get a nuclear weapon a couple months ago and how that would be the beginning of World War III he made the statement ***after*** being told by the intellegence folks that Iran had curtailed it's nuclear weapon's program in 2003..."

The report states that Iran curtailed it's nuclear weapons program in 2003.
The IAEA has stated that it CANNOT provide ANY evidence as to whether that program was dismantled, frozen, or even restarted.

I "curtailed" my employment in 2002. As of 2003, I WAS unemployed (PLEASE NOTE THE PAST TENSE). I have since been employed from 2004 to the present: BUT you would call me a liar if I said I was employed now, I have to presume.

I would prefer to have the IAEA decide that Iran HAS decided to comply with the NPT requirements that it violated, before stating that Iran does NOT have a nuclear program.

Right now, WE DO NOT KNOW.

Conditional statement:
IF Iran gets a nuclear device THEN it would be a BAD thing.

Since THAT is what Bush said, your point is... That it would NOT be a bad thing????????? "


Still waiting, Bobert. And making fun of anyone who points out that the limiting factor in making a nuclear device is ONLY the access to the fissionable material, and Iran has CONTUINUED (Note yelling)to make that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Barry Finn
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 03:08 PM

Are they (Iran) being accused of refining uranium for reactors or for to produce WMD? Really!!! It seems that the WMD issue is now been put to sleep, matter of "fact", "fact" is now that it's been put to bed yrs ago. Is Bush trying to wake a sleeping (rabid??) dog?? or just wag the fucking dog's tail??????? Please!!!!

It's past time that he move on & out! Like we don't have other issues to deal with. Like todays report that US kids are only rate around 30 on a list of 60 nations for math & for science we are so much worst. Like our national health care system sucks compared
to most of Europe, !/2 of North America, most of Downunder & Cuba & that's just a start. We also rate pretty low compared to many others on infant mortality. Educational system, I'm not going there! We're in debt so far that the Statue of Liberty's eye color just turned a shit brown & that's partly due to the loss of just-iced rights & freedoms. We're still trying to get it strait about how we can tear up the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, all the Amendments, the Geneva Conventions, International Law. I'd rather give Bill Clinton a blow job myself cause Mr. Bush keeps sticking everything else up my ass & it's begining to get tiresome! And the shit that he's shoving in my ears is almost as bad as the taste in my mouth for what he's been asking me top swallow since he's been in orf/face!


Barry


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 03:24 PM

"Are they (Iran) being accused of refining uranium for reactors or for to produce WMD? Really!!! It seems that the WMD issue is now been put to sleep, matter of "fact", "fact" is now that it's been put to bed yrs ago."

Barry. it does seem a pity that the IAEA keeps saying that Iran is NOT complying with the NPT, and is contiuing, accroding to the Iranian government, to make fuel, both in violation of the NPT and to a higher degree of refinement than required by peaceful purposes ( unless, like Bobert, you think that a peaceful use is making a bomb)

FACTY is, the IAEA keeps telling us that Iran is NOT complying: I guess Bush should just ignore that, and let 40 million- 1.7 billion die in a needless nuclear war in the near future?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 03:58 PM

R.,

"If you have U235 you can use that for a fission weapon, or you can further work on it to make Plutonium 239. Pu239 can also be used in fission weapons."

Actually, one can use U238 in a breeder reactor to make the Pu239- That being what N. Korea did, and that requires less industrial capability. THAT is the reason why the NPT *** requires *** inspections and oversight of the peaceful reactors: The "waste" fuel can be ( easily) processed to weapons-grade materials.




"A human-triggered fission weapon wouldn't have the yield of a well-engineered one or an implosion weapon, probably only about .8 KT and a LOT of fallout -- mind you, that's the equivalent of about 800 tons of TNT and a "dead zone" of radioactivity. "

I would estimate a yield of between 10 and 20 KT. But then, it is no problem getting shaped charges these days- just pretend you are an Iraqi insurgent and ask for them from Iran...

I always prefered remote triggers- but I guess it would save the cost of a cell phone to have a person trigger it directly. Got to watch those incidental costs...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 05:38 PM

could'nt have put it better myself Barry..

oh by the way - in the 70's the US helped Iran with Nuclear power..

Thirty years ago... when Kissinger was secretary of state for President Gerald Ford, he held that "introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran's economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals". Last year Dafna Linzer of the Washington Post asked Kissinger about his reversal of opinion. Kissinger responded with his usual engaging frankness: "They were an allied country."

and guess who held key positions in the administration at the time..
Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz.

Im no apologist for the Iranian ruling elite.. they are repressive
but in many ways Iran probably has more democratic elements and a real internal opposition than anywhere else in the middle east.

and why do they hate the US? well for a start the US overthrew a freely elected president in 1953 and propped up a tyrant in his place for 25 years..all in exchange for favorable oil deals -- the Iranians were after all getting uppity in seeking a fair royalty for their Oil.

lets hope Dick Cheney doesnt decide to bomb Iran after all.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 06:05 PM

bb,

I don't begin to understand your arguements here... They just don't make sense...

I never said that Bush knew back as far as 2003 that Iran had curtainled it's nuclear program... What I have said, which is also backed by yesterdays Washington Post story, is that Bush knew of this new intellegence report before he shot off his mouth about WW III and before he shot off his mouth saying that Iran is "pursuing"...

These are the facts of the case...

The man lied in saying that Iran "is pursuing" after being told they were not...

How complicated is this, bb???

A lie is a lie is a lie...

Explain again your reasoning why Bush's Oct. 23, 2007 "is pursuing" speech was not a lie...

And in terms that make sense, por favor...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 06:36 PM

Thanks to Q Khan, anyone can have and probably do have a low yield nuke. While Pu can reach a critical mass with much less weight U 238 will do so with less than X lbs. bearded bruce will know the exact number.

Who really believes that the nuclear genie can be put back in the bottle. Hell, even Alabama has the bomb.

The argument of containing any country that is seeking nukes is moot.
Pakistan has it. We DO seem to want to keep the oil bearing countries from having it hmmmm

After the nuke war in the middle east we will be driving with lead lined gas tanks and be told FOX news that the low radioactivity of our gasoline is of no conern or risk ;< )


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 06:41 PM

On the contrary Dick, logic, commonsense and a sense of realism are the governing forces in the current US Administration.

And what is being said is essentially: We must induce Iran (Nobody will ever force them) to renounce something that we strongly suspected them of working towards (All indications were there) and have just now evaluated that they may have halted this work four years ago, because due to their lack of transparency great confusion exists with regard to their nuclear programme on the whole. This is coupled with a great anxiety that Iran may yet resume this work.

The United States of America has not stated implicitly, or otherwise, that they would be willing to go to war to stop this programme. Iran, on the otherhand must be fully aware of the United States of America's bi-lateral defence treaty and sworn obligations to the State of Israel. Should Iran move to "wipe Israel from the map", or should they put weapons in the hands of others who would move to achieve the same end, I think that I would predict with some degree of certainty that a similar fate would befall Iran at the hands of the United States of America.
   
That is why the President has stated that the opportunity to rally the international community to pressure the Iranian regime to renounce its program must not be squandered and make sure that what got stopped stays stopped.

Oh Bobert before you keep clucking on about it, the President only was made aware of the NIE evaluation last week. As far as he knew in October the Iranian weapons programme was still underway and making way.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 06:47 PM

"oh by the way - in the 70's the US helped Iran with Nuclear power.."

Oh, by the way, IRAN was a signatory to the NPT, and had the RIGHT to assistance from nuclear powers UNDER THAT TREATY. It was not until recently that the IAEA declared that Iran was in violation of the monitoring aspects of that treaty.


Bobert, you are still saying that because I was unemployed in 2003 I MUST be unemployed now???


I will state that YOU havbe made statements that you cannot vereify as being true- ARE YOU A LIAR?

And yes, I mean to yell, when you do not seem capable of understanding plain english statements.

BUSH SAID "IF" you morom! Conditional, see?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 06:50 PM

morom- one letter short of moron


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 06:58 PM

Washington Post:

Intelligence on Iran
The new U.S. assessment has some good news -- but the reaction to it could be bad.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007; Page A28


THE NEW National Intelligence Estimate on Iran contains some unambiguously good news: that Tehran halted a covert nuclear weapons program in 2003, and that it is responsive to the sort of international pressure applied by the United States and other Western governments. Iran's "decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs," says the public summary released Monday. That sounds like an endorsement of the diplomatic strategy pursued by the Bush administration since 2005, which has been aimed at forcing Iran to choose between the nuclear program and normal economic and security relations with the outside world. It strengthens the view, which we have previously endorsed, that this administration should not have to resort to military action to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities.

But there is bad news, too, which seems likely to be overlooked by those who have been resisting sanctions and other pressure on the mullahs all along, such as Russia, China and some members of the European Union. While U.S. intelligence agencies have "high confidence" that covert work on a bomb was suspended "for at least several years" after 2003, there is only "moderate confidence" that Tehran has not restarted the military program. Iran's massive overt investment in uranium enrichment meanwhile proceeds in defiance of binding U.N. resolutions, even though Tehran has no legitimate use for enriched uranium. The U.S. estimate of when Iran might produce enough enriched uranium for a bomb -- sometime between late 2009 and the middle of the next decade -- hasn't changed.

"Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons," says the summary's second sentence. Yet within hours of the report's release, European diplomats and some U.S officials were saying that it could kill an arduous American effort to win support for a third U.N. Security Council resolution sanctioning Iran for failing to suspend uranium enrichment. It could also hinder separate U.S.-French efforts to create a new sanctions coalition outside the United Nations. In other words, the new report may have the effect of neutering the very strategy of pressure that it says might be effective if "intensified."

President Bush yesterday vowed to continue pushing for international sanctions. But Democrats and some Republicans are arguing that now is the time for the Bush administration to begin a broad dialogue with Iran -- and drop a precondition that the regime first suspend uranium enrichment. It's an odd time to recommend such a concession: The latest European Union talks with Iran last week were a disaster, in which a new hard-line envoy of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad withdrew the previous, inadequate Iranian compromise proposals. Were the Bush administration to abandon its insistence on a suspension of enrichment, Mr. Ahmadinejad would declare victory over the relative moderates in Iran who have recently criticized his uncompromising stance.

That's not to say the United States should never attempt to negotiate directly with Iran about its nuclear program. But before doing so, the administration should have some indication that the Iranian regime is prepared to comply with binding U.N. resolutions and seriously address other U.S. concerns. A report by U.S. intelligence agencies is an unsatisfying substitute for a signal that has yet to come from Tehran.

8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

Please note, Bobert: I posted the whole article.

"While U.S. intelligence agencies have "high confidence" that covert work on a bomb was suspended "for at least several years" after 2003, there is only "moderate confidence" that Tehran has not restarted the military program. Iran's massive overt investment in uranium enrichment meanwhile proceeds in defiance of binding U.N. resolutions, even though Tehran has no legitimate use for enriched uranium."

The information that Iraq had a WMD program was higher than "moderate confidence": Are you so sure you want to state that Bush is lying?????


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 07:04 PM

Another Post article I have no problem with...

Time to Talk to Iran

By Robert Kagan
Wednesday, December 5, 2007; Page A29

Regardless of what one thinks about the National Intelligence Estimate's conclusion that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003 -- and there is much to question in the report -- its practical effects are indisputable. The Bush administration cannot take military action against Iran during its remaining time in office, or credibly threaten to do so, unless it is in response to an extremely provocative Iranian action. A military strike against suspected Iranian nuclear facilities was always fraught with risk. For the Bush administration, that option is gone.

Neither, however, will the administration make further progress in winning international support for tighter sanctions on Iran. Fear of American military action was always the primary reason Europeans pressured Tehran. Fear of an imminent Iranian bomb was secondary. Bringing Europeans together in support of serious sanctions was difficult before the NIE. Now it is impossible.

With its policy tools broken, the Bush administration can sit around isolated for the next year. Or it can seize the initiative, and do the next administration a favor, by opening direct talks with Tehran.

Negotiating will appear at first to be a sign of weakness. The Iranians could use talks to exploit fissures between the United States and its allies, and within the U.S. political system.

But there is a good case for negotiations. Many around the world and in the United States have imagined that the obstacle to improved Iranian behavior has been America's unwillingness to talk. This is a myth, but it will hamper American efforts now and for years to come. Eventually, the United States will have to take the plunge, as it has with so many adversaries throughout its history.

This is as good a time as any. The United States is not in a position of weakness. The embarrassment of the NIE will be fleeting. Strategic realities are more durable. America remains powerful in the world and in the Middle East. The success of the surge policy in Iraq means that the United States may be establishing a sustainable position in the region -- a far cry from a year ago, when it seemed about to be driven out. If Iraq is on the road to recovery, this shifts the balance against Iran, which was already isolated.

There are other reasons to move now. Even if the NIE forecasts that Iran cannot build a nuclear bomb before 2010, the time is still finite. The next administration, especially if it is Democratic, will probably want to try to talk to Tehran. But it couldn't begin talks before the summer of 2009, at which point, if the NIE is right, Iran could be moving into the final stages of developing a bomb. Better to get negotiations started so that by the time the next administration settles in, it will be able to assess the progress, or lack thereof, after a year of talks. If it decides it must take strong action, it will have an easier time showing that all other options were exhausted.

Better, too, if talks are launched by this administration. Although trust between the parties has broken down, American policy toward Iran needs broad support in both parties. Bush could even name a hard-nosed Democrat to lead the talks.


Initiating the talks now would give the United States a better chance to frame the discussion, at home and abroad. Any negotiations should aim at getting the Iranians to finally answer all of the International Atomic Energy Agency's outstanding questions about the country's programs, agree to intrusive inspections and monitoring of its facilities, and address the U.N. Security Council's requirement that it suspend its enrichment of uranium.

The talks should go beyond the nuclear issue and include Iran's support for terrorism, its harboring of al-Qaeda leaders, its support for Hezbollah and Hamas, and its supplying of weapons to violent extremists in Iraq.

They should also address the Iranian government's violation of human rights and its tightening political repression. Some argue that you can't talk to a country while seeking political change within it. This is nonsense. The United States simultaneously contained the Soviet Union, negotiated with the Soviet Union and pressed for political change in the Soviet Union -- supporting dissidents, communicating directly to the Russian people through radio and other media, and holding the Soviet government to account under such international human rights agreements as the Helsinki Accords. There's no reason the United States cannot talk to Iran while beefing up containment in the region and pressing for change within Iran.

As for what's in it for Iran: If Tehran complies with its nuclear obligations; ceases its support for terrorist violence; and treats its people with justice, humanity and liberalism, it will be welcomed into the international community, with all the enormous economic, political and security benefits this brings. That offer has always been on the table, and the United States gives away nothing by making it explicit.

Beginning talks today does not limit American options in the future. If the Iranians stonewall or refuse to talk -- a distinct possibility -- they will establish a record of intransigence that can be used against them now and in the critical years to come. It's possible the American offer itself could open fissures in Iran. In any case, it is hard to see what other policy options are available. This is the hand that has been dealt. The Bush administration needs to be smart and creative enough to play it well.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 07:06 PM

The Right Nuclear Red Line

By Gareth Evans
Wednesday, December 5, 2007; Page A29

By deflating so much of the hyperbole around the issue, the National Intelligence Estimate offers an opportunity to end the international stalemate with Tehran. Having just returned from a series of meetings with high-level Iranian officials, including their top nuclear negotiator, I think the outlines of a deal are clear.

Led by the United States and the European Union, with Russia and China cautiously supportive, the international community has until now been fixated on preventing Iran from acquiring any capacity to enrich uranium and thus to make nuclear fuel for civilian or military purposes. Iran argues that such a red line has no basis in the Non-Proliferation Treaty and is unjustifiably discriminatory. Tehran continues to stare down the U.N. Security Council, shrugs off sanctions and refuses to negotiate any intrusive inspection regime that would enable it to be trusted when it denies having intentions to create nuclear weapons.

The international community is entitled to stay nervous, given Iran's long history of undeclared activity and the many disturbing and provocative statements of its president. But all the signs are -- and I heard nothing to the contrary in Tehran -- that Iran will simply not budge on its "right to enrich." That means an indefinite continuation of the standoff, with minimal Iranian cooperation on regional issues of immense concern -- including Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and the role of Hamas and Hezbollah -- and minimal confidence internationally in Iran's ultimate nuclear intentions.

The new intelligence assessment gives us the chance to break out of this impasse. What the international community really wants is for Iran to never produce nuclear weapons. The red line that matters is the one at the heart of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, between civilian and military capability. If Iran's neighbors, including Israel, and the wider world could be confident that that line would hold, it would not matter whether Iran was capable of producing its own nuclear fuel.

That line will hold if we can get Iran to accept a highly intrusive monitoring, verification and inspection regime that goes well beyond basic Non-Proliferation Treaty safeguards, which already apply, and includes both the optional additional inspection measures available under that treaty as well as tough further measures. Iran would also need to build confidence by agreeing to stretch out over time the development of its enrichment capability and to have any industrial-scale activity conducted not by Iran alone but by an international consortium.


Although Iran will hold out for as much as it can get and for as long as it can, it is capable of being persuaded. This will require a mixture of incentives (including the lifting of sanctions and the normalization of relations with the United States) and disincentives (the threat of further sanctions and worse, if it crosses the military-program red line). But negotiations won't go anywhere if the United States and European Union continue to insist on zero enrichment.

In Iran two weeks ago, I heard nothing from anyone, in or out of government, to suggest that any member of the current power elite thought the benefits of a nuclear weapons program -- including for deterrence or asserting regional authority -- could possibly outweigh the costs. There was an acute awareness of the military, economic and further reputational risks that the country would run if it moved even a toe in that direction.

Iran's economic arguments for domestically producing, rather than buying, fuel for a civilian nuclear program have never been very persuasive, and they sounded no better on this occasion. But the psychological arguments I heard were a different story: This is a country seething with both national pride and resentment against past humiliations, and it wants to cut a regional and global figure by proving its sophisticated technological capability. One only wishes that something less sensitive than the nuclear fuel cycle had been chosen to make that point.

Unconditional negotiations aimed at achieving "delayed limited enrichment with maximum safeguards" rather than the failed policy of "zero enrichment" can produce a win-win outcome. Such negotiations won't be easy to start or conclude, given the parties' long-held public positions. But if the objective is to ensure that Iran won't backslide and be newly tempted to go down the nuclear weapons road, this is the only way to go.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 07:08 PM

The Myth of the Mad Mullahs

By David Ignatius
Wednesday, December 5, 2007; Page A29

In the entryway of "Persia House," as the CIA's new Iran operations division is known internally, hangs a haunting life-size poster of Hussein, the martyr revered by Iran's Shiite Muslims. The division was created last year to push more aggressively for information about Iran's nuclear program and other secrets.

Creating Persia House and spinning off Iran from its old home in the agency's Near East division were part of a broader effort to "plus up" collection of secret information, in the words of one senior official. The CIA made it easy for disgruntled Iranians to send information directly to the agency in cases known as "virtual walk-ins." The National Security Agency and other intelligence organizations made similar drives to steal more of Iran's secrets.

Meanwhile, the intelligence analysts responsible for Iran were given new encouragement to think outside the box. To break the lock-step culture that allowed the disastrous mistake on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, Deputy Director of National Intelligence Thomas Fingar ordered that analysts be given more information about sources and, rather than trying to fit information into preexisting boxes to prove a case, they should simply explain what it meant.

All these strands converged in the bombshell National Intelligence Estimate on Iran that was released Monday. That document was as close to a U-turn as one sees in the intelligence world. The community dropped its 2005 judgment that Iran was "determined to develop nuclear weapons" and instead said, "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program" because of international pressure.

The secret intelligence that produced this reversal came from multiple channels -- human sources as well as intercepted communications -- that arrived in June and July. At that time, a quite different draft of the Iran NIE was nearly finished. But the "volume and character" of the new information was so striking, says a senior official, that "we decided we've got to go back." It was this combination of data from different sources that gave the analysts "high confidence" the covert weapons program had been stopped in 2003. This led them to reject an alternative scenario (one of six) pitched by a "red team" of counterintelligence specialists that the new information was a deliberate Iranian deception.


A senior official describes the summer's windfall as "a variety of reporting that unlocked stuff we had, which we didn't understand fully before." That earlier information included technical drawings from an Iranian laptop computer purloined in 2004 that showed Iranian scientists had been designing an efficient nuclear bomb that could be delivered by a missile. Though some U.S. analysts had doubted the validity of the laptop evidence, they now believe it was part of the covert "weaponization" program that was shelved in the fall of 2003.

The most important finding of the NIE isn't the details about the scope of nuclear research; there remains some disagreement about that. Rather, it's the insight into the greatest mystery of all about the Islamic republic, which is the degree of rationality and predictability of its decisions.

For the past several years, U.S. intelligence analysts have doubted hawkish U.S. and Israeli rhetoric that Iran is dominated by "mad mullahs" -- clerics whose fanatical religious views might lead to irrational decisions. In the new NIE, the analysts forcefully posit an alternative view of an Iran that is rational, susceptible to diplomatic pressure and, in that sense, can be "deterred."

"Tehran's decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs," states the NIE. Asked if this meant the Iranian regime would be "deterrable" if it did obtain a weapon, a senior official responded, "That is the implication." He added: "Diplomacy works. That's the message."

While the intelligence community regards Iran as a rational actor, the workings of the regime remain opaque -- a "black box," in the words of one senior official. "You see the outcome [in the fall 2003 decision to halt the covert program] but not the decision-making process." This official said it was "logical, but we don't have the evidence" that Iran felt less need for nuclear weapons after the United States toppled its mortal enemy, Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, in April 2003.

The debate about what the NIE should mean for U.S. policy toward Iran is just beginning. But for the intelligence community, this rebuttal of conventional wisdom will restore some integrity after the Iraq WMD debacle. In challenging the previous certitudes about Iran and the Bomb, the NIE recalls the admonition many decades ago by the godfather of CIA analysts, Sherman Kent: "When the evidence seems to force a single and immediate conclusion, then that is the time to worry about one's bigotry, and to do a little conscientious introspection."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 07:18 PM

"We got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Isreal. "

And what part of this do you disagree with?


All of it. "We" haven't "got a leader" - "they" have. A bit of a buffoon, but it's the one they chose. (Now who does that remind me of?) And more significantly he has never said he "wants to destroy Isreal."   What he has said is that he looks forward to a time when the existing state of Israel will no longer exist. Which in the jargon of the day is called "regime change". Comparable to looking forward to a day when the Islamic Republic of Iran will no longer exist.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 08:24 PM

BB and his bud, t,

You all would be better served by actually reading the newspapers...

Acoording to the Washington Post article, "A Blow to Bush's Tehran Policy", December 4, 2007 Bush had been alerted to the what was going to be in this NIE before he shot off his mouth:

"President Bush got the world's attention this fall when he warned that a nuclear-armed Iran might lead to World War III. But his stark warning came at least a month or two *******after****** he had been told about frssh indidctaions that Iran had actaully halted it's nuclear weapons program."


If you all want to argue facts then take it up with the Washington Post news department or the authors of this story, Peter Baker and Robin Wright... Yeah, call them up and tell them that you have inside information that Bush didn't know jack about jack about Iran having curtailed it's nuclear program in 2003...

And as fir your arguement, bb, about how long you have been unempolyed??? After hearing you expalin it again I believe there is a good reason you are unemployed... You are dillusional!!! (lol)...

I mean, you two are something... If Bush stated that the world was flat you two would come up with reems and reems of falt eart arguments without ever giving thought to the fact that you were wrong...

You are both Eric Hoffer "True Believers"...

Lastly, the mind is like a parachute... It won't work if it isn't open...

Get lives, both of you...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 08:49 PM

Now that's callin' a spade a spade.....Well said Mr McGrath

BTW Joe, When you gonna stop the intellectually challenged from posting reams of cut and paste that nobody can be arsed to read?
Isn't there one original thought left to think?

Gillian Welch, One Little Song



There's gotta be a song let to sing
Cause everybody can't of thought of everything
One little song that ain't been sung
One little rag that ain't been wrung out completely yet
Gotta a little left

One little drop of fallin rain
One little chance to try again
One little bird that makes it every now and then
One little piece of endless sky
One little taste of cherry pie
One little week in paradise and I start thinkin'

There's gotta be a song left to sing
Cause everybody can't of thought of everything
One little note that ain't been used
One little word ain't been abused a thousand times
In a thousand rhythms

One little drop of fallin rain
One little chance to try again
One little bird that makes it every now and then
One little piece of endless sky
One little taste of cherry pie
One little week in paradise and I start thinkin'

Gotta be a song left to sign
Cause everybody can't of thought of everything
One little song that ain't been sung
One little rag that ain't been wrung out completely yet
Till there's nothing left


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,Cruiser
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 08:55 PM

"On the contrary Dick, logic, commonsense and a sense of realism are the governing forces in the current US Administration."

What an outrageous statement....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Arne
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 09:09 PM

IC that Teribus and BeardedBruce haven't given up the ghost, even in the face of this last preposterous lie and misbehaviour by the maladministration (just check out my most recent blog entries for the skinny..."

Lemmings off a cliff, I'm sure.

Cheers,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 09:22 PM

What ake said, Joe...

'Nuff is a'nuff of the long right winged Bushite cut 'n pastes... Is there any way on earth to enforce the one screen lenght post???

And, for the record, you cut 'n posters ain't providing any rebuttals becasue no one will read thru this crap... How about reading it yourselves, which I doubt seriously if you do, then paraphrase your arguments...

Long cut 'n pastes are just hurtin' whatever positions you might be trying to forward...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 11:18 PM

I really like one thing about BB's long "cut and pastes". They contain none of his characteristic and insufferable SHOUTING.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 11:41 PM

"That's not to say the United States should never attempt to negotiate directly with Iran about its nuclear program. But before doing so, the administration should have some indication that the Iranian regime is prepared to comply with binding U.N. resolutions and seriously address other U.S. concerns. A report by U.S. intelligence agencies is an unsatisfying substitute for a signal that has yet to come from Tehran."

Huh? I guess that means that the US shouldn't listen to its own intelligence reports--or that the US should continue ignoring these reports. See how well that has worked in Iraq!

What's wrong with negotiating directly with Iran? The US is clearly not the enforcement arm of the UN, and it seems to me that negotiation is a reasnable way of "addressung other US concerns."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Dec 07 - 12:07 AM

"Yeah, call them up and tell them that you have inside information that Bush didn't know jack about jack about Iran having curtailed it's nuclear program in 2003..."

Not what ** I ** said. Try reading my posts.



"And as fir your arguement, bb, about how long you have been unempolyed??? After hearing you expalin it again I believe there is a good reason you are unemployed... You are dillusional!!! (lol)..."

Not quite. YOU claim that since I was unemployed back in 2003 and 4, I MUST be unemployed NOW, just like Iran MUST not have a nuclear weapons program since they paused it in 2003. Thus , YOU are a liar, since I am employed now.

Of course, if you want to interpret Bush's conditional comment ( which I note you do not refute) as a lie, I am free to interpret your claim that since you don't know something, what you wish to believe must be true as a lie as well. I certainly do not require any evidence, since you are so happy to make statements without any.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 06 Dec 07 - 12:08 AM

So, bb and teribus think that Iran should not be allowed to have nuclear energy for domestic purposes because they might, or they could have or perhaps...

In the meantime they think its perfectly O.K. that:

"In the last four years, the U.S. withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, kept the Senate from ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, refused to commit itself to halting future tests, and began work on two new nuclear weapons. The U.S. now spends nearly $7 billion a year for nuclear research and upgrading US nuclear capabilities, and the spending curve keeps rising."

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0105-24.htm

Such logic! Such reason! Such fear.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Dec 07 - 12:11 AM

dianavan, please learn to read:

"So, bb ...think that Iran should not be allowed to have nuclear energy for domestic purposes because they might, or they could have or perhaps..."

I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT. I HAVE stated that Iran should comply with the IAEA, a part of the UN that deals with the NPT that Iran signed.

I have said thay should nnot be allowed to violate the NPT and produce, unregulated, weapons-grade fissionable materials.


Sorry I can't explain it to you in simpler terms.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Dec 07 - 03:24 AM

Likewise Dianavan, when have I ever said that, "Iran should not be allowed to have nuclear energy for domestic purposes because they might, or they could have or perhaps..".

In fact Dianavan if you look back you will see that I have previously stated that Iran is perfectly entitled to run a nuclear programme directed towards the acquisition of nuclear power for power generation provided that they comply with the terms and conditions of the NPT that they signed in 1968.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Stu
Date: 06 Dec 07 - 05:01 AM

BB's endless and illiterate reiteration that Iran should not be allowed to violate the NPT reeks of the sort of hypocrisy we've come to accept from neo-con apologists and reflects the increasingly desperate stomping of feet and banging of fists on tables we've all come to expect from a right-wing utterly devoid of any moral integrity, who can only make noise to try to deflect the increasing volley of criticisms aimed at them.

Coming from the only country ever to have used nuclear WMDs against targets knowing it would inflict massive civilian casualties, who encourages WMD proliferation in its own interest and is creating new long-range missile systems and who have violated the NPT themselves with their dubious policy of 'nuclear sharing' - in violation of Articles I and II of the NPT - both the US and NATO have ignored this, and the US has nuclear WMDs sited in five European countries. Details available http://www.acronym.org.uk/uk/nato.htm.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Dec 07 - 05:15 AM

Stigweard:

"I heard somebody say, 'Where's (Nelson) Mandela?' Well, Mandela's dead. Because Saddam killed all the Mandelas." -George W. Bush, on the former South African president, who is still very much alive, Washington, D.C., Sept. 20, 2007"

Now I take it that the "(Nelson)" is yours plus the "on the former South African president, who is still very much alive" is also your input

OK, for anybody who is actually interested in the truth of the matter. Stigweard is perfectly correct in as much that George W. Bush did say the following during a press conference on 20th September, 2007, here's how Associated Press covered it:

***On Iraq, Bush said there was progress in local communities but that people are dissatisfied with the central government.

"Part of the reason why there's not this instant democracy in Iraq is because people are still recovering from Saddam Hussein's brutal rule. Sort of an interesting comment, I heard somebody say, `Where's Mandela?' Well, Mandela's dead because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas."

It was a reference to the charismatic former leader of South Africa who helped reconcile his country after decades of racial division. Mandela is still alive.*** - as reported by Associated Press.

So Stigweard it wasn't "on the former South African president" at all was it? Which sort of begs the question why you would deliberately go out of your way to misinform people on this forum? Are you normally in the habit of telling lies? Is this the sort of behaviour that you deem acceptable?

I certainly do not. If you are going to quote something, quote it accurately and put that quote in the context it was set. You should not under any circumstances do as you have done cherry-pick a quote and then invent the context it was supposedly given in.

"I heard somebody say, `Where's Mandela?'" - Meaning in the context of what was being talked about, where was the 'Nelson Mandela' figurehead, or leader, in Iraq that could draw the different factions together politically in a similar environment of reconstruction, co-operation and reconciliation that the real Nelson Mandela achieved in South Africa at the end of the Apartheid era.

President Bush's response, "Well, Mandela's dead because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas.", was perfectly correct in relation to any potential Iraqi 'Nelson Mandela' figure. Saddam Hussein for 24 years had brooked no opposition whatsoever and had ruthlessly slaughtered anyone who dared to challenge him. Had Nelson Mandela been unfortunate enough to have been an Iraqi who opposed Saddam during that period the world would never have heard of him, he would have been arrested, tortured and executed immediately, along with most of his friends and family.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Dec 07 - 05:17 AM

Last post was mine, cookie went astray.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Dec 07 - 05:32 AM

What a delightfully lopsided link Stigweard.

Usual left-wing rant against the US and NATO.

No mention of the country holding the greatest stockpile of operational Nuclear and Chemical/Biological Weapons in the world - Any reason for that Stig?

No mention of Russian development of new offensive missile systems - Any reason for that Stig?

Doesn't mention UK declared policy of further reducing its stockpile of weapons by 33% - Why not Stig? The UK is a member of NATO isn't it?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Stu
Date: 06 Dec 07 - 05:34 AM

"I certainly do not. If you are going to quote something, quote it accurately and put that quote in the context it was set. You should not under any circumstances do as you have done cherry-pick a quote and then invent the context it was supposedly given in."

Actually I cut and pasted the quote from another site, none of the input was mine. Bang to rights on that one!

"Which sort of begs the question why you would deliberately go out of your way to misinform people on this forum? Are you normally in the habit of telling lies? Is this the sort of behaviour that you deem acceptable?"

Careful son - you know full well that's not my style and I resent the accusation.

"President Bush's response, "Well, Mandela's dead because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas.", was perfectly correct in relation to any potential Iraqi 'Nelson Mandela' figure."

Even with your explanation it's still a ridiculous quote and all you've done is highlight Bush's own inability to articulate himself effectively.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Dec 07 - 06:22 AM

"Actually I cut and pasted the quote from another site, none of the input was mine. Bang to rights on that one!"

Well not really, "Bang to rights" on anything Stig, what I wrote was - "Now I take it that the "(Nelson)" is yours plus the "on the former South African president, who is still very much alive" is also your input" My assumption being made as neither the name in parenthesis or the note with regard to subject appeared in any quotation I read with regard to the content of the Press conference as reported.

Even so, it does not alter the fact that your 'cut 'n' paste', irrespective of source, was inaccurate and misleading - at worst a blatant lie, at best a deliberate misrepresentation.

Now having read, I take it that you have read the Associated Press transcript of the Press Conference, you will have the honesty to admit that the President was not talking about Nelson Mandela erstwhile President of South Africa at all, and that the context is as Associated Press have described it. Remembering that of course you did state rather emphatically - "Careful son - you know full well that's not my style and I resent the accusation."

We can pass on to "cherry-picking" - He is an example of yours:

"President Bush's response, "Well, Mandela's dead because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas.", was perfectly correct in relation to any potential Iraqi 'Nelson Mandela' figure."

Now what is that like when quoted in full and in context:

"I heard somebody say, `Where's Mandela?'" - Meaning in the context of what was being talked about, where was the 'Nelson Mandela' figurehead, or leader, in Iraq that could draw the different factions together politically in a similar environment of reconstruction, co-operation and reconciliation that the real Nelson Mandela achieved in South Africa at the end of the Apartheid era.

President Bush's response, "Well, Mandela's dead because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas.", was perfectly correct in relation to any potential Iraqi 'Nelson Mandela' figure. Saddam Hussein for 24 years had brooked no opposition whatsoever and had ruthlessly slaughtered anyone who dared to challenge him. Had Nelson Mandela been unfortunate enough to have been an Iraqi who opposed Saddam during that period the world would never have heard of him, he would have been arrested, tortured and executed immediately, along with most of his friends and family."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Stu
Date: 06 Dec 07 - 11:23 AM

"at worst a blatant lie, at best a deliberate misrepresentation."

Wrong - I was just poking fun at the post you made before - just the rough and tumble of debate, not a lie, not a deliberate attempt to mislead anyone. Perhaps I should have checked my sources, but then I the intention was only to illustrate the shite your mate speaks. Given your lengthy explanations for this quote, perhaps I was right. The gentleman doth protest too much.

You may think I'm a tit, a tosser, deluded, a hypocrite or a left-wing marxist wanker - all fair in the cut and thrust of a vigorous discussion but one thing I am not, is a liar.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Dec 07 - 12:26 PM

Fair enough for me, Stig.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Amos
Date: 06 Dec 07 - 12:28 PM

Bush's remark was typically inept and obtuse; but if he was making the point T says he was making, it is a fair point -- that the spirit of independence had been heavily suppressed in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, and the culture was not likely to be generating heroic leaders.

It takes an elephantiastic sort of brazen effrontery to assert that he was right because the program was discontinued 4 years ago, because that proves it once existed, and therefgore the risk is just as vivid and scary as he said it was.

Nevertheless, I would really like to know what is going on in the collective mind of the Persian mullahs and technological leadership. I do not trust Bush or his company to speak the truth or even find it; but I do not much more trust Ahmadinjabad or whatever the correct spelling is. Oddly, though, I have never met an individual Iranian who was not thoughtful, polite, and hard-working.

I am mindful, looking over the devestation of Iraq, of where it was that the game of chess was first developed into its modern form. (It was arguably born in India or perhaps Afghanistan; but it is from Persia that it went forth into the Arabic and Western worlds.)

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Barry Finn
Date: 06 Dec 07 - 12:53 PM

"Bush's remark was typically inept and obtuse"

Problem with Bush is that he can't clearly speak a sentence that communicates a solid idea. Is he actually saying what we think he's saying or does he mean something else? It's anyone's guess, even those that know him.
What I hear him saying is that he's gunning for Iran & using this "un-new-clear" cloud of mis/info to push his aggenda as he's done in the past. And why not, it's worked well for him then, why stop now!

Why would he know anything about where Nelson Mandela is? He's not sure where Africa is & people got upset when Mandela called him an "idiot"! If he only had an ounce of the courrage, brains & heart of Mandela we would no longer be in Oz, we'd be home in Kansas.

Barry


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Dec 07 - 02:02 PM

Amos,

"It takes an elephantiastic sort of brazen effrontery to assert that he was right because the program was discontinued 4 years ago, because that proves it once existed, and therefgore the risk is just as vivid and scary as he said it was"

And who besides those OPPOSED to Bush are stating that Bush was right BECAUSE the program was discontinued?

Bush stated a conditional- IF Iran had a nuclear device THAT would be a scary thing. Will you state that it would not be scary??????

Any claim that this is an example of Bush lying is both false to the facts, and a deliberate attempt to tell a falese statement- and THAT qualifies as a lie to me.

The report does not give anyone with any ability to read what was stated by the IAEA any confidence that the Iranians are NOT presently, or will not in the near future ( when they havbe sufficient fissionable materials) restarting that WMD program.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Dec 07 - 02:04 PM

sic "If Iran comes clean we might meet them at the bargaining table."
gwb

(admit you are a criminal and we might do business)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Dec 07 - 02:09 PM

More like "Tell the IAEA all the information you promised under the NPT to make available, and then we can talk."


But you seem to want to make your own words up about what is said, rather than try to understand what actually is stated.

Go ahead, feel free. Just don't expect to be taken seriously when you DO have something valid to say.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Dec 07 - 02:17 PM

"Coming from the only country ever to have used nuclear WMDs against targets knowing it would inflict massive civilian casualties,"

Of course, you seem to overlook it was the DEMOCRATS who developed and used those weapons. Maybe we should only let the parties who did not use them into office?

As for the civilian casualties, that is another debate- but the estimated dead from an invasion of Japan were an order of magnitude or two higher. I guess that would have been ok: it was mostly Japanese civilians who would have been killed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Dec 07 - 03:05 PM

Its OK Bruce, relax.Take a breath in the midst of this harried holiday season. Look at the big picture.
Remember you are in a glamorous profession to some and your political attitudes mean very little.

If Iran attacks you I will do whatever I can to help you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Dec 07 - 03:09 PM

Sorry. Both Montgomery County MD and Dulles, VA will be in the fallout zone. Well outside the firestorm, though- so our fire departments can still be of use.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Dec 07 - 03:19 PM

I can still google and pull up the genome and viral blueprint for the 1918 flu that killed 40 million. Ain't science grand.

A weapon of that sort is more insidious in the contagious fear it can produce when compared to incineration.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Dec 07 - 04:19 PM

Washington Post:

The Flaws In the Iran Report

By John R. Bolton
Thursday, December 6, 2007; Page A29

Rarely has a document from the supposedly hidden world of intelligence had such an impact as the National Intelligence Estimate released this week. Rarely has an administration been so unprepared for such an event. And rarely have vehement critics of the "intelligence community" on issues such as Iraq's weapons of mass destruction reversed themselves so quickly.

All this shows that we not only have a problem interpreting what the mullahs in Tehran are up to, but also a more fundamental problem: Too much of the intelligence community is engaging in policy formulation rather than "intelligence" analysis, and too many in Congress and the media are happy about it. President Bush may not be able to repair his Iran policy (which was not rigorous enough to begin with) in his last year, but he would leave a lasting legacy by returning the intelligence world to its proper function.

Consider these flaws in the NIE's "key judgments," which were made public even though approximately 140 pages of analysis, and reams of underlying intelligence, remain classified.

First, the headline finding -- that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 -- is written in a way that guarantees the totality of the conclusions will be misread. In fact, there is little substantive difference between the conclusions of the 2005 NIE on Iran's nuclear capabilities and the 2007 NIE. Moreover, the distinction between "military" and "civilian" programs is highly artificial, since the enrichment of uranium, which all agree Iran is continuing, is critical to civilian and military uses. Indeed, it has always been Iran's "civilian" program that posed the main risk of a nuclear "breakout."

The real differences between the NIEs are not in the hard data but in the psychological assessment of the mullahs' motives and objectives. The current NIE freely admits to having only moderate confidence that the suspension continues and says that there are significant gaps in our intelligence and that our analysts dissent from their initial judgment on suspension. This alone should give us considerable pause.

Second, the NIE is internally contradictory and insufficiently supported. It implies that Iran is susceptible to diplomatic persuasion and pressure, yet the only event in 2003 that might have affected Iran was our invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, not exactly a diplomatic pas de deux. As undersecretary of state for arms control in 2003, I know we were nowhere near exerting any significant diplomatic pressure on Iran. Nowhere does the NIE explain its logic on this critical point. Moreover, the risks and returns of pursuing a diplomatic strategy are policy calculations, not intelligence judgments. The very public rollout in the NIE of a diplomatic strategy exposes the biases at work behind the Potemkin village of "intelligence."


Third, the risks of disinformation by Iran are real. We have lost many fruitful sources inside Iraq in recent years because of increased security and intelligence tradecraft by Iran. The sudden appearance of new sources should be taken with more than a little skepticism. In a background briefing, intelligence officials said they had concluded it was "possible" but not "likely" that the new information they were relying on was deception. These are hardly hard scientific conclusions. One contrary opinion came from -- of all places -- an unnamed International Atomic Energy Agency official, quoted in the New York Times, saying that "we are more skeptical. We don't buy the American analysis 100 percent. We are not that generous with Iran." When the IAEA is tougher than our analysts, you can bet the farm that someone is pursuing a policy agenda.

Fourth, the NIE suffers from a common problem in government: the overvaluation of the most recent piece of data. In the bureaucracy, where access to information is a source of rank and prestige, ramming home policy changes with the latest hot tidbit is commonplace, and very deleterious. It is a rare piece of intelligence that is so important it can conclusively or even significantly alter the body of already known information. Yet the bias toward the new appears to have exerted a disproportionate effect on intelligence analysis.

Fifth, many involved in drafting and approving the NIE were not intelligence professionals but refugees from the State Department, brought into the new central bureaucracy of the director of national intelligence. These officials had relatively benign views of Iran's nuclear intentions five and six years ago; now they are writing those views as if they were received wisdom from on high. In fact, these are precisely the policy biases they had before, recycled as "intelligence judgments."

That such a flawed product could emerge after a drawn-out bureaucratic struggle is extremely troubling. While the president and others argue that we need to maintain pressure on Iran, this "intelligence" torpedo has all but sunk those efforts, inadequate as they were. Ironically, the NIE opens the way for Iran to achieve its military nuclear ambitions in an essentially unmolested fashion, to the detriment of us all.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Dec 07 - 06:33 PM

Well, first of all three comments to bb:

1. You obviuosly didn't read the "(lol)" at the end of my comments about your being unemployed or you would have understood that the intent of that oportion of the post was somewhat teasing. But you missed the intent so...

2. You called me a "liar" yet again... Next time you call me a "liar" will get you a big ugly stick up against your head... Don't know when or where but you can take it to the bank and...

3. You back to SCREAMIN' again... Have you no idea of how that weakens your positions... People are getting purdy sick and tired of being SCREAMED at... No one but you does it... You need some serious anger management...

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

Seems to me that Bush is no longer capable of accepting reality... He keeps inventing scenerios where he is called upon to do his best Joh Wayne immitation... Problem with Iran is that there's no fight there... There is, however, a window of opportunity for the US to use diplomacy but...

... Bush is not capable of pursuing a sane foriegn policy so we and the rest of the world are just going to have to endure Bush for another 13 months and hope like heck if he does order an attack on Iran that the Jopints Chiefs will refuse and arrest the nutball...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Dec 07 - 07:49 PM

This sums it up perfectly:

"If Iran attacks you I will do whatever I can to help you."

Very obvious comment, taken to its fullest - "Too fuckin' late by then Donuel ould son!!!" And that is exactly what your President is actually protecting you from - that is his primary concern and his job, irrespective of who holds the post. Great pity some of you tossers don't appreciate it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Dec 07 - 08:14 PM

Oh, T, You are so full of dung... I mean lets get real... Busgh aain't protectin' us from anything... He has screwed up everything he has touched... How many countries does he have to invade and occupy to make you happy??? 20??? 50??? 200???

I mean, let's get real here... All he is foing is bankrupting our country, turnin' its middle class into some kind 3 World population that works it brains out paying for and makin' all of the human sacrifices for what??? So Bush can pump out his chest and say that there ahasn't been a majot attack on the US since 9/11??? Big friggin' accomplishment considering that 9/11 woke everyone up to the reality that a Middle Eastern guy who wants to learn how to fly a 737 but has no interest in knowing how to lane on or take one off might be, ahhhhh, bad news...

No, Bush doesn't get any credit here, pal... Bill Clinton would have wondered why these folks had no interest in learning how to land or take the danged thing off but Bush thought that it weas his job to do the opposite of whatever Clinton did... Thus: 9/11..

9/11 wouldn't happened under Clinton... It wouldn't have happened under Al Bore... It happened under Bush because Bush, as he had done all his life, wasn't concerned... He was too buzy at the pretzel bowl... Too busy acting as if he was imporatant... Too busy acting as if he was some kind Ninga Turtle when in reality he was a failure who got propelled by his daddy and his daddy's friends..

This is the real story...

He has cretaed more terrorism... Not less...

He is Osama's dream recruiter...

He is a total screw up...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Dec 07 - 08:41 PM

"2. You called me a "liar" yet again... Next time you call me a "liar" will get you a big ugly stick up against your head... Don't know when or where but you can take it to the bank and..."

So, you can make false claims about other people, and insist on NOT being called a liar, but you call Bush one even when I have demonstrated that in this case he did not lie any more than you did?


SOunds like you think you have some special dispensation to make false statements and not be held accountable. Welcome to the Dark side!


"will get you a big ugly stick up against your head... Don't know when or where but you can take it to the bank and..."

You need some serious anger management... I point out that IF Bush was lying, so are you- so all you need do is acknowledge that your claims that Bush lied are false, and there will be no problem. If you insist he did lie, than I have no choice but to consider that you have lied as well.
Conditionals, remember? IF... THEN...

Bush has no problems with them- are you not a bright as he is?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Dec 07 - 09:04 PM

Oh, make no bones about it, bb, Bush has lied here... The evidence is in and the intellegence community ain't gonna get bullied on this one...

As for you calling me a liar? I mean it... You call me a "liar" again and I'm gonna give you a karote lesson that will stick with you for some time... I don't go calln' you a liar and I won't take you callin' me one either... And I mean it... Stop it... Period!!!

I'm serious here, pal... You have used up all the "liars" on your punch card... Find some other ways of attacking folks arguemnts short of calling folks who you disaghree with as liars...

I am very serious here... This is your last warning...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Peace
Date: 06 Dec 07 - 09:08 PM

NPR.org, December 4, 2007 · The controversy over Iran's nuclear program is complicated by the country's decision to resume efforts to enrich uranium — defying the United Nations despite saying it had stopped researching nuclear weapons.

Iranian officials said they wanted the enriched radioactive material as fuel for peaceful nuclear reactors. When President Bush and other administration officials accused Iran of seeking to develop a nuclear bomb, they often referred to Iran's uranium-enrichment program as proof.

Here's a timeline highlighting what was said and known about the program since early 2003:

February 2003: Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency, find evidence that Iran has secretly begun enriching uranium.

May 2003: Iranian President Mohammed Khatami offers to talk to the United States about the countries' differences. But the Bush administration rejects the offer. In part because of this refusal, the Europeans act on their own to negotiate with the Iranians while trying to persuade the Bush administration to join the negotiation process.

October 2003: The EU 3 — France, Britain and Germany — reach an initial understanding with Iran to suspend nuclear enrichment. The Bush administration refuses to support this, insisting suspension of nuclear enrichment is not enough. The Bush administration insists that before it will enter into any negotiations with the Iranians, Iran must commit to abandoning enrichment altogether.

November 2003: The IAEA announces that Iran has been violating its safeguards agreement under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It accuses Tehran of failing to report that it was handling nuclear material and building facilities to process it. It says Iranian officials hid key parts of their nuclear program for nearly 20 years. The latest National Intelligence Estimate now says it believes "with high confidence" that the fall of 2003 was about the time Iran shut down a secret nuclear weapons program.

December 2003: After talks with the European Union, Tehran agrees to allow IAEA inspectors to expand their operations in Iran, by questioning its scientists and officials, reviewing documents and conducting further examinations of some of its nuclear research and development facilities.

November 2004: Iran promises negotiators from the EU that it will suspend all its activities for processing nuclear fuel. Although Iran continues to deny that its activities have any military purpose, President Bush calls it a "nuclear weapons program" and chides Iran's leaders for suspending it, rather than ending it entirely. "Our position is that they ought to terminate their nuclear weapons program," Bush says.

February 2005: President Bush accuses Iran of being "the world's primary state sponsor of terror, pursuing nuclear weapons, while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve."

June 2005: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says the United States will not support a third term for Mohammed ElBaradei as head of the IAEA unless he takes a harder line against Iran's nuclear program.

April 2006: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says Iranian scientists have successfully enriched uranium to the 3.5 percent level, pure enough to run a nuclear reactor. He says, "I am officially announcing that Iran has joined the group of those countries which have nuclear technology." Uranium for a nuclear bomb would require around 90 percent enrichment.

July 2006: The United Nations Security Council passes a resolution demanding that Iran suspend its nuclear enrichment activities or face international sanctions.

December 2006: The U.N. Security Council unanimously imposes sanctions on Iran for failure to halt its uranium enrichment program. It bans U.N. member states from providing Iran with equipment or technology that could be used in its nuclear program.

January 2007: IAEA head Mohammed ElBaradei calls for a "timeout" on the issue of Iran's nuclear program, saying the United Nations should suspend sanctions against Iran if Iran will freeze its nuclear program. He tells CNN, "The key to the Iranian issue is a direct engagement between Iran and the U.S., similar to North Korea."

Spring 2007: A National Intelligence Estimate on Iran was expected to be delivered to Congress during this period, but is repeatedly postponed as intelligence agencies re-assess information about Iran's nuclear program.

August 2007: President Bush says, "Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust." The latest National Intelligence Estimate says, "we assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007."

September 2007: U.S. intelligence officials, including CIA Director Michael Hayden, begin a reassessment of their information on Iran, according to unnamed officials quoted in the New York Times. The newspaper says White House officials knew at the time that the intelligence agencies were reviewing their conclusions, but did not know until later that those conclusions were drastically being changed.

October 2007: President Bush says, "we got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

November 2007: A final draft of the National Intelligence Estimate is presented to President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. It concludes that Iran stopped its weapons program in late 2003 and since then has shown no signs of resuming it.

December 2007: A day after the NIE is made public, President Bush says he was first told by Director of Intelligence Michael McConnell in August that there was new intelligence about Iran's nuclear program, but that he wasn't told what that new intelligence was at the time. President Bush, in a press conference, says he still regards Iran as "dangerous." He asks reporters, "What's to say they couldn't start another covert nuclear weapons program?"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Dec 07 - 09:39 PM

Bobert,

When you stop making false statements, I will cease to c all you a liar. If that means you have to attack ME because you do not like the truth, so be it.

You seem to have no problem in calling others liars: Why do you think you are some special case who does not need to be accountable for your statements?

Find some other ways of attacking Bush short of calling him a liar without having actual facts to back you up. You do not loike his actions: Fine. But to call him a liar when you cannot demonstrate he is lying, then complain when you are called one after making false statements is hypocritical, and below you.

To threaten those who point out your false statements, rather than to back up your claims with facts is the mark of someone who knows that he is in the wrong.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Dec 07 - 10:05 PM

There is a big difference between me calling George Bush a liar and you, a fellow, Mudcatter, a lira... Big difference...

That is personal here in this "folk music" commuinity where just about everyone are musicans...

I don't go callin' you a "liar"...That is protocol here... When fols go callin' each other names because they don't agree then it becomes very bothersome...

Dickey went after me qwith the name calling and you see where Dickey is now.... Well if you don't see, it's like, ahhhhhh, friggin' gone...

I will not allow you to tag me with your "liar" badge... I have made my life's work one of standing up to thigs and corportaists and I will not allow you to continue to badger me...

I mean it, bruce... Don't you ever call me a liar again...

If you want to argue whatever then fine... Argue until the cows come home... But don't call me a "liar" again or I will beat the loving sh*t out of you...

You get it now???

Stop it...

Regards,

B~

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

Others,

I am sorry to to have displayed my tmeper here... Whe3n I was in martial arts my sansai taught us that is never right to fight but...

I've had enough of bb tghinking that he ahs some right to call fellow Mudcatters "liars"... I don't know of any Mudcatter that I would consider a "liar"... Okay, Spawzer, might have toild a story or two... But telling stories and pokin' fun ain't like lieing...

Again, I am sorry but, as God as my witness, it bb calls me a liar one more time it won't be like I didn't warn him...

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Dec 07 - 10:28 PM

Fine. You are a great musician, whose work I like and respect , and who insists on saying things that are not true instead of bringing facts to the discussion.

But don't you call Buush a liar unless you have some fact to back it up. I have shown that IN THIS INSTANCE ( yelling) you are not correct in your statement.

Bush has probaly lied many times- as have all the politicians I have ever read of. But IN THIS CASE, your label is false, misleading, and mean-spirited. If that is an example of "I have made my life's work one of standing up to thigs and corportaists and I will not allow you to continue to badger me..." I feel sorry for you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Dec 07 - 11:04 PM

Bush lied....

I didn't...

I have shown my evidence... Show me yours...

He said that Iran is persuing nuclear weapons.... The intellegence community says it ain't so... The intellegence community says that the Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program 4 years ago...

Who is lieing???

Bush, or the intellegence folks??? And why???

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 07 Dec 07 - 12:11 AM

I'll tell you whose lying.


Alot a people in a lot of graves.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Dec 07 - 12:23 AM

And you imply that I am still unemployed.

You have no proof- the IAEA has stated it has no proof, and the report states it does not have confidence that the program has remained halted.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Dec 07 - 12:25 AM

"While U.S. intelligence agencies have "high confidence" that covert work on a bomb was suspended "for at least several years" after 2003, there is only "moderate confidence" that Tehran has not restarted the military program. Iran's massive overt investment in uranium enrichment meanwhile proceeds in defiance of binding U.N. resolutions, even though Tehran has no legitimate use for enriched uranium."

Bush stated a conditional- IF Iran had a nuclear device THAT would be a scary thing. Will you state that it would not be scary??????


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 07 Dec 07 - 03:28 AM

I think its scary that the U.S. has a nuclear device and even more scary that Pakistan has one too.

They all scare me thats why war mongers are so dangerous.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Dec 07 - 06:04 AM

Now then Bobert - talking about being full of dung... I mean lets get real..."Bill Clinton would have wondered why these folks had no interest in learning how to land or take the danged thing off."   Really Bobert? Then why didn't he? The operation in its entirety was planned on his watch and should have taken place not on 11th September 2001 but in August 2000. It was delayed because of problems related to co-ordination of the attacks. The guys you fondly but incorrectly assume that Clinton would have noticed in flight school applied for positions in flight schools and trained on his watch - so tell us Bobert why did he not arrest and deport them?

"9/11 wouldn't happened under Clinton..." It was planned during his watch and should have happened on his watch if the operation had gone ahead as originally planned. If it wouldn't have happened under Clinton Bobert, what went wrong with thedetection and prevention of the first attack on the World Trade Centre in 1993? - Who was President then Bobert? Who was President in 1998 when the US Embassies in East Africa were attacked? Who was President when the USS Cole was attacked?

"It wouldn't have happened under Al Bore..." Well at least you got his name right, sorry to disillusion you but Al Gore was part of the Administration that was in office when all the ground work for the attacks of 911 was done. It happened under Bush for one reason and for one reason only and that was because the attack was delayed by thirteen months. But correct me if I am wrong there has not been an attack since - True?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Dec 07 - 08:59 AM

See Richard Clark's testimoney before the 9/11 Comission, T... He tsaid, in essence, that he tried to get the Bush administartion to take terrorist groups seriously but that the was purdy much stonewallled by the incoming administration... In other words, the ball was handed off to Bush and his folks and they fumbled it...

Al Bore wouldn't have fumbled it... He would have been as vigilant as Clinton, who BTW, was the president during several attempted terrorist's plots that were stimied...

And as for terrorists attacks, there have been several... One right there in you country... And incidents of terror have increased... Not every plot has to bring down skyscrpers... The US government had to revise the number of incidents upwards a couple years ago because they weren't counting correctly but the number is in the thousands...

Maybe Amos or someone who has a faster computer than my pea-shoooter will provide a link to that...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Dec 07 - 09:31 AM

Fact still remains Bobert:

Successful attacks against the US under Clinton = 4
Clintons response completely ineffectual according to the man you currently seem so fond of quoting at the moment (Richard Clarke).

Successful attacks against the US under Bush = 1
Bush's response to displace the Taleban in Afghanistan and put Al-Qaeda very much on the back foot.

Now then Bobert tell us why Clinton did not arrest the 911 hijackers and have them imprisoned or deported? It was your contention wasn't it that he would have detected them? Now tell us why he didn't.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Dec 07 - 09:47 AM

Everyone has learned to be more vigilant since 9/11, T... That was the point I was trying to make about the Middle Eastern guys who wanted to learn to fly the planes but not land or take them off... Things like that won't happen again... Just the heightened awareness of everyone since 9/11 has made it harder for cells to pull off the "biggies"... I don't credit Bush with people having learned to be more observant and vigilant... 9/11 did that all by itself...

And I stand by Clark's testimony that the Bush administraion did not have the focus on terrorism that Clinton had...

Do you deny that portion of the testimony??? And if so, why would Clark make that up???

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Dec 07 - 10:53 AM

Bobert you wouldn't credit Bush with anything period even if he single-handedly saved the planet and all the ills of mankind.

Here is what I give him credit for:

- Complete revamp of US Intelligence Services and Security Agencies
- Improved lines of communication to ensure overview of intelligence data.
- Drawing the line in the sand - "You are either with us or against us" Which concentrated the minds of some waiverers and increased the amount of information and degree of co-operation with US Intelligence Services from around the world.
- IMO ISPS Code
- Department of Homeland Security
- Intelligence gathering powers
- Taking the fight to the "enemy" whenever and wherever that enemy can be found. Al-Qaeda is having a tough enough time struggling to survive at the moment, it doesn't have time to plot or the facilities to train.
- Forced the leadership of Al-Qaeda to very publicly declare war on their own kind (Tends not to go down well in the "muslim world" when muslim is ordered to kill muslim).

Oh yes everybody is now naturally more vigilant, but the reforms introduced by George W Bush and his administration in the wake of 911, now mean that when somebody notices something or hears something that information is processed and acted a on a damn sight quicker and more effectively than ever it was before.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Dec 07 - 11:22 AM

Have you ever wondered why you are so blood thirsty?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Amos
Date: 07 Dec 07 - 12:06 PM

Jeeze, T, I would offer that crediting Bush with improving intell is kinda like crediting Cheny with advances in fuel-consumption standards and reduced emissions. He may have been in the vicinity, but I doubt he has the brain power to even imagine how intell works.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Folkiedave
Date: 07 Dec 07 - 12:08 PM

Complete revamp of US Intelligence Services and Security Agencies.

Not just a little tinkering here and there then? Were they no good before?

mproved lines of communication to ensure overview of intelligence data.

Goodness knows what happened before that!!

Drawing the line in the sand - "You are either with us or against us" Which concentrated the minds of some waiverers and increased the amount of information and degree of co-operation with US Intelligence Services from around the world.

And the net result of that has been.......?

IMO ISPS Code

MJOF (Meaningless Jargon Old Fruit)

Department of Homeland Security

I was in the USA this time last year for Xmas. Had a great time. At Washington Dulles Airport as I left there were so many bags left unattended anyone could have blown the place up. I hope things have improved.

Intelligence gathering powers

Whereas before this there was...............

Taking the fight to the "enemy" whenever and wherever that enemy can be found. Al-Qaeda is having a tough enough time struggling to survive at the moment, it doesn't have time to plot or the facilities to train.

I am not sure why enemy is inverted commas. You don't actually know what sort of time Al Queda is having because you don't actually know who it/they are, and you don't actually know where it/they are. Otherwise you would have got rid of them by now - wouldn't you?

And frankly neither does the intelligence services of the nations that are looking for them and the army that is fighting them.

Forced the leadership of Al-Qaeda to very publicly declare war on their own kind (Tends not to go down well in the "muslim world" when muslim is ordered to kill muslim

Oh! good! It'll soon all be over then!

Teribus - this is the net result of all this intelligence and change. Well done Bush.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=ardg6

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Cost-of-War/Cost-of-War-3.html


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Folkiedave
Date: 07 Dec 07 - 12:16 PM

I'll grab that hundred as I go past.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Dec 07 - 01:30 PM

Revamped US Intellegence Services???

What are you smokin', T-zer... What Bush has done is politicized intellegence... Cheney spent alot of time in Langley during the sellin' of the Iraq War... What was that all about???

(But, Bobert, can you provide a list of dates and contacts???)

Well, no, like Cheney's "Energy Plan" (whatever his energy plan is/was???) Bush is using executive privledge to keep the American people from knowing precisely how many visits Cheney made to CIA but the Washington Post has reported on several occasions over the last few years that Cheney not only made many trips but also pressured career intellegence people... BTW, many career intllegence folk have quit citing the politicization of the agency as their reason for leaving...

Now, T, if you think that the CIA should be a political arm of the Republican Party, then, yeah, Bush has at least tried to make it that... If that is what revamping means to you then I'll give Bush credit where it's due... He has run off a lot of folks who don't believe it is the CIA's job to furnish cherry picked intellegence...

As for the "You're either with us or against us"... That is just plain stupid as the cornerstone of diplomacy which involves dialogue... This world ain't all black and white except in the minds of the fringe radicals... UIf they want to get in a big room and duke it out, I'm all for that but leave the rest of us alone... Yeah, next to "Mission Accomplished", "You're either with us ot against us" is the most rediculous statement that has come out of Bush's mouth and the next administartion is going to have to put in alot of overtime in fixing a failed foriegn policies that that one statement has brought down on US...

As for the DHS... Bush fought it tooth and nail but the Dems out-muscled him and got it... It was a Dem plan from the jump...

Lets see what else you have claimed... Oh yeah, "Taking the fight to the enemy"... Is that why the US invaded Iraq??? Was Saddam in on 9/11??? I thought we have had this discussion but if we have to conduct a refresher course on this we can...

Intellegence gathering powers??? I guess if you think that running habeas corpes thru the shreader is a worthy endeaver then, yeah, I can see where you might see this as a positive... Personally, I think that habeas corpes as a centuries old rule of law that seperates civilized nations from uncivilized nations... I guess we see things much differently here as you seem willing to have folks arrested without charges, tortured and then held forever without any recourse...

As for Bush acting to protect US quicker now then before 9/11 I'd only point to New Orleans... Real fast, heh???...

That's about it for now, T...

I still don't see one thing on your list that Bush has done that has made me or the world any safer...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Peace
Date: 07 Dec 07 - 01:51 PM

"Intelligence" is the art and craft of gathering seemingly disassociated pieces of info and rearranging the picture until what's left is what was, is or will be. The various 'services' HAVE been politicized to the extent they think within given parameters. That is a very bad mistake. It allows one's enemies to pick and choose where what will happen. Adept fighters know that being defensive really means that sooner or later something gets through and ya lose. I would never, repeat never, allow an enemy of mine to decide terms and conditions of any fight. Just the way it is.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Dec 07 - 02:06 PM

Bush's response to displace the Taleban in Afghanistan and put Al-Qaeda very much on the back foot.

I just typed "Al Qaeda stronger than ever" into Google, just to see. Came up with 93,000 links.

Here's one more or less taken at random, a BBC report earlier this year: US concern at al-Qaeda strength

As the old saying goes - "The operation was a total success, but the patient died."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 07 Dec 07 - 11:47 PM

After reading through this pissing match about who said what when, I would like to know if anybody here can say they believe Iran dies not pose a nuclear threat to the middle east and a nuclear threat to peace in the world?

I believe they do.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 08 Dec 07 - 12:25 AM

I'll say it then. Iran poses no nuclear threat.

Gotta have a nuke weapon program before they can be a threat. Even an idiot like Bush admits they don't so what's your excuse?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Folkiedave
Date: 08 Dec 07 - 06:51 AM

I'll say it too.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Dec 07 - 09:40 AM

I'll say it three...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Amos
Date: 08 Dec 07 - 10:06 AM

At this time, four.

But they do have a large cascade of enrichment centrifuges churning away. They represent a nuclear something and I wish there was more openness about what that is.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 08 Dec 07 - 10:19 AM

I said believe it, not say it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Dec 07 - 11:27 AM

Okay, I believe it, Homey...

But, like Amos, I'd like to see a major shift in our foriegn policy that deals more with the protection of people and less the destruction of people...

When Bush rattles his sabre it does what it is intended to do and that is to scare other countries... This is not helpful if we expect other countries to not try to find ways to protect themselves from attacks... I have said it before and I'm sure I'll say it again... If I am the leader of a threatened country I'd be looking for ways to defend my country... Regardless of the rhetoric about Isreal, Iran is more concerned about the US nukin' them...

What Bush has done is a combination of two old school foriegn policy failures... Vietnam (hot war) and the Cold War (threats)... Both of these policies are terribly flawed given the state of the planet today... And both of these failed policies share the same cornerstone and that is "militarism"... Militarism is outdated and not usefull... I won't solve problems... I won't protect people... It just makes the planet even more dangerous...

No, we need a drastic change in strategy if the goal is to protect people...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: bobad
Date: 08 Dec 07 - 11:56 AM

"This capacity is far larger than needed for a nuclear weapon program, supporting Iran's statement that the facility is aimed at producing low enriched uranium for nuclear power reactors. Nonetheless, such a facility could use a relatively small fraction of its capacity, say 10,000 SWU per year, to make enough highly enriched uranium for three nuclear weapons a year, while using the remaining capacity to produce low enriched uranium. In addition, if a country can make an enrichment plant of this size, it can make enough machines to outfit another secret enrichment plant with a capacity of 10,000 SWU per year involving several thousand machines. IAEA safeguards could detect such clandestine activities, but the IAEA must have far more extensive inspection rights than Iran has been willing to provide the IAEA so far."

http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/natanz03_02.html


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Dec 07 - 07:51 PM

Iran poses far less of a potential threat than Pakistan does.

As for the potential threat posed by the USA...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Peace
Date: 08 Dec 07 - 07:54 PM

Folks, I gotta say it.








NO NUKES IS GOOD NUKES


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Dec 07 - 08:02 PM

Diplomacy for a change.

Making demands and trying to order other countries around is only going to get their backs up and make them feel they need to be able to defend themselves. That's pretty damned basic. But the only type of "diplomacy" the Bush / Cheney axis seems to conceive of is Rambo diplomacy.

Just on an interpersonal level, if some bruiser looms over me and threatens to pound me into the ground if I don't kowtow to him, I'm gonna look for my opportunity and then sucker-punch the son of a bitch.

Like I say, that's basic.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Dec 07 - 09:58 PM

So THAT's how I should treat Bobert's threats!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Dec 07 - 10:30 PM

Well, yeah, bb...

...'cept the difference is that in our situation, unlike the one that Don has pointed out, you are the US and I am Iran... You are the one who has a perchant of calling me a "liar" which is agressive...

All I have done is requested, on mnay occasions, that you quit it and when it didn't stop, I told you what I was prepared to do to get you to stop it...

You may not like the way I debate issues but if I've ever called you a "liar" it would have been after being called a "liar" by you... Might of fact, since our last little tussel over you calling me a "liar" I have made every effort to not personalize my positions against anyone... Okay, I might call folks Bushites but that is fair game since anyone who didn't particularlly light the Newg Gingrich's in the 90's were called Clintonites... I don't consider that personalizing...

But, whatever???

If you feel that you calling be a "liar" also grants you permission to "sucker punch" me then, hey, have at it... Better be one heck of shot, though...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Dec 07 - 12:17 AM

"If you feel that you calling be a "liar" also grants you permission to "sucker punch" me then, hey, have at it... Better be one heck of shot, though...
"

Actually, I was pointing out ( perhaps too subtly) that it did NOT.


I have requested that when you make statemments, you at least try to justify them with facts. When the opinions you present as fact are shown to be incorrect, I would hope that you might at least stop insisting on repeating them without any justification, after being informed as to their lack of validity to the real world.

If that is too much to ask, let me know.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Dec 07 - 12:22 AM

"All I have done is requested, on mnay occasions, that you quit it and when it didn't stop, I told you what I was prepared to do to get you to stop it..."

Sort of like requesting that Iran stop the prohibited enrichment of uranium and then telling them what the US is prepared to do to get them to stop it...

But you seem to object when Bush does this.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Nickhere
Date: 09 Dec 07 - 12:55 AM

Our Prime Minister was reputedly asked back in 2001 by Bush if he was 'with us or against us?'

To which he replied 'yes'

;-))


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Stu
Date: 09 Dec 07 - 08:32 AM

"To which he replied 'yes'"

At which point he pissed away all the good work he had done or might have had yet to do.

Of course, dealing with absolutes is how Bush et al see the world, and why in the end they don't have the wit or intelligence, supplied or inherent, to contribute to the greater good of humanity.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 09 Dec 07 - 08:38 AM

So some here believe Iran poses a nuclear threat.

What should be done about it?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Dec 07 - 10:52 AM

Yeah, kina, bb... 'cept in my case you don't have a nuke...

As for you assertions that I don't have facts what we have seen over the years here is that my facts have tended to bear out in the long run... Facts have become increaingly nebulous under an administration that manipulates the story to fit their agenda... Lots of stuff that comes out of this administartion, and the blags that support it, are not facts at all but stories that have been created around the tiniest little bit of information... In other words, you cannot claim that your blogs that you post in long cut 'n pastes represent the truth becuase you really don't know that to be a fact... Waht you do know is that these blogs support your certain biases... Nothtin' more...

That is why I, and others here, resent you thinking you have the market cornered on the "truth"...

History has not shown that you do...

And, for the record, I am glad that you are now employed but whether or not you are or aren't doesn't ***prove*** that evrything that you cut 'n post would hold up under close scrutiny...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 09 Dec 07 - 06:47 PM

Bobert fact:

"Haiti with 1% holding all the wealth"

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=102499&messages=184&page=1#2078338


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Dec 07 - 07:03 PM

I think describing the Bush-Cheney approach as "Rambo diplomacy" is being a bit flattering.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Dec 07 - 07:09 PM

Well, "all the wealth" is somewhat poetic licence there, Homey... Of course the upper 1% doesn't hold "all the wealth"... Just well over 90% of it...

But that isn't the issue here becuase it can be argues that if 1% of the people in Haiti *hold* 90% of the wealth then is is reasonable to say that they *control* all of the wealth...

Splittin' hairs here, pal...

Lets just put it this way... Would you like to move to Haiti and *not* be part of the upper 1%???

I didn't think so...

Game over...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Dec 07 - 08:29 PM

Sorry, McG... I missed yer post...

Well said... Rambo usally won, or at least "showed"...

These guys are losers...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 07 - 08:01 AM

From Folkiedave we got the following:
Comment 1.
Complete revamp of US Intelligence Services and Security Agencies.

"Not just a little tinkering here and there then? Were they no good before?"

Frankly, no they were not. The fault for that lay with decisions taken during the Presidency of Jimmy Carter in relation to intelligence gathering, and little or no reorganization to reflect change in situation since the end of the "Cold War". The investigation into the attacks of 911 came to the same conclusion

Point 2.
"mproved lines of communication to ensure overview of intelligence data."

"Goodness knows what happened before that!!"

Well you for certain don't appear to have a clue, but as the findings of the 911 Commission stated that for all the agencies operating in the US there was no one body specifically looking at the overall picture. Due to the changes introduced by the current administration the chances of information falling through the cracks is greatly reduced.

Point 3.
Drawing the line in the sand - "You are either with us or against us" Which concentrated the minds of some waiverers and increased the amount of information and degree of co-operation with US Intelligence Services from around the world.

"And the net result of that has been.......?"

Sorry Folkiedave I thought I'd put that up earlier:

Successful attacks against the US under Clinton = 4
Retaliation against said attackers under Clinton was minimal, haphazard, ineffective and poorly directed.
Successful attacks against the US under Bush = 1
Retaliation against said attackers under Bush massive, focused and extremely effective resulting in thousands killed or captured. Al-Qaeda forced to fight in battles not of its own choosing, on ground not of its own choosing.

Point 4.
IMO ISPS Code

"MJOF (Meaningless Jargon Old Fruit)"

Well Folkiedave when you consider that there was nothing in place before it was introduced, I would hardly describe it as meaningless. You obviously do not work with anything touched by it, or have any understanding of how it does work.

Point 5.
Department of Homeland Security

"I was in the USA this time last year for Xmas. Had a great time. At Washington Dulles Airport as I left there were so many bags left unattended anyone could have blown the place up. I hope things have improved."

Surely a matter for Airport Security Staff Folkiedave

Point 6.
Intelligence gathering powers

"Whereas before this there was..............."

Nothing.

Point 6.
Taking the fight to the "enemy" whenever and wherever that enemy can be found. Al-Qaeda is having a tough enough time struggling to survive at the moment, it doesn't have time to plot or the facilities to train.

"I am not sure why enemy is inverted commas. You don't actually know what sort of time Al Queda is having because you don't actually know who it/they are, and you don't actually know where it/they are. Otherwise you would have got rid of them by now - wouldn't you?

And frankly neither does the intelligence services of the nations that are looking for them and the army that is fighting them."

Well for starters Folkiedave I know enough about them to spell their name correctly. Perhaps you can regale us of all the successes Al-Qaeda has had since they were turfed out of their cosy little enclaves in Afghanistan in 2001. Any idea how many have been killed or captured over the last six years Folkiedave? (Over 4000 in Iraq alone in 2006).

Point 7.
Forced the leadership of Al-Qaeda to very publicly declare war on their own kind (Tends not to go down well in the "muslim world" when muslim is ordered to kill muslim

"Oh! good! It'll soon all be over then!"

It is for Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, not even their former hosts the Taleban will have much to do with them now. In Iraq their former allies have turned on them and the security situation continues to improve by the day.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Amos
Date: 10 Dec 07 - 10:33 AM

The only problem with your dreamy interpretation of events, T, is that this wonderful intell machine started a war on bad intelligence; and the thousands killed or captured are closer to hundreds of thousands, many of whom were civilians with no political or military interest aside from surviving the week. Iraq's sandbox is not an ideal ground for drawing the Qeda into a battle not of their own choosing even though that has merit; the ruthlessness of sacrificing a heavily populated area to the clever tactics (if in fact they were even conscious tactics which is debatable) of Bush's war planners is unconscionable. It remains to be seen whether the Taliban in Afghanistan is as finished as you imply. The Iraq army and the Iraq people, both put up as emenmies, had no part in the attacks you mention. YEt you seem tot hink the idea of draggin the whole Iraq nation into the battle against Al Qeda as a sort of shield is highly laudable. I do not concur; I find it despicable and small-minded in the extreme.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 07 - 11:43 AM

Well Amos, there appears to be two distinct camps here on Mudcat one rather large one which condemns George W Bush outright and firmly places the blame squarely on his shoulders for all the ills of the world. The other much smaller appreciates the actions taken, and reasoning behind some very hard decisions that have been taken.

Now as far as dreamy interpretations go:

Point 1 - The action taken against Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and the subsequent toppling of the Taleban in that country came about by some very poor judgement calls on the part of the Taleban leadership. It was entirely in their power as to how they responded to the US request to hand over the leadership of Al-Qaeda. They had experienced US retaliation under Clinton and seriously underestimated the will and strength of purpose of the Bush Administration in the wake of 911, their choice, their mistake.

Point 2 - The vast majority (90%) of civilians killed in Afghanistan have been as the direct result of Taleban actions. If the Taleban had responded to appeals made by the Government since the elections in Afghanistan the death toll would have been greatly reduced and the country would be experiencing the benefits and prosperity its people so richly deserve.

Point 3 - During the summer, autumn and winter of 2002, the world and its dog believed that Saddam Hussein and Iraq still possessed WMD, was running WMD research and development programmes and was working on development of missile delivery systems. Clear proof of that is the fact that UNSC Resolution 1441 was passed unanimously (even Syria voted for it). We now know from a source close to Saddam Hussein that Saddam Hussein deliberately fostered belief in the Iraqi possession of WMD amongst his neighbours. The information on what Saddam Hussein's WMD capability and potential were came direct from the UN - that was the "bad intelligence", but given a situation in which there is a certain compunction to act, you have to go with whatever "intelligence" that you have got, be it good or bad. The compunction to act from the perspective of the USA was that sanctions against Saddam's Iraq were about to be lifted and the whistle had just been blown on Irans nuclear programme.

Point 4 - During the Presidency of Jimmy Carter undue emphasis was placed on technological gathering of intelligence at almost the complete elimination of human intelligence sources. This came about as a result of the Iran Hostage crisis and meant that in much of the middle-east US intelligence operated blind and massive intelligence "black-holes" were created.

Point 5 - When the US applied pressure on the UN and on Iraq to resolve all outstanding issues with regard to UNSC Resolutions 687 and 1441, Saddam Hussein had a choice to make. In fact he had three options:
- Come clean and stay in power;
- Defy the UN openly;
- Attempt to play for time with the assistance of his trading partners France, Russia and China.

He rather unwisely chose the latter. Even when it was obvious in mid-March that the US was going to act, Saddam Hussein was given a chance to leave Iraq, again he made the wrong choice and ultimately paid for it with his life (Not that he would have survived long outside Iraq's borders, but that is mere speculation on my part). The responsibility for the war in Iraq rests entirely with Saddam Hussein, who could have easily have prevented it on at least two distinct occasions.

Point 6 - The vast majority of casualties and deaths in Iraq have been perpetrated at the hands of Iraqi insurgents, sectarian militias, Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq & other foreign jihadists, criminal gangs. Their decision to fight was theirs and theirs alone. The ruthlessness of sacrificing any heavily populated areas was deliberate and unconscionable, but that was done by the insurgents, the sectarian militias and Al-qaeda-in-Iraq. It was done Amos, to try and ignite a "Civil War", fortunately they failed and failed miserably. The population of the country in general has turned against them. The remaining insurgets and Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq are in General Giap's terms "fish out of water".

Point 7 - The thing I find despicable Amos are those here who openly state that they would rather have seen Saddam remain in power. At least at the moment there is the prospect of improved security and prosperity for the people of Iraq, they have a chance of enjoying a bright future which certainly never existed under Saddam's rule.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Amos
Date: 10 Dec 07 - 12:15 PM

BTW, the IMO ISPS code is a standard International Ship and Port Facility Security code published by the International Maritime Organization.

T, thanks for the reasonable reply. The fact that some people -- and it was far from "the world" -- believed the WMD myth does not justify acting on it as fact without due diligence. In failing, through incuriousity or predisposition toward war, to exercise that diligence, Rove and Bush essentially own the responsibility for the invasion of Iraq. It took only one signature to send our troops across the line from Kuwait. Absent the WMD mythology, the unilateral invasion of a sovereign nation-state is an action of extreme militarism which the U.S. claims not to believe in -- examples of Mexico, Cuba, and the Phillipines notwithstanding.

There is no question that Sadaam brought his troubles on himself. There is no question the world is better without him. If we manage to herd the cats of Baghdad into some for of reasonable political body, we will have done the world a service -- I do not disagree with any of these ideas.

But starting a war without grounds is NOT a prerogative our country has granted the President, and his actions were irresponsible and impolitic, to put the politest terms I can think of on them. The rationalizations for the war were excuses, not genuine causes for war; and going to war in the absence of due causes adequately substantiated is the act of a nutcase.

A




A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Dec 07 - 12:16 PM

Clear proof of that is the fact that UNSC Resolution 1441 was passed unanimously (even Syria voted for it).

It's at least as plausible to see that unanimous resolution as representing an attempt to hold off the Americans from attacking Iraq, so Blix and Co could continue to investigate.

The rather naive assumption being that the USA would be obliged to come back to the Security Council to get backing for an attack, if Blix's investigations threw up genuine evidence that Saddam still had the weapons he claimed to have destroyed, and that no attack would happen without such backing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Dec 07 - 02:23 PM

quotes from the Washington Post Dec 8, 2007 article "A futile Quest on Iranian Arms" P A10:

"By mid-November, the agencies were ready to deliver their conclusions to the White House. Intelligence officials gave a preliminary breifing Nov. 15 in the Situation room to Vice President Cheney, national security advisor Stephen J. Hadley and other senior officials.

The process was climaxing just as Bush was convening a Middle East peace conference in Annapolis, a meeting designed at least in part to rally the region against Iran. No one told the participants about the new information, but on the same day they were gathering in Annapolis on Nov. 27, the National Intelligence Board met to finalize the new NIE. McConnell and others breifed Bush and Cheney the next day. Even though intelligence officials planned to keep it from the public, Bush later that day passed it on to Israeli Prime minister Ehud Olmert and Cheney told Defense Minister Ehud Barak."


Now Bobert stated:
""President Bush got the world's attention this fall when he warned that a nuclear-armed Iran might lead to World War III. But his stark warning came at least a month or two *******after****** he had been told about frssh indidctaions that Iran had actaully halted it's nuclear weapons program.""

So, Bush knew the results of the report last fall that were finalized on Nov. 27, and presented to him the next day ( Nov. 28th)

If Bush can tell the future as well as Bobert claims, maybe we ought to pay attention to what he says...




As for the effect on Middle East ppeace of this so-settling information:

" Had they know before the summit, a senior Israeli official said, "I'm not sure we would have shown up." "

I certainly am glad to know that the Israelis have such confidence in this report that they will now (probably) act on their own, since the report gives those opposed to holding Iran accountable for it's PROVEN violation by the IAEA, and it's CONTINUED ( as stated by the Iranians) enrichment to weapons-grade fissionable material.

Thanks, Bobert, for showing me the TRUTH .


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 07 - 05:22 PM

Don't quote so selectively Kevin, what I said put in context was:

"During the summer, autumn and winter of 2002, the world and its dog believed that Saddam Hussein and Iraq still possessed WMD, was running WMD research and development programmes and was working on development of missile delivery systems. Clear proof of that is the fact that UNSC Resolution 1441 was passed unanimously (even Syria voted for it)."

Your post does make a very important point about the workings of the UN Security Council and naivety. Everyone in the council chamber fully realised the urgency of the situation and what the intent of the Resolution tabled by the USA and the UK was.

On one hand you had the UK & USA & the coalition of the willing taking 1441 literally as Iraq's "Last Chance". On the other you had Saddam plus his major trading partners (The three remaining permanent Security Council Members) allaying all fears and advising that the US will not act. The wording of 1441 allowed for no "material breach" of its provisions - all in all there were seven such instances, while the Iraqis co-operated fully on matters relating to access, they were very reluctant when it came to the area of disclosure and Blix was still complaining about this in his last report to the Security Council.

Chirac of France bluntly told both the US and the UK that irrespective no second resolution would ever be put to a vote because France would use its Veto to block it. That in effect hamstrung the UN completely.

The UN sanctions by 2002 were a joke, and both France and Russia were supporting Iraqi suggestions that they be lifted.

During the summer of 2002 the existence of Iran's uranium enrichment plant became public knowledge. Anyone who seriously believes that these facilities, which were built on a massive scale in total secrecy, were constructed for purely peaceful purposes would have to be incredibly naive and trusting, fortunately the IAEA were neither.

Saddam would not let Iran become nuclear capable, Saddam also knew that the French, Russians and Chinese would be only be more than willing to rearm him. The US put the brakes on that situation by tackling the one side of the equation that they could do something about - Iraq and Saddam Husseain.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Dec 07 - 05:35 PM

No, bb.... You have misread what I have said... And I've now said it several times so read it slowly...

According to the Washington Post Bush had knowledge of the intellegence report sayinf that Iran had curtainled its nuclear program in 2003 ***before*** makin' either his "WWIII" comment or his "Iraq ***is*** pursuing" coment...

Why is this such a difficult piece of cronology to wrap yer head around, bb???

Or am I again confused at what you are trying to get at here???

Just spit it out...

If you think that Bush knowing thie stuff and then making the 2 speeches id fine, then fine... I can understand that might think that way...

I don't think that way but, hey, I think that Bush has repeatedly used lies, half-truths and manipulation to sway public opinion...

Problem is for BUsh, that is...) that mose folks now see Bush for what he is...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Dec 07 - 06:10 PM

Bush stated a conditional- IF Iran had a nuclear device THAT would be a scary thing. Will you state that it would not be scary??????


I wish you would try to understand conditionals.


I do get your point about "is"- BUT the report was done after the date you say Bush used present tense- so the conclusions had not been accepted even by the analysts when YOU claim that Bush should only have used past tense.

Why is this such a difficult piece of cronology to wrap yer head around, Bobert?


In addition, the report DOES NOT claim that the program is PRESENTLY not in progress- ONLY that there it had been stopped in 2003, and that there is not enough information to know IF, OR WHEN, it has restarted.

So, since I was unemployed in 2003, you are still saying that I must be unemployed now, as well.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Dec 07 - 06:14 PM

"a nuclear-armed Iran might lead to World War III. "


Is there ANYONE who would stake their families lives on this being a false statement?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Dec 07 - 06:21 PM

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/yossi_melman/2007/12/dont_trust_a_liar.html


Don't Trust a Liar

**Editor's Note: Due to an editor's error, Mr. Melman's article was incomplete on first publication. The article now follows in its entirety.**

TEL AVIV - Would you allow a pedophile to work in a kindergarten? Iran can't be allowed to have nuclear power without thorough inspections. There are several reasons to justify such a statement. First, all nations who are signatory members of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and have agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), known as "Safeguards Agreements," have committed themselves to declare and report their nuclear sites and allowed them to be inspected by IAEA inspectors. There is more to this issue than pure formality. Iran has broken its pledges in this regard. Iran has been cheating IAEA for nearly twenty years – building secret nuclear sites, purchasing nuclear material, conducting tests in plutonium and uranium enrichment, developing a warhead – all without declaring it. So how can Iran be trusted? How can the world believe that a permanent liar has corrected his ways?

Too many commentators have argued, wrongly, that the last U.S. National intelligence Estimate (NIE) exonerates Iran. It doesn't. In fact, it is a powerful indictment. It substantiates the claims of many western intelligence and experts (claims that Iran has consistently denied) that Iran was involved in unlawful, clandestine efforts to build a nuclear bomb. The report reveals that Iran did have an illegal, secret military program in a blatant violation of its international obligations. The fact that Iran, for various reasons, put its military program on hold in 2003 doesn't mean that the country should be praised. You don't compliment a thief for halting his thieving activities. This is the norm.

It went also unnoticed that the report points out that Iran can easily, at almost any given moment, resume its military program. Iran continues to enrich uranium and by doing so makes a mockery of UN Security Council resolutions. It continues to develop its delivery means – long range ballistic missiles. So how can we believe Iran?

There is another interesting observation in the NIE. The report explains that one of the reasons for the Iranian decision to suspend the military program was the international pressure and its fears after the U.S. invasion of Iraq that Iran would be the next one. In other words, it was mainly the U.S.'s military pressure and coercive diplomacy that forced the "Nuclear Ayatollahs" to think twice.

Therefore, with all due respect to the good news emerging from the NIE report, we are not yet arrive on a safe shore. The burden of proof still lies with Iran. It's an Iranian obligation to show to the international community that it fulfills its international commitments and keeps its word.
If indeed Iran genuinely uses its nuclear program SOLELY for civilian purposes, the Middle East is going to be slightly a better place. If not, we shall soon see other nations in the region, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey, developing their own nuclear programs. Needless to say, the equation is clear: the more nuclear weapons are spread, the greater the risk of mass destruction that we face.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Dec 07 - 06:31 PM

Chirac of France bluntly told both the US and the UK that irrespective no second resolution would ever be put to a vote because France would use its Veto to block it.

Wasn't it rather that he indicated that, should it come to a vote for immediate war on Iraq, France would vote against it - along with a whole bunch of other members of the Security Council? And of course a vote against by France would mean the resolution would fall, even in the rather unlikely possibility that the it got a majority vote. In any case Russia had already said it would use its veto.

The actual decision not to put the resolution to a vote was taken by its proposers, not by its opponents.

If push had come to shove, this would have been the second occasion ever that France used its veto. (The only other time was in 1976.) The USA has used its veto well over 70 times, and the UK has used its at least eight times.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 07 - 07:14 PM

Votes can only take place on resolutions that are tabled and seconded Kevin. The veto process as used by the five permanent members stops the resolution being tabled. It only takes one of the five to state that it will veto a resolution and that is it dead in its tracks, majority voting does not come into it.

It came down to the USA and the UK who fully saw the danger of the situation and were trying to keep the lid on things, and France, Russia and China who saw in the same Iran/Iraq scenario an extremely attractive business opportunity.

Remember if Saddam had been completely open and had done his utmost to be seen as being completely open there would have been no war. Totally his choice, although on the subject of "bad intelligence", he was slipped some seriously poor advice from those in his corner, i.e. the French, the Russians and the Chinese.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Dec 07 - 07:42 PM

Remember if Saddam had been completely open and had done his utmost to be seen as being completely open there would have been no war.

I think that is a pretty questionable assumption. It seems to be generally agreed that the issue of WPDs was not the central issue for Washington, even if was was for the UK, at least in terms of political tactics.

For Washington the central issue was "regime change". Claims about WMDs, along with attempts to create a belief in an association between Iraq and Al Qaeda, were ways of bolstering support for this central objective.

In the event there was a rush to war, which meant troops being sent into asction inadatequately equipped. It seems likely that a major reason for this may have been that Saddam's regime was in fact starting to cooperate with the arms inspectors in a way that had previously not been the case.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Dec 07 - 08:04 PM

Ummmm, not to be splitting hairs here, bb, but if I read your argument here is that it was okay for Bush to bring up the WWIII thing just as long as it was preclued with an "if"...

Well, I have two thoughts here:

First, what was the intent of the October 17th WWIII speech??? He could have just as easilly said that about Alabama or Sweden or any state or country for that matter... But, no, he played the "if", which BTW is a two leeter word and then followed it with a barrage of propaganda that had been written by his handlers filled with fear-mongering... Tghis is how the US got itself into Iraqmire... By not paying attention to the two letter words but concentrating on the propaganda that follows...

Secondly, I hate to burst your bubble since you have laid out the "if defense" but...

...Bush forgot the "if" in his October 23rd speech where he said: "Iran is pursuing the technology that could be used to produce nuclear weapons and ballistic missles of incereasing range that could deliver them"... Hmmmmmm, so much for the "if defense" here...

So, bb, is that you final answer???

Seems that your arguments come up ***two*** letters short!!! I know...Danged!!!

You gotta spend just a little more time actually reading... I'm lexdexic so it takes me a while to plunge thru this stuff but I use pointers and underline and end up rereading stuff 3 or 4 times... It helps... Maybe you need some lexdixic pills fir yerself... Really gets the comprehension way up... Just real slow...

Yo, T... Don't Bogart that joint, my friend, pass it over to me... Saddam and the Iraqi governemnt were allowing Hanz Blix to inspect wherever they wanted... Just how much cooperation were you looking for Saddam to provide??? Wash their cars and do their laundry???

I mean, like I said, "pass it over to me"....

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Dec 07 - 08:14 PM

Of course he could equally have said of just about any moderately technologically advanced country that it was "pursuing the technology that could be used to produce nuclear weapons and ballistic missles of increasing range that could deliver them".

In fact that is just another way of saying it has a moderate level of technological advancement. "Could be" can cover absolutely every eventuality.

A country manufacturing box cutters is pursuing the technology that "could be" used to carry out a 911 type attack. A shop selling cigarette lighters is supplying the technology that "could be" used to burn down a city.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Dec 07 - 10:00 PM

...Bush forgot the "if" in his October 23rd speech where he said: "Iran is pursuing the technology that could be used to produce nuclear weapons and ballistic missles of incereasing range that could deliver them"... Hmmmmmm, so much for the "if defense" here...

I presented the evidence that IRAN HAS been pursuing the technology that could be used to produce the ballistic missiles, and that the continued production of enriched weapons grade fissionable material is obviously aimed at "could be used to produce nuclear weapons"

So still no lie. Unless you have a peaceful use for weapons grade fissionable materials? They are too enriched to use in reactors, and would have to be diluted back down for peaceful use.



"Saddam and the Iraqi governemnt were allowing Hanz Blix to inspect wherever they wanted..."

NOT according to the report to the UN by Blix that was required under 1441- the LAST chance for that cooperation.


So, Bobert, is that you final answer???

Seems that your arguments come up short of reality!!!

I know...Danged!!! But when you have something to refute what * I * have stated, feel free to present it.



So, after he sees the preperations for intervention by force, Saddam stated that he would then allow the inspections that he had been required to allow for the previous 12 years and failed to allow. Do you believe that he would have allowed them, once the threat of force had been removed?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Dec 07 - 10:01 PM

Sorry, McGrath, that does not seem to agree with what Bobert claims.


And we know he is always right- after all, he said so.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 10 Dec 07 - 11:18 PM

Shut up, Bruce. I've asked you and Teribus at least a dozen times now to produce the 1999 UN report authored by Blix and Ritter that said Iraq had 25,000 liters of anthrax and 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin and you both not only failed to direct me to this report, you pretended like you didn't notice anyone was requesting it. That pretty much makes you a goner in my book. Two complete shit-talking idiots without a shred of credibility.

I will hound you and Teribus until one of you answers my request by either producing said report or admitting there isn't one. So where is it? I'm waiting. Come on, Brucie-baby, here's your chance to shut me up. Let's see it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 10 Dec 07 - 11:40 PM

Here's the story so far.

Bush threatened to invade Iran not because he thought they were making nukes--he knew they weren't. He was doing it to force al-Sadr to stand his army down. Yes, invading Iraq would lose the war for us irrevocably but Bush had nothing more to lose than and was well on his way to losing it anyway so why just attack Iran? It would fuck up the Middle way more than it would us. It would hurt al-Sadr immensely. A suicide mission on our part but one al-Sadr can ill afford.

So al-Sadr stood his army down rather than risk the entire Middle East descending into war and chaos and possiblity of nukes being used and his support network being incinerated. Then Bush armed the Sunnis on the promise that they would use the weapons against al-Qaeda only and the Sunnis agreed. That stopped them from shooting at us.

The problem is, al-Sadr then demanded that Bush announced that Iran had no nuke program or all bets were off. Bush can't let this relative calm get away so he admitted Iran had no nuke program. This has infuriated Josh Bolton and Cheney and other hawks because attacking Iran was their ace in the hole. With Bush admitting that Iran has no nuke program, he has no rationale for attacking Iran if the violence in Iraq resumes and, of course, it will.

So Bolton is beside himself shouting that the new intel report is all politics and that Iran is as dangerous the administration has been saying previously.

IOW, we've lost. We can't attack Iran now. We have no political solution for Iraq and we cut Afghanistan loose long ago and it's drifting inevitably into Taliban hands.

Meanwhile, the military is in disarray. The marine corps doesn't want all these MRAPS with the reduced violence and because they can't go where they need to take them to pursue troublemakers and they are too expensive and too huge to store but Congress is insisting they take them--so that's a small war in and of itself. The other problem is that part of the Army brass now wants deployments scaled back to 12 months again because the violence is reduced and the 15-month deployments are draining the energy and morale out of the troops. But commanders in the field are adamant that we can't scale back because the relative calm is still too violent and could flare back up in a moment's notice so we have to stay ready.

It's a catch-22 all around for the military. They're all dressed up with no place to go and the situation cannot be sustained. All al-Sadr has to do is sit back and watch us implode because we can't explode since we can't attack Iran, can't win in Iraq and have already cut Afghanistan loose.

Iran was our last gambit and Bolton knows it. Bush has dealt away his ace in the hole in hopes of some kind of better legacy and Bolton is hopping mad about it. He realizes what Bush has just done. It's over. Just a matter of time now.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 05:45 AM

Guest 282RA:

"Bruce. I've asked you and Teribus at least a dozen times now to produce the 1999 UN report authored by Blix and Ritter that said Iraq had 25,000 liters of anthrax and 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin and you both not only failed to direct me to this report, you pretended like you didn't notice anyone was requesting it. That pretty much makes you a goner in my book. Two complete shit-talking idiots without a shred of credibility."

Now without looking back through my posts I do not believe that I have ever said that there was a report authored by Blix and Ritter that categorically stated that Iraq had 25,000 litres of Anthrax and 38,000 litres of botulinum toxin.

What I have previously referred to were the UNSCOM Reports to the United nations security Council of January 1999 and the later Report of March 1999 in which they Reported the status regarding WMD, WMD Research & Development programmes, stockpiles of WMD agents & precursors, munitions and missile inventory. It was those reports that detailed the discrepancies that existed between raw materials purchased and used, agents produced and weaponised, munitions made and used against what they could verify as having been destroyed. The information used was that supplied by the Iraqi Authorities, their suppliers, manufacturing records, etc. The UNSCOM Reports were careful to state that the shortfalls as detailed could only indicate what Iraq might possess. In my posts I have provided links to both those reports by way of substantiation.

The trouble with the anti-Bush camp is that they have fixated on the gross inaccuracy that the March 2003 invasion of Iraq was about any single issue, be it "WMD", or "Regime Change". The March 2003 invasion of Iraq was carried out to ensure beyond doubt that Iraq was placed in compliance with all the terms and conditions it signed up to at Safwan on 3rd March 1991 and formalised on 3rd April 1991 as United Nations Security Council Resolution 687. Note Guest 282RA compliance with all terms and conditions, there were quite a few of them, so please do not try to reduce the situation that existed to any "single" cause, that is deliberate misrepresentation.

With egard to WMD, the anti-Bush camp have fixated on the false premise that WMD had to be found to justify the invasion and make it alright with the world. The fallacy that there had to be a "smoking gun". The object of the exercise was to make sure that Iraq did not have any of these weapons, was not stockpiling materials that could be used for their manufacture, was not running any R&D programmes targeted at reviving WMD some time in the future once sanctions were lifted, was not designing weapons delivery systems that could threaten its neighbours near and far.

On "Regime Change" the anti-Bush camp seem reluctant to accept that the desirability of regime change in Iraq was enshrined as part of US Foreign Policy long before GWB came to office. That particular bit of meddling in another nations affairs was put in place by the previous administration - they were correct in doing so. Now back to events of summer 2002 to spring 2003, with regard to "Regime Change". Saddam Hussein, as previously stated, was given every single opportunity to co-operate and show the world that he and his government were being fully open and transparent in their dealings with the international community, he chose not to do so. Saddam Hussein was given every opportunity to step down, he chose not to do so. Had he decided differently the war would not have happened.

Now Guest 282RA a question of mine that you have been assiduously ducking, since you brought it up:

Now how exactly did us Brits embarrass ourselves fighting a ragtag bunch of kids in the Falkland Islands? - the floor is yours


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Stu
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 06:08 AM

The reason for going to war was to find WMDs - this report from the Sydney Morning Herald reminds us in the immediate aftermath of the invasion what Bush and Blair had told the world in the run-up. The idea there was some sort of reasoned discussion about regime change in the days before the war is a fallacy.

Blair's motion in the Iraq debate reads:

"That this House notes its decisions of 25th November 2002 and 26th February 2003 to endorse UN Security Council Resolution 1441; recognises that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and long range missiles, and its continuing non-compliance with Security Council Resolutions, pose a threat to international peace and security; notes that in the 130 days since Resolution 1441 was adopted Iraq has not co-operated actively, unconditionally and immediately with the weapons inspectors, and has rejected the final opportunity to comply and is in further material breach of its obligations under successive mandatory UN Security Council Resolutions; regrets that despite sustained diplomatic effort by Her Majesty's Government it has not proved possible to secure a second Resolution in the UN because one Permanent Member of the Security Council made plain in public its intention to use its veto whatever the circumstances; notes the opinion of the Attorney General that, Iraq having failed to comply and Iraq being at the time of Resolution 1441 and continuing to be in material breach, the authority to use force under Resolution 678 has revived and so continues today; believes that the United Kingdom must uphold the authority of the United Nations as set out in Resolution 1441 and many Resolutions preceding it, and therefore supports the decision of Her Majesty's Government that the United Kingdom should use all means necessary to ensure the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction; offers wholehearted support to the men and women of Her Majesty's Armed Forces now on duty in the Middle East; in the event of military operations requires that, on an urgent basis, the United Kingdom should seek a new Security Council Resolution that would affirm Iraq's territorial integrity, ensure rapid delivery of humanitarian relief, allow for the earliest possible lifting of UN sanctions, an international reconstruction programme, and the use of all oil revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people and endorse an appropriate post-conflict administration for Iraq, leading to a representative government which upholds human rights and the rule of law for all Iraqis; and also welcomes the imminent publication of the Quartet's roadmap as a significant step to bringing a just and lasting peace settlement between Israelis and Palestinians and for the wider Middle East region, and endorses the role of Her Majesty's Government in actively working for peace between Israel and Palestine."

This statement is implicit - the reason for war was to disarm Saddam of WMD's and then deal with the consequences. The full text of the debate is available from Hansard and leaves you in no doubt WMDs were being posited as justification for the invasion of Iraq as the main thrust of Blair's argument is based on the presence of WMDs in Iraq.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 07:46 AM

No it doesn't Stigweard read it again:

"That this House notes its decisions of 25th November 2002 and 26th February 2003 to endorse UN Security Council Resolution 1441"

Now what was required to be done to endorse UN Security Council Resolution 1441?

The passage you quoted (the motion to be debated and voted upon by the House of Commons) contains only 2 references to WMD but 10 references to UN Security Council Resolutions. And this causes you to state categorically that - "The reason for going to war was to find WMDs."

The reason given was the UN Authority handed down to the beligerent powers under the terms of UN Security Council Resolution 678, in order to ensure compliance by Iraq of the Safwan Cease-Fire Agreement detailed in UN Security Council Resolution 687 all of which were detailed in UN Security Council Resolution 1441 which acted as the bridging document covering all outstanding resolutions related to Iraq.

Your linked Sydney Herald article dated almost a year after the invasion is hardly "in the immediate aftermath". That article too is written on the premise that WMD had to be found - they didn't. The article details precisely what is wrong with the media today when it comes to supposed reporting of news. MSM no longer reports anything, they comment, speculate and opinionate, they most certainly could never be accused of objectively reporting any event or situation.

As you correctly point out, the full text of the debate is available from Hansard. Did you actually read it? Because it leaves me, and anyone else who reads it, in no doubt about the doubts, uncertainties and suspicions relating to Iraq's WMD that existed at that time. What was posited as justification for the invasion of Iraq as the main thrust of Blair's argument was based on the potential threat the presence of WMDs in Iraq posed and the imperitive need to ensure beyond all doubt that Iraq was disarmed in accordance with UN Security Council Resolutions for the peace, security and stability of the region.

I rather liked the reference in the debate by one MP who observed that Chirac, having stated that France would use its veto irrespective, had managed to disarm the UN instead of disarming Iraq.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Stu
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 08:33 AM

Well Teribus, at least we're agreed on one thing - the use of the UN veto by nations acting in their own self-interest is to be deplored. Especially by nations run by a religious fundamentalist who condones the use of kidnap, torture and the proliferation of WMDs.

A quick pike at this list gives some idea of the motivation of this rogue state over the years:

List of UN Security Council resolutions vetoed by the USA, 1972 - 2002

(Russia has used their veto TWICE)
Year: Resolution Vetoed by the USA

1972 Condemns Israel for killing hundreds of people in Syria and Lebanon in air raids.
1973 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians and calls on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
1976 Condemns Israel for attacking Lebanese civilians.
1976 Condemns Israel for building settlements in the occupied territories.
1976 Calls for self determination for the Palestinians.
1976 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians.
1978 Urges the permanent members (USA, USSR, UK, France, China) to insure United Nations decisions on the maintenance of international peace and security.
1978 Criticises the living conditions of the Palestinians.
1978 Condemns the Israeli human rights record in occupied territories.
1978 Calls for developed countries to increase the quantity and quality of development assistance to underdeveloped countries.
1979 Calls for an end to all military and nuclear collaboration with the apartheid South Africa.
1979 Strengthens the arms embargo against South Africa.
1979 Offers assistance to all the oppressed people of South Africa and their liberation movement.
1979 Concerns negotiations on disarmament and cessation of the nuclear arms race.
1979 Calls for the return of all inhabitants expelled by Israel.
1979 Demands that Israel desist from human rights violations.
1979 Requests a report on the living conditions of Palestinians in occupied Arab countries.
1979 Offers assistance to the Palestinian people.
1979 Discusses sovereignty over national resources in occupied Arab territories.
1979 Calls for protection of developing counties' exports.
1979 Calls for alternative approaches within the United Nations system for improving the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
1979 Opposes support for intervention in the internal or external affairs ofstates.
1979 For a United Nations Conference on Women.
1979 To include Palestinian women in the United Nations Conference on Women.
1979 Safeguards rights of developing countries in multinational trade negotiations.
1980 Requests Israel to return displaced persons.
1980 Condemns Israeli policy regarding the living conditions of the Palestinian people.
1980 Condemns Israeli human rights practices in occupied territories. 3 resolutions.
1980 Afirms the right of self determination for the Palestinians.
1980 Offers assistance to the oppressed people of South Africa and their national liberation movement.
1980 Attempts to establish a New International Economic Order to promote the growth of underdeveloped countries and international economic co-operation.
1980 Endorses the Program of Action for Second Half of United Nations Decade for Women.
1980 Declaration of non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states.
1980 Emphasises that the development of nations and individuals is a human right.
1980 Calls for the cessation of all nuclear test explosions.
1980 Calls for the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.
1981 Promotes co-operative movements in developing countries.
1981 Affirms the right of every state to choose its economic and social system in accord with the will of its people, without outside interference in whatever form it takes.
1981 Condemns activities of foreign economic interests in colonial territories.
1981 Calls for the cessation of all test explosions of nuclear weapons.
1981 Calls for action in support of measures to prevent nuclear war, curb the arms race and promote disarmament.
1981 Urges negotiations on prohibition of chemical and biological weapons.
1981 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development, etc are human rights.
1981 Condemns South Africa for attacks on neighbouring states, condemns apartheid and attempts to strengthen sanctions. 7 resolutions.
1981 Condemns an attempted coup by South Africa on the Seychelles.
1981 Condemns Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, human rights policies, and the bombing of Iraq.
18 resolutions.
1982 Condemns the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.
6 resolutions (1982 to 1983).
1982 Condemns the shooting of 11 Muslims at a shrine in Jerusalem by an Israeli soldier.
1982 Calls on Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights occupied in 1967.
1982 Condemns apartheid and calls for the cessation of economic aid to South Africa. 4 resolutions.
1982 Calls for the setting up of a World Charter for the protection of the ecology.
1982 Sets up a United Nations conference on succession of states in respect to state property, archives and debts.
1982 Nuclear test bans and negotiations and nuclear free outer space. 3 resolutions.
1982 Supports a new world information and communications order.
1982 Prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons.
1982 Development of international law.
1982 Protects against products harmful to health and the environment .
1982 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development are human rights.
1982 Protects against products harmful to health and the environment.
1982 Development of the energy resources of developing countries.
1983 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 15 resolutions.
1984 Condemns support of South Africa in its Namibian and other policies.
1984 International action to eliminate apartheid.
1984 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon.
1984 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 18 resolutions.
1985 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon.
1985 Condemns Israel for using excessive force in the occupied territories.
1985 Resolutions about cooperation, human rights, trade and development. 3 resolutions.
1985 Measures to be taken against Nazi, Fascist and neo-Fascist activities .
1986 Calls on all governments (including the USA) to observe international law.
1986 Imposes economic and military sanctions against South Africa.
1986 Condemns Israel for its actions against Lebanese civilians.
1986 Calls on Israel to respect Muslim holy places.
1986 Condemns Israel for sky-jacking a Libyan airliner.
1986 Resolutions about cooperation, security, human rights, trade, media bias, the environment and development. 8 resolutions.
1987 Calls on Israel to abide by the Geneva Conventions in its treatment of the Palestinians.
1987 Calls on Israel to stop deporting Palestinians.
1987 Condemns Israel for its actions in Lebanon.
2 resolutions.
1987 Calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon.
1987 Cooperation between the United Nations and the League of Arab States.
1987 Calls for compliance in the International Court of Justice concerning military and paramilitary activities against Nicaragua and a call to end the trade embargo against Nicaragua. 2 resolutions.
1987 Measures to prevent international terrorism, study the underlying political and economic causes of terrorism, convene a conference to define terrorism and to differentiate it from the struggle of people from national liberation.
1987 Resolutions concerning journalism, international debt and trade. 3 resolutions.
1987 Opposition to the build up of weapons in space.
1987 Opposition to the development of new weapons of mass destruction.
1987 Opposition to nuclear testing. 2 resolutions.
1987 Proposal to set up South Atlantic "Zone of Peace".
1988 Condemns Israeli practices against Palestinians in the occupied territories. 5 resolutions (1988 and 1989).
1989 Condemns USA invasion of Panama.
1989 Condemns USA troops for ransacking the residence of the Nicaraguan ambassador in Panama.
1989 Condemns USA support for the Contra army in Nicaragua.
1989 Condemns illegal USA embargo of Nicaragua.
1989 Opposing the acquisition of territory by force.
1989 Calling for a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict based on earlier UN resoltions.
1990 To send three UN Security Council observers to the occupied territories.
1995 Afirms that land in East Jerusalem annexed by Israel is occupied territory.
1997 Calls on Israel to cease building settlements in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories.
2 resolutions.
1999 Calls on the USA to end its trade embargo on Cuba.
8 resolutions (1992 to 1999).
2001 To send unarmed monitors to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
2001 To set up the International Criminal Court.
2002 To renew the peace keeping mission in Bosnia.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 10:08 AM

An impressive but irrelevant and meaningless list Stigweard, particularly when you consider much of the period is covered by international "ping-pong" match that was known as "The Cold War".

Have a ramble through your list and see how many items are duplicated, which sort of begs the question if a Resolution was proposed once and vetoed, why would its chances of not being vetoed increase with the passage of time.

Liked the ones about human rights and Israel, where were the ones about human rights and Iraq/Syria/Egypt/Saudi Arabia/USSR/China/North Korea/Libya/etc/etc/etc??

The one in 1979 calling for the return of all those expelled by Israel - Now where in that Resolution did it mention the return of all Jews expelled by Arab States and/or compensation for their loss of property?

I could go on, but won't. The United Nations is an absolute disgrace, and it always has been. It has resolved little or nothing in the entire term of its sorry existence. In short it is a complete and utter joke and needs to radically reform itself or be consigned to the dustbin of insignificance.

By the bye I was not aware that the US had ever lent a hand in the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The USSR yes, China yes, North Korea yes, but the USA No.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 11:04 AM

This from the following site we can see who has used the veto over the period from 1946 to 2007 inclusive:

Stigweard you might be interested in the results

China - 6 times
France - 18 times
United Kingdom - 32 times
United States of America - 82 times
USSR/Russia - 123 times (Bit of a difference there from 2 times Stig, Eh??)

The link is here:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/data/vetotab.htm


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 12:02 PM

>>What I have previously referred to were the UNSCOM Reports to the United nations security Council of January 1999 and the later Report of March 1999 in which they Reported the status regarding WMD, WMD Research & Development programmes, stockpiles of WMD agents & precursors, munitions and missile inventory. It was those reports that detailed the discrepancies that existed between raw materials purchased and used, agents produced and weaponised, munitions made and used against what they could verify as having been destroyed. The information used was that supplied by the Iraqi Authorities, their suppliers, manufacturing records, etc. The UNSCOM Reports were careful to state that the shortfalls as detailed could only indicate what Iraq might possess. In my posts I have provided links to both those reports by way of substantiation.<<

Yeah, I read those. So, you lied earlier when you asserted that the bullshit Bush put in his SOTU 03 was detailed in a 1999 UN report authored by Blix and Ritter. They wrote no such report. They wrote about discrepancies that were still on their books that they wanted to get cleared up. At no time did they say Iraq actually HAD that stuff or any stuff.

>>Now how exactly did us Brits embarrass ourselves fighting a ragtag bunch of kids in the Falkland Islands? - the floor is yours<<

The Falklands was the greatest, most decisive victory in the history of warfare. All hail Britain. what ho, pip pip, cheerio, right! Happy now?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Wolfgang
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 12:22 PM

The information Stigweard has given (only two vetoes by Russia) is of course completely correct (truth and nothing but the truth; though perhaps not the whole truth). It is an instance how one can deliberately misinform by giving completely correct information. Politicians often use this ploy. This way they have not lied and only the recipients of the information are to be blamed for being dumb.

"Russia" has vetoed only twice since the founding of the UNO. Period.

"USSR", "Soviet Union", "Russian Federation" are of course something completely different which we may disregard.

Stigweard has posted in a very creative way the truth and nothing but the truth to the effect of giving a wrong impression.

(Or has used information from an unreliable source without thinking. It was immediately obvious for instance to me that the number of two vetoes made no sense at all)

Wolfgang


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Wolfgang
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 12:31 PM

Back to Iran which interests me more than the blunder in the Iraq.
Mohammed Mohaddessin (NCRI) claims today to know the nuclear program was resumed in 2004.

The NCRI has its own agenda and I wouldn't trust it without more independent corroboration, but what M.M. says is a possibility that should not be overlooked.

Wolfgang


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Stu
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 01:48 PM

"Stigweard has posted in a very creative way the truth and nothing but the truth to the effect of giving a wrong impression."

Much as I would like to take credit for being a creative disseminator of misinformation, the actual truth is not as flattering. I did of course cut and paste the list, and I left the Russian vote bit in out of laziness as I've had a busy day and problems with a blocked drain and sewage overflow in my back garden (This makes reading BB's hysterical defense of Monkey Boy's actions a bit like smellyvision - you can smell the shite as you read).

My intention was to illustrate how the list gives a general idea of the way the US votes on the various issues before the UN - in a manner bordering on cynical and with a general disdain/ignorance/lack of moral integrity and above all hypocrisy that is quite impressive to observe (unless you're born a Palestinian, and therefore and an object of particular revulsion to US politicians it seems).

For instance . . . 1987 Opposition to the development of new weapons of mass destruction - vetoed! Unless you're the US of course, in which case, fill your boots with weapons-grade plutonium!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 01:58 PM

Guest 282RA taken verbatum from the Presidents 2003 State of the Union Address as delivered on 29th January, 2003:

"The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax; enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them."

Now those were the actual words of the President.

From Guest 282RA we got:
"So, you lied earlier when you asserted that the bullshit Bush put in his SOTU 03 was detailed in a 1999 UN report authored by Blix and Ritter. They wrote no such report. They wrote about discrepancies that were still on their books that they wanted to get cleared up. At no time did they say Iraq actually HAD that stuff or any stuff."

Now correct me if I am wrong but does the President refer to conclusions that the UN drew from the Reports that I have previously provided links to? Yes he most certainly does.

Does he at anytime state that Iraq actually HAD that "stuff"? No he does not he states that they have the materials to produce that "stuff". Which pretty much matches up with what BB and myself have been saying all along.

When, oh when, are you Bush-bashers ever going to just pause and read, or listen to, what is actually being said, instead of listening to sound bytes of what some dumb-ass reporter, or editor, is trying to tell you he is saying.

So I take it Guest282RA that when you came out with your line:

"It shows how stupid Bush is to want Britain on his side after the way they embarrassed themselves a fighting a ragtag bunch of kids in the Falkland Islands."

That you were spouting a load of shit and knew damn well that you were spouting a load of shit.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 04:43 PM

>>So I take it Guest282RA that when you came out with your line:

"It shows how stupid Bush is to want Britain on his side after the way they embarrassed themselves a fighting a ragtag bunch of kids in the Falkland Islands."

That you were spouting a load of shit and knew damn well that you were spouting a load of shit.<<

Of course I was! I just wanted to piss you off. Who cares? Man, you're desperate, aren't you? Gotta love it!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 05:17 PM

Bobert wrote:

"Saddam and the Iraqi governemnt were allowing Hanz Blix to inspect where ever they wanted..."

BB wrote:

"NOT according to the report to the UN by Blix that was required under 1441- the last chance for cooperation.

So, Bobert, is that your final answer?

Seems that your arguments come up short of reality.

I know, Danged!!! But when you have something to refute what *I* have stated, feel free to present it."

Hanz Blix, in his January 27, 2003 reprot to the UN said:

"Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our hilicopters have been good. The environment has been workable."

Hmmmmmm, bb... I told you do read a little slower... You are missing the big picture with your biases and/or prejudices... These were the actual words that came out of Dr. Blix's mouth before the UN. Do you refute them???

And as for your assertion that Iran had a "nuclear program", I have never suggested that the didn't... It is not relevant to this subject... Yes, I know that Bush has tried to save face with this argument but, like, who cares... What does matter is what Iran is doing now... And that is where you and Bush;s argument lose traction...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Arne
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 05:26 PM

GUEST,282RA:

"Bruce. I've asked you and Teribus at least a dozen times now to produce the 1999 UN report authored by Blix and Ritter that said Iraq had 25,000 liters of anthrax and 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin and you both not only failed to direct me to this report, you pretended like you didn't notice anyone was requesting it. That pretty much makes you a goner in my book. Two complete shit-talking idiots without a shred of credibility."

Teribus and BB are both RWAs. They're the 28% "dead-enders". They'll defend to their dying breath the honesty and integrity of the Deciderator-In-Chief despite the fact that he's a proven liar and a thug, and they'll never admit they were wrong ... tragically wrong (which, of course is why they won't admit it; see the above link for the description of this pathology). They've been singing this same gawdawful tune for years now and they won't stop. Makes you wish there was a law mandating post-delivery abortions for bone-stoopid Republicans and their sycophants....

Cheers,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 05:50 PM

Thanks for that heads up Guest 282RA serves as a good baseline for future reference.

Arne Langsetmo, how are things going my little viking? I don't know about defending anybody to my dying breath. On this forum its more about filling some of the more dearly held left-wing, anti-Bush, anti-war, socialist myths full of holes. And in concert with some others we haven't been doing too shoddy a job of it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 05:56 PM

Sorry, Bobert.

You are missing the big picture with your biases and/or prejudices...

"On December 7, 2002, Iraq filed its 12,000-page weapons declaration with the UN in order to meet requirements for this resolution. The five permanent members of the Security Council received unedited versions of the report, while an edited version was made available for other UN Member States. On December 19, Hans Blix reported before the United Nations and stated in regards to Iraq's December 7 report (unedited version): "During the period 1991-1998, Iraq submitted many declarations called full, final and complete. Regrettably, much in these declarations proved inaccurate or incomplete or was unsupported or contradicted by evidence. In such cases, no confidence can arise that proscribed programmes or items have been eliminated." By March, Blix declared that the December 7 report had not brought any new documentary evidence to light.

Iraq continued to fail to account for substantial chemical and biological stockpiles which UNMOVIC inspectors had confirmed as existing as late as 1998. Iraq claimed that it had disposed of its anthrax stockpiles at a specific site, but UNMOVIC found this impossible to confirm since Iraq had not allowed the destruction to be witnessed by inspectors as required by the pertinent Resolutions. Chemical testing done at the site was unable to show that any anthrax had been destroyed there.

Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei presented several reports to the UN detailing Iraq's level of compliance with Resolution 1441.[2] [3] [4]. On January 27, 2003 Chief UN Weapons Inspector Blix addressed the UN Security Council and stated "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."[5] Blix went on to state that the Iraqi regime had allegedly misplaced "1,000 tonnes" of VX nerve agent -- one of the most toxic ever developed.[6]

By mid-February the issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles remained unresolved. Blix's March 7 report stated "Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programmes. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections."

At this point, the US Administration asserted that Iraq remained in material breach of the UN Resolutions, and that, under 1441, this meant the Security Council had to convene immediately "in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security"."






**********************************************************************
"On January 27, 2003 Chief UN Weapons Inspector Blix addressed the UN Security Council and stated "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."[5] Blix went on to state that the Iraqi regime had allegedly misplaced "1,000 tonnes" of VX nerve agent -- one of the most toxic ever developed.[6]

By mid-February the issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles remained unresolved. Blix's March 7 report stated "Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programmes. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections."
*********************************************************************
These were the actual words that came out of Dr. Blix's mouth before the UN. Do you refute them???


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441#Aftermath


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 05:59 PM

UNR 1441:
"...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations".



On December 19, Hans Blix reported before the United Nations and stated in regards to Iraq's December 7 report (unedited version): "During the period 1991-1998, Iraq submitted many declarations called full, final and complete. Regrettably, much in these declarations proved inaccurate or incomplete or was unsupported or contradicted by evidence. In such cases, no confidence can arise that proscribed programmes or items have been eliminated." By March, Blix declared that the December 7 report had not brought any new documentary evidence to light.

Iraq continued to fail to account for substantial chemical and biological stockpiles which UNMOVIC inspectors had confirmed as existing as late as 1998. Iraq claimed that it had disposed of its anthrax stockpiles at a specific site, but UNMOVIC found this impossible to confirm since Iraq had not allowed the destruction to be witnessed by inspectors as required by the pertinent Resolutions. Chemical testing done at the site was unable to show that any anthrax had been destroyed there.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 06:07 PM

"What does matter is what Iran is doing now"

On this I agree with you:

At the moment, Iran is still enriching fissionable material beyond the requirements for peaceful purposes.

The NIE does NOT address whether there is a present program active: It declares that there is not enough information to knbow one way or the other.

Iran continues to work on its IRBM and ICBM programs, and has NOT complied with it's obligations under the NPT.


So just what is it that gives you any reason to think that Bush is not at least as truthful as yourself?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 06:34 PM

Well, firstly, bb...

I haven't got upwards of a million people killed!!!

Ahhhhh, that's just for starters...

But most recently here in Mudville I made a statement about Hanz Blix, you countered by challenging my source and actaully saying that what I said came up short of reality???

Now I have provided the actual quote by Blix and rather than you sayin', "Geeze, Bobert, you were right" you change the subject???

Talk about coming up short of reality?!?!?!?....

But forget that... Here's my beef with Bush's foriegn policy toward Iran:

In a nutshell, it is more of the same failed thinking that got US into Iraqmire in the first place... Bush thinks that the US can shoot, threaten and bomb its way in the world... It can't.. First of all it cost one hack of a lot more than diplomacy... The US can't afford to shoot it out with everyone that Bush doesn't like... Heck, it can't afford to shoot it out with everyone that Hillary doesn't like...

This is a very expensive foriegn policy and one that has the ability to cripple our economy... Every empire before US has gone down becuase of military expansion... As grusome as it sounds, Hitler might have succeeded if he hadn't been so hellbent on expansion... Bush is making the same mistakes as Hitler did... He loves war... He loves to pump out his chest and say he's doing this dumbass stuff to protect US...

Problem is that there are more terrorism today then before he decided to attack Iraq... Before you challenge me on that, better do a little actaul fact checking or you'll end up on the wrong side of the "facts" yet again... Just as you were just shown to be...

Now, lastly... Tell me why what Iran was doing 5 years ago is *more important* than a sane approach to what Iran is doing today... You place too much importance of stuff that no one can change and too little importance of things that we can change... What is that about???

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 06:40 PM

Oh Bobert, my apologies I forgot.

Do you know that Report you got the Hans Blix quote from. Can you refresh everyones mind about what he said about co-operation being a two part process. Then we will all know that you have actually read it and then we can compare that to what I said previously.

Dr. Hans Blix - 27th January, 2003:
I turn now, Mr. President, to the key requirement of cooperation and Iraq's response to it. Cooperation might be said to relate to both substance and process. It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, notably access.

A similar decision is indispensable to provide cooperation on substance in order to bring the disarmament task to completion through the peaceful process of inspection and to bring the monitoring task on a firm course.

An initial minor step would be to adopt the long overdue legislation required by the resolutions."

Teribus: "The wording of 1441 allowed for no "material breach" of its provisions - all in all there were seven such instances, while the Iraqis co-operated fully on matters relating to access, they were very reluctant when it came to the area of disclosure and Blix was still complaining about this in his last report to the Security Council."

Now going back to that Report delivered by the good Dr. Blix, Bobert:
- Can you recall him mentioning any problems?
- Did Dr. Blix mention any conflict between the information provided by the Iraq Authorities and hard evidence gathered by his inspection teams?
- Was there any mention of the discovery of some 3000 documents hidden at an Iraqi scientist's house related to enrichment of uranium?
- Did the good Dr. Blix table his concerns about this discovery and the implications of this discovery?
- Did he detail how many U2 Flights, specifically requested by UNMOVIC and required under the terms of 1441, had taken place?
- Did he mention how many names out of the 3500 Iraqi scientists and engineers known to have worked on Saddam's WMD programmes, the Iraqi Authorities submitted to UNMOVIC for interview?
- Did he mention how many of those scientists and engineers were interviewed?

Or did Dr. Blix clearly state that everything was sweetness and light.

Bobert rest assured of one thing - if you don't answer the above questions, I will.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 06:54 PM

My reply was to quote the same person making quite different claims:

"On December 19, Hans Blix reported before the United Nations and stated in regards to Iraq's December 7 report (unedited version): "During the period 1991-1998, Iraq submitted many declarations called full, final and complete. Regrettably, much in these declarations proved inaccurate or incomplete or was unsupported
or contradicted by evidence. In such cases, no confidence can arise that proscribed programmes or items have been eliminated." By March, Blix declared that the December 7 report had not brought any new documentary evidence to light."

and

" Blix's March 7 report stated "Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programmes. Only a few new such
documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections.""

So do you refute what Blix's March 7th report states?

The deadline was December. The terms of the resolution were not met- Do you claim otherwise?



"Tell me why what Iran was doing 5 years ago is *more important* than
a sane approach to what Iran is doing today"

I agree- A sane approach, ie, demanding that Iran comply with its obligations to the NPT, is more important. Yet I do not hear that as a demand: ONLY that the US should not make any effort to enforce that

compliance.

Same as before the invasion of Iraq- You demand that the US NOT take action, and fail to demand that Iran comply with the demands of the international community. The signal that is being sent to Iran, (and other possible violators of the NPT) is that it is ok, and you encourage a siutuation that is FAR more likely to lead to thermonuclear war than anything that Bush has proposed or attempted.



Sorry, in this case I consider that you are wrong.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 06:58 PM

"Well, firstly, bb...

I haven't got upwards of a million people killed!!! "


IMO, those who opposed the war with Iraq WITHOUT demanding that Saddam comply with the UNR bear some responsibility in the subsequent war: Had the Left made it clear to Saddam that they would NOT support his continued violations of UNR, it would seem likely that Saddam would have left Iraq rather than to try to tough it out.

So, tell me again how you demanded that Saddam comply?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 07:50 PM

Well, sure, I know of the report, bb... I've had a copy of it in my filing cabinet going back to when it was issued...

And, yeah, I've read it... Yes there is some back-and-forth in it but on the central issue of cooperation I believe that Dr. Blix's statement was an indication that Dr. Blix felt good about Iraq's level of cooperation...

We need to put some historical perspective on this, however... Yes, Saddam we now learn was doing a lot of bluffing... That much I think we can all agree on... But, if one puts himself in Saddam's shoes, what would you ahve done... No, don't think like an American, or a Brit, here but as the leader of a Middle East country... I can understand why Saddam bluffed...

But bluffing isn' the issue, is it???

No, the issue comes down to the inspectors... And Dr. Blix gave an upbeat assessment of Iraq's finally getting it...

Like I asked before... Why so much importance on things that happened in the past which can no longer be changed and so little importance on those things that can be changed???

I guess, bb, that you are incapable of admitting that the light had gone off in Saddam's head... Dr. Blix saw it... He reported it to the UN...

In a way, you will always be fighting with the past, bb... I don't get it... Nothin' happens in the past... Things happen in the here and now and that's why Dr. Blix was willing and anxious to continue and that is what the US should be doing right now rather than blowing a lot of Bush hot air up people's posteriors...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 08:13 PM

BTW, bb...

Perhaps you'd like to share Dr. Blix's last paragraph of his report to the UN with the folks here...

...or maybe not which...

...given your repulsion for accepting either the word or the spirit of the report would be consistent with your myoptic views of just why the US invaded Iraq to begin with...

B~

p.s. It is a given that if you can't find the closing statement of Dr. Blix's report of Jan. 27th that I sho nuff can... and will...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Arne
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 08:28 PM

Teribus:

Arne Langsetmo, how are things going my little viking?

A whole lot better that you, it seems. You're still spending your effin' life trying to defend the indefencible, same ol' shite, over and over again, no matter how many times you get slapped down and no matter how much an eedjit you look in the process. Why you think this is a good way to spend your days is beyond me ... but then again, I'm not a RWA.

Cheers,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Arne
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 08:31 PM

Teribus:

And in concert with some others we haven't been doing too shoddy a job of it.

A legend in his own mind, he is. But that comes with the territory of being a RWA and stoopid to boot. Studies have shown that RWAs can't figure out they're wrong, and stoopid people are too stoopid to know they're stoopid.

Cheers,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Arne
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 08:41 PM

Teribus:

Can you refresh everyones mind about what he [Blix] said about co-operation being a two part process.

Whereas, Dubya's idea of a two part process is: We stop the inspections. We bomb the living crud out of Iraq, and end up with over a half million Iraqis dead (as well as nigh 400 of our own soldiers).

Oh, yeah, there is a part three. There has to be a part three. We get mired in an insurgency for decades, bleeding our coffers of $2 trillion(!!!) and a whole lot more Iraqis of their blood.

No thanks to Dumbya's 'alternative'. Blix's approach, for all Teribus seems to hate it, was doing just fine, as was shown by even the U.S. gummint's Duelfer Report.

Cheers,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 08:46 PM

Yup, Arne... That's 'bout it... Eric Hoffer coined the term "True Beleiver" for folks like teribus and his bud, bb... They are the ultimate brownshirts of modren times... The horses in "Animal Farm"... They wil fight the losing fight with every breath in their body...

What they will never, never, never, ever do is look themselves in the mirror and ask, "Is this all worth it???"

No, they are totaly incapable of reason... Of facts... Of vision... No, they just go out an pull the plows and they drop in the fields as if the pigs actually could give a rat's ass...

Well, the pigs don't give art's ass about either bb or T-Bird... When it comes down to it these two miserable people are cared for more by the folks here in this little folk musicans web site then in the house that the pigs have taken over and the same pigs they defend...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Amos
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 10:02 PM

BB, ole chum, there is a wide spectrum of reality lying in between "any effort" to enforce compliance and "invasion and war". Surely even you can see the extremism of Mister Bush's decisions and recognize that there were other factors involved in the decision than the ones acknowledged. Either that, or the man was a madman. But that is ruled out because the American people would never elect a madman.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 10:07 PM

Perhaps you'd like to share the substance of Dr. Blix's report to the UN with the folks...


"On 7th of December 2002, Iraq submitted a declaration of some 12,000 pages in response to Paragraph 3 of Resolution 1441 and within the time stipulated by the Security Council.

In the fields of missiles and biotechnology, the declaration contains a good deal of new material and information covering the period from 1998 and onward. This is welcome.

One might have expected that in preparing the declaration, Iraq would have tried to respond to, clarify and submit supporting evidence regarding the many open disarmament issues, which the Iraqi side should be familiar with from the UNSCOM documents (of 1994 ?) and the so-called Amorim report of March 1999. These are questions which UNMOVIC, governments and independent commentators have often cited.

While UNMOVIC has been preparing its own list of current unresolved disarmament issues and key remaining disarmament tasks in response to requirements in Resolution 1284, we find the issues listed in the two reports I mentioned as unresolved professionally justified. These reports do not contend the weapons of mass destruction remain in Iraq; but nor do they exclude that possibility. They point to lack of evidence and inconsistencies which raise question marks, which must be straightened out if weapons dossiers are to be closed and confidence is to arise. They deserve to be taken seriously by Iraq rather than being brushed aside as evil machinations of UNSCOM.

Regrettably, the 12,000-page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that will eliminate the questions or reduce their number. Even Iraq's letter sent in response to our recent discussions in Baghdad to the president of the Security Council on 24th of January does not lead us to the resolution of these issues.

I shall only give some examples of issues and questions that need to be answered, and I turn first to the sector of chemical weapons. The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed. Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tons, and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said that the agent was never weaponized. Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.

UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization, and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.

There are also indications that the agent was weaponized. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost due to bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.

I would now like to turn to the so-called Air Force document that I have discussed with the council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi Air Force headquarters in 1998, and taken from her by Iraqi minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs, by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war. I am encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC. The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1998, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tons. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.
The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocked warheads in a bunker at the storage depot 170 kilometers southwest of Baghdad was much-publicized. This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the rockets must have been moved here in the past two years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. Investigation of these rockets is still proceeding. Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve, but rather points to the issue of several thousand of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.

The finding of the rockets shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate. During my recent discussions in Baghdad, Iraq declared that it would make new efforts in this regard, and has set up a committee of investigation.

Since then, it has reported that it has found further four chemical rockets at a storage depot in al-Taji.

I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site the laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard precursor.

Whilst I'm addressing chemical issues, I should mention a matter, which I reported on 19th of December last year, concerning equipment at a civilian chemical plant at al-Fallujah. Iraq has declared that it had repaired chemical processing equipment previously destroyed under UNSCOM's supervision and had installed at Fallujah for the production of chlorine and phenols. We have inspected this equipment and are conducting a detailed technical evaluation of it. On completion, we will decide whether this and other equipment that has been recovered by Iraq should be destroyed.

I turn to biological weapons. I mentioned the issue of anthrax to the council on previous occasion, and I come back to it, as it is an important one. Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 liters of this biological warfare agent, which, it states, it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision, or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was indeed destroyed in 1991.

As I reported to the council on the 19th of December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kilos, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged, as reported, in Iraq's submissions to the Amorim panel in February of 1999. As a part of its 7 December, 2002, declaration, Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document, but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate, as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered.
In a letter the 24th of January, this year, to the president of the Security Council, Iraq's foreign minister stated that, I quote, "All imported quantities of growth media were declared," unquote. This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of the media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 liters of concentrated anthrax.

I turn, Mr. President, now to the missile sector. There remain significant questions as to whether Iraq retained Scud-type missiles after the Gulf War. Iraq declared the consumption of a number of Scud missiles as targets in the development of anti-ballistic missile defense system during the 1980s, yet no technical information has been produced about that program, or data on the consumption of the missiles.

There has been a range of developments in the missile field during the past four years, presented by Iraq in the declaration as non-proscribed activities. We are trying to gather a clear understanding of them through inspections and on-site discussions. Two projects in particular stand out. They are the development of a liquid-fueled missile named Al-Samoud II, and a solid propellant missile called Al Fatah. Both missiles have been tested to a range in excess of the permitted range of 150 kilometers, with the Al-Samoud II being tested to a maximum of 183 kilometers, and the Al Fatah to 161 kilometers. Some of both types of missiles have already been provided to the Iraqi armed forces, even though it is stated that they are still undergoing development. The Al-Samoud's diameter was increased from an earlier version to the present 760 millimeters. This modification was made despite a 1994 letter from the executive chairman of UNSCOM directing Iraq to limit its missile diameters to less than 600 millimeters. Furthermore, a November 1997 letter from the executive chairman of UNSCOM to Iraq prohibited the use of engines from certain surface-to-air missiles for the use in ballistic missiles.

During my recent meeting in Baghdad, we were briefed on these two programs. We were told that the final range for both systems would be less than the permitted maximum of 150 kilometers.

These missiles might well represent prima facie cases of proscribed systems. The test ranges in excess of 150 kilometers are significant, but some further technical considerations need to be made before we reach a conclusion on this issue. In the meantime, we have asked Iraq to cease flight test of both missiles.

In addition, Iraq has refurbished its missile-production infrastructure. In particular, Iraq reconstituted a number of casting chambers which had previously been destroyed under UNSCOM's supervision. They had been used in the production of solid-fuel missiles.

Whatever missile system these chambers are intended for, they could produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 kilometers.
Also associated with these missiles and related developments is the import which has been taking place during the last two years of a number of items despite the sanctions, including as late as December -- (inaudible word). Foremost among these is the import of 300 rockets engines which may be used for the Al-Samoud 2.

Iraq has also declared the recent import of chemicals used in propellants, test instrumentation, and guidance and control system. These items may well be for proscribed purposes. That is yet to be determined. What is clear is that they were illegally brought into Iraq. That is, Iraq or some company in Iraq circumvented the restrictions imposed by various resolutions.

Mr. President, I have touched upon some of the disarmament issues that remain open and that need to be answered if dossiers are to be closed and confidence is to arise. Which are the means at the disposal of Iraq to answer these questions? I have pointed to some during my presentation of the issues. Let me be a little more systematic.

Our Iraqi counterparts are fond of saying that there are no proscribed items and, if no evidence is presented to the contrary, they should have the benefit of the doubt, be presumed innocent. UNMOVIC, for its part, is not presuming that there are proscribed items and activities in Iraq; but nor is it or, I think, anyone else, after the inspections between 1991 and '98, presuming the opposite, that no such items and activities exist in Iraq. Presumptions do not solve the problem. Evidence and full transparency may, may help.

Let me be specific. Information provided by member states tells us about the movement and concealment of missiles and chemical weapons and mobile units for biological weapons production. We shall certainly follow up any credible leads given to us and report what we might find, as well as any denial of access.

So far, we have reported on the recent find of a small number of empty 122-millimeter warheads for chemical weapons. Iraq declared that it appointed a commission of inquiry to look for more. Fine. Why not extend the search to other items, declare what may be found, and destroy it under our supervision?
When we have urged our Iraqi counterparts to present more evidence, we have all too often met the response that there are no more documents; all existing relevant documents have presented, we are told; all documents relating to the biological weapons program were destroyed together with the weapons.

However, Iraq has all the archives of the government and its various departments, institutions and mechanisms. It should have budgetary documents, requests for funds, and reports on how they have been used. It should also have letters of credit and bills of lading, reports on production and losses of material.

In response to the recent UNMOVIC request for a number of specific documents, the only new documents Iraq provided was a ledger of 193 pages, which Iraq stated included all imports from 1983 to 1990 by the Technical and Scientific Importation Division, the importing authority for the biological weapons program. Potentially, it might help to clear some open issues.
The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the laser enrichment of uranium, support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals. This interpretation is refuted by the Iraqi side, which claims that research staff sometimes may bring home papers from their workplaces. On our side, we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated, and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 10:09 PM

Any further sign of the concealment of documents will be serious. The Iraqi side committed itself, at our recent talks, to encourage persons to accept access also to private sites. There can be -- (brief audio break) -- for proscribed items, activities or documents. A denial of prompt access to any site would be a very serious matter.

When Iraq claims that tangible evidence in the form of documents is not available, it ought at least to find individuals, engineers, scientists and managers to testify about their experience. Large weapons programs are moved and managed by people. Interviews with individuals who may have worked in programs in the past may fill blank spots in our knowledge and understanding. It could also be useful to learn that they are now employed in peaceful sectors. These are the reasons why UNMOVIC asked for a list of such persons, in accordance with Resolution 1441. Some 400 names for all biological and chemical weapons programs, as well as their missile programs, were provided by the Iraqi side. This can be compared to over 3,500 names of people associated with those past weapons programs that UNSCOM either interviewed in the 1990s, or knew from documents and other sources. At my recent meeting in Baghdad, the Iraqi side committed itself to supplementing the list, and some 80 additional names have been provided.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 10:10 PM

In the past, much valuable information came from interviews. There were also cases in which the interviewee was clearly intimidated by the presence of an interruption by Iraq officials. This was the background of Resolution 1441's provision for a right for UNMOVIC and the IAEA to hold private interviews, I quote, "in the mode or location," unquote, of our choice in Baghdad or even abroad.

To date, 11 individuals were asked for interviews in Baghdad by us. The replies have invariably been that the individual would only speak at Iraq's Monitoring Directorate or at any rate, in the presence of an Iraq official. This could be due to a wish on the part of the invited to have evidence that they have not said anything that the authorities did not wish them to say. In our recent talks in Baghdad, the Iraqis had committed itself (sic) to encourage persons to accept interviews in private; that is to say, alone with us. Despite this, the pattern has not changed. However, we hope that with further encouragement from the authorities, knowledgeable individuals will accept private interviews in Baghdad or abroad."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 10:12 PM

Amos,

The point is that Bush has NOT called for invasion- He has called for Iran to comply with the UN. It is the actions of certain nations, in supporting Iran's continued violation of the terms of the NPT that bring a threat of war.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 12:11 AM

Already covered by T. YES, under earlier UNR.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 12:13 AM

As the one person responsible for looking after the security and interests of the United States of America. Was it ever a requirement that he had to?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 12:23 AM

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

Did they convene to consider the situation or did Bush invade?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 12:53 AM

Read, and I mean read, the UN' authorisation for the use of force with regard to Resolution 678.

Then read, and I mean read, the terms and conditions detailed in Resolution 687 that Iraq agreed to as part of a cease-fire agreement.

Tell us all hand on heart whether or not Iraq complied with those cease-fire terms - They had 12 years to do so. By the bye, Dr. Blix reports on 27th January 2003 that they did not.

Resolution 1441 gave Iraq one last chance - actually in UN-speak they had already had several.

Read Stigweards "Hansard" link which details France's absolute refusal to consider any resolution that would present an ultimatum to Iraq regarding compliance with any of the above outstanding UN Security Council Resolutions.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Stu
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 05:27 AM

"IMO, those who opposed the war with Iraq WITHOUT demanding that Saddam comply with the UNR bear some responsibility in the subsequent war: Had the Left made it clear to Saddam that they would NOT support his continued violations of UNR, it would seem likely that Saddam would have left Iraq rather than to try to tough it out. "

This is superb - not content with supporting the debacle in Iraq you are trying to shift some of the blame for this mess onto people who opposed it? Is your conscience eating you away so much the only way you can assuage your guilt is by transferring it to people who don't agree with you? Is the only way you can deal with the bloodied consequences of the actions you so vigorously defend the abdication of responsibility?

This shows such a lack of moral integrity it can only be described as right-wing. Have some bollocks, stand by your convictions and have the courage not to attempt to implicate those who objected to your ill-conceived venture.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 09:14 AM

Hans Blix was interviewed on BBC Radio Four earlier this year.
I can not make this download play but I do remember him giving his opinion that removing Sadam justified all the pain that his removal brought about.
He believed that the war was justified.

http://onebigtorrent.org/torrents/1675/Hans-Blix-On-the-Ropes-BBC-Radio-4


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: don't trust a bald faced LIAR
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 10:46 AM

however bearded bruce may believe any liar of his choosing. Thats the beauty of America.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jd7LvJBIaNo&feature=related


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 12:07 PM

bb,

Try again... We are talking about the January 27 address to the UN which, if I am not mistaken, was his last address to the that body before Bush decided to short circuit the process...

Hint: The very last word is "Council"...

As for Dr. Blix saying the war was "justified", this purdy much flies in the face of spirit of what he said in is Jan. 27th report to the UN...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 02:05 PM

Bobert , Regarding Blix what you said is a fact

however facts are optional for neocon military industrial purposes.

We have been at war with Iraq for how many years now?

12-18 years depending on how you measure it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 02:14 PM

I couldn't open that Blix interview either. What Keith says there doesn't sound consistent with what Blix has said on other occasions. Of course he might have modified his views - but I wonder if there might be a misunderstanding of what he said, with him expressing a hope that on balance it might turn out that the invasion didn't make things worse, or perhaps saying that for some people it did make things better.

For many people the invasion and its aftermath has undoubtedly made things even worse - for example it appears that the freedom of women to lead independent lives, or to dress as they choose has been greatly restricted, and the situation of religious minorities, notably Iraq's Christian ancient community, has got incomparably worse. For all its horrible aspects, Baathist Iraq was a secular, and in some ways a relatively open, society.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 02:17 PM

Bobert,

My post WAS of the 27 January address. Care to read it ( for a change) before you make statements about what it says?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 02:21 PM

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/iraq/blix_report.html


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 02:22 PM

And Donuel and Bobert may believe any liar of their choosing. Thats the beauty of America.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 02:26 PM

"the substance of Dr. Blix's report to the UN"

In case you were not aware, it is standard policy to ALWAYS end a report on a positive note,. One might want to read the whole report, or at least the summary, as opposed to basing one's conclusion on what is said by a single paragraph at the end.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 03:38 PM

"the abdication of responsibility?"

It seems that those here who opposed action against Saddam have already abdicated any responsibility FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS and WORDS.


Just pointing it out.


You seem to protest too much: If it was not true, why does it bother you so much???


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 03:39 PM

From MGOH this is an astonishing example of denial and abdication of responsibility:

"For all its horrible aspects, Baathist Iraq was a secular, and in some ways a relatively open, society."

Really Kevin? In roughly the same way it could no doubt have been claimed:

For all its horrible aspects, Nazi Germany was a secular, and in some ways a relatively open, society.

Result 15 million deaths.

Or maybe considering your socialist background:

For all its horrible aspects, Soviet Russia was a secular, and in some ways a relatively open, society.

Result over 38 million deaths.

I'll make the point now, those constrained to live under the Ba'athist Rule and whims of Saddam Hussein and his sons in secular Iraq, did not have to suffer such a fate because somebody acted to deliver them from it. Bad enough as it was - for 24 years Saddam butchered the people of Iraq achieving an average of 282 per day - higher if you take into account those killed during the Iran/Iraq War.

I would strongly recommend Kevin that you read some of the survivors stories and do a great deal of research into what Saddam was responsible for in Iraq and the suffering he visited upon its citizens - The horrible bits Kevin, not the bits about dress code for women.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Amos
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 03:58 PM

BB:

It is not abdicating responsibility to oppose the accelerating spiral of violence espoused by the Bushites. It is,m in fact, more responsible to NOT pull the trigger when you don't fully understand the situation, as it is certainly true GWB did not, than to pull the trigger on the hunch you might understand it. It takes a certain centered, compassionate intelligence to look further into a scene and find out what is going on it before jumping in like a commando to shoot it up. W did not have this quality, does not have it now, and I feel sure never will.

That is why he is dangerous. The rush to violence is an insane trait except where imminent threat can be demonstrated, which in this case it was not.

THis in now way is meant to make less of your argument about the madness of Saddam Hussein. I see no reason to believe he was the maddest of world leaders or the most destructive. If the rationale of the invasion was purely that he was killing 28 people a day, we would have invaded Darfur long since.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 04:11 PM

Amos,

And I would support a UN invasion of Sudan.

But my point is that those "opposed " to the war were in fact opposed to any Bush action against Iraq: They made NO effort to even hint that Saddam should comply, and I DID post the article about the Iraqi group that was prevented from marching in the "anti-war" protests BECAUSE they were stating that Saddam should step down.

You are entitled to think that Bush jumped the gun: I am entitled to think that, had the Left, and those countries that prevented effective UN action bothered to tell Saddam to give up power in as strong terms as they told Bush to NOT take action, there would have been mo war, no insurgency, and no occupation of Iraq by outside troops.

Saddam had the option of opening his borders, and not resisting any invasion ( prior to the start of combat). Did you ever wonder why he thought that he would NOT be held accountable?

Millions of protesters telling Bush to stop, and saying NOTHING about Saddam.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 05:18 PM

Guess again, bb...

But this is your last guess 'cause if you get it wrong again then I'll just have to print the Closing statement of the report... I think you are depending on one of your rightie blogs that conviently leaves out anyything that they don't like... You know, kinda like Bush...

And, oh, BTW, just, the closing statement (parargraph), por favor... Not a War and Peace lenght cut and paste or a bb tirade where the closing statement get smothered with the usual crap...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Stringsinger
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 05:28 PM

Bush wants to control the mid-East. He wants to be alpha dog in the nuke department so he can make more money for the defense industry, the leading US export business.

This is not incompetence but based on a world view that will bring the US into another war so that the defense industry can become more wealthy.

Iran is probably like Pakistan in that they see their nukes as a deterrant from US occupation.

Bush has no intention of introducing peace, justic or freedom to the Mid-East.

The winning ticket goes to Halliburton, Blackwater, KBR, Canopy, and Boeing, Lockheed,
etc.

This may be the worst president in the history of the country whose foreign policy is based on economic dominance and suppression of human rights, not to mention the wholesale slaughter of Iraqi citizens.

Frank Hamilton


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 05:29 PM

What the heck...

..200!!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 05:30 PM

plus 1...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 06:34 PM

If you actually believe what you trotted out in your last post Frank here are a few questions for you.

1. How could Bush, or anybody else for that matter, "control" the middle-east? Tell us how they would go about it? I am certainly interested because I believe it to be impossible, I would also venture the opinion that for anybody to control the middle-east would be undesirable, an view I think that would be shared around the world in very many places - not least so in the United States of America.

2. You state incorrectly that "the defense industry" is the leading US export business. In 2006 (Figures not out for 2007 yet) with regard to US Exports it ("the defense industry" - Arms and Ammunition) was number 44 in the list.

3. Your substantiation for your claim that the US wants to involve itself in another war so that the defense industry can become more wealthy, is what exactly? If you cannot provide anything to back this ludicrous statement up please have the honesty to say so and correctly state it is only your opinion.

4. "Iran is probably like Pakistan in that they see their nukes as a deterrant from US occupation"? For a start when, apart from Barack Obama, has the US ever militarily threatened Pakistan? Pakistan's nuclear industry and nuclear arsenal exist only to provide counter-balance to India's nuclear capabilities nothing more.

5. "Bush has no intention of introducing peace, justice or freedom to the Mid-East" - He's making a damn sight better stab at bringing those things to the middle-east than anyone else on the block. If you have current examples of those doing better please name them and their accomplishments over the last six years.

6. "The winning ticket goes to Halliburton, Blackwater, KBR, Canopy, and Boeing, Lockheed, etc." - Prize money's that good for 44th place is it Frank.

7. For "wholesale slaughter of Iraqi citizens", Frank you'd have to work very hard for a long, long time to beat Saddam. MNF Troops in Iraq have "slaughtered" relatively few Iraqi citizens, their fellow muslims on the otherhand, be they Sunni/Shia/foreign jihadists, well that's a different story, and one that can be easily substantiated.

By the way Frank have you any addresses for all the concentration camps that those evil-mega-corporations are going to put us into? It was you who said that that was the overall plan wasn't it?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 07:47 PM

Bobert:

So far YOU ( yelling) have been the one to get it wrong.

What I posted was from the ** content ** of the report.

As for "I think you are depending on one of your rightie blogs that conviently leaves out anyything that they don't like... You know, kinda like Bush..."

** I ** think that you are ignoring anything that does not agree with your false view of reality.

The LAST paragraph of the report that I quoted from is:
"Mr. President, we now have an inspection apparatus that permits us to send multiple inspection teams every day all over Iraq, by road or by air. Let me end by simply noting that that capability, which has been built up in a short time and which is now operating, is at the disposal of the Security Council. "

OK? NOW, If you cannot reply to what I posted as to the *** SUBSTANCE *** of the report, I will know you are more interested in telling a false viewpoint than in having a reasonable discussion of what Blix said.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 08:37 PM

Ahhhhhhh, yes... You have finally gotten it right, bb, so give yersel;f a gold star...

No, let me award you a gold star...

Yes, there were areas that Blix reported were troublesome... There were things that he wished hadn't happened... There was the cultural aspects that I learned about in dealing with Kuwaits and Saudis... These thing are going to occur... I mean, lets get real here... The inspectors left in what, 1998 and things weren't goin' to run like Swiss watch... It would have been unreasonable to expect anything different...

But in another area of the report Blix said this:

"In the past two months, UNMOVIC has built-up its capabilities in Iraq from nothing to 260 staff members from 60- countries. This includes approximately 100 UNMOVIC inpestors, 60 air operations inspectors, 60 air operations staff, as well as security personnel, communicati8on, tranlatio9n and interprtation staff, medical suppoprt and other services at our Baghdad office and Mosul filed office."

This is the reality that you, bb, refuse to accept... This was all done in 2 friggin' months!!! Heck I can't get a friggin' doctor's appointemnt in 2 months here in the good ol' US of A but all this was accomplished in just 2 friggin' months?!?!??!?!?....

So, bottom line, if you take Dr. Bliz's reprt one the whole you don't go tellin' him to get his friggin' inspectors the heck out 'cause you have lost patience...

You just don't...

Yeah, I know that I am addressing a brick wall here who is no longer capabale of ***independent*** thought but you know what??? I've been on the side of humanity since the very beginning here... I have no political axe to grind... I'm not a Democrat... So I am way beyond "True Believerism", unlike you, bb, who worships at the feet ot George Bush...

I have the freedom of looking at the "facts" and drawing my own conclusions... I don't have an allegience to some politacal party where I will defend to the death every fu*ked up policy that they beleive in...

I feel sorry for you, bb... I woudl hate to find myself a prisoner of George Bush but it it obvious to me that you are perfectly willing prisoner, with papers in order...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 09:22 PM

For your enlightenment and edification, Teribus, I believe the articles on this website do a pretty good job of lining out the basics of the Bush administration's foreign policy. CLICKY

Check the Statement of Principles HERE and note the signatories at the bottom of the page. Take particular note of the ones who are or were in the very core of the Bush administration.

Is Frank wrong? I don't think so.

And your last paragraph is a transparent and ingenuous attempt to characterize Frank's quite accurate take on the matter as just another kookie conspiracy theory. Sorry. No sale!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 09:28 PM

"who worships at the feet ot George Bush... "

Sorry, Bobert. THIS statement makes you appear to be a liar- and that couldn't be so, now, could iut?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 09:37 PM

"I have the freedom of looking at the "facts" and drawing my own conclusions... "

I agree with you on this statement.

But then , ** I ** have that same freedom, and what I see is that NOTHING in the way of cooperation occurred UNTIL AFTER THE DEADLINE HAD PASSED, and the US was massing forces on the border.

And please explain how you demanded Saddam comply?

And PLEASE tell me why Saddam did not open his borders, and allow unlimited inspections BEFORE the threat of invasion?

And please tell me why Saddam thought that he could NOT step down, after Blix had declared that Saddam HAD NOT MET the demands of UNR1441, which the UN declared to be his LAST AND FINAL chance to comply?


Please note, Bobert: I posted the link to the entire report, while you seem fixated on a single paragraph. It looks to me like You are more interested in establishing your own set of "facts" than finding out what Blix actually said. THAT IS A LIE, in my book. So back off claiming others are lying, when your own grasp of the truth is so based on what YOU want it to be.

You are out-Bushing Bush.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 09:38 PM

REPEATING:
NOW, If you cannot reply to what I posted as to the *** SUBSTANCE *** of the report, I will know you are more interested in telling a false viewpoint than in having a reasonable discussion of what Blix said.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 09:49 PM

Bobert states:
"As for Dr. Blix saying the war was "justified", this purdy much flies in the face of spirit of what he said in is Jan. 27th report to the UN..."

and

"Yes there is some back-and-forth in it but on the central issue of cooperation I believe that Dr. Blix's statement was an indication that Dr. Blix felt good about Iraq's level of cooperation..."



The spirt of the January 27th report, which I have quoted from at length and not just cherrypicked a single paragraph ( or 2) indicates that Blix had serious doubts about whether Saddam would ever comply.

But then , to actually read what Blix said might be too difficult:

"Even Iraq's letter sent in response to our recent discussions in Baghdad to the president of the Security Council on 24th of January does not lead us to the resolution of these issues.

I shall only give some examples of issues and questions that need to be answered, and I turn first to the sector of chemical weapons. The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed. Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tons, and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said that the agent was never weaponized. Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.

UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization, and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.

There are also indications that the agent was weaponized. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost due to bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.

I would now like to turn to the so-called Air Force document that I have discussed with the council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi Air Force headquarters in 1998, and taken from her by Iraqi minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs, by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war. I am encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC. The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1998, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tons. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.
The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocked warheads in a bunker at the storage depot 170 kilometers southwest of Baghdad was much-publicized. This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the rockets must have been moved here in the past two years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. Investigation of these rockets is still proceeding. Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve, but rather points to the issue of several thousand of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.

The finding of the rockets shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate. During my recent discussions in Baghdad, Iraq declared that it would make new efforts in this regard, and has set up a committee of investigation.

Since then, it has reported that it has found further four chemical rockets at a storage depot in al-Taji.

I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site the laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard precursor.

Whilst I'm addressing chemical issues, I should mention a matter, which I reported on 19th of December last year, concerning equipment at a civilian chemical plant at al-Fallujah. Iraq has declared that it had repaired chemical processing equipment previously destroyed under UNSCOM's supervision and had installed at Fallujah for the production of chlorine and phenols. We have inspected this equipment and are conducting a detailed technical evaluation of it. On completion, we will decide whether this and other equipment that has been recovered by Iraq should be destroyed.

I turn to biological weapons. I mentioned the issue of anthrax to the council on previous occasion, and I come back to it, as it is an important one. Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 liters of this biological warfare agent, which, it states, it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision, or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was indeed destroyed in 1991.

As I reported to the council on the 19th of December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kilos, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged, as reported, in Iraq's submissions to the Amorim panel in February of 1999. As a part of its 7 December, 2002, declaration, Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document, but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate, as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered.
In a letter the 24th of January, this year, to the president of the Security Council, Iraq's foreign minister stated that, I quote, "All imported quantities of growth media were declared," unquote. This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of the media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 liters of concentrated anthrax.

I turn, Mr. President, now to the missile sector. There remain significant questions as to whether Iraq retained Scud-type missiles after the Gulf War. Iraq declared the consumption of a number of Scud missiles as targets in the development of anti-ballistic missile defense system during the 1980s, yet no technical information has been produced about that program, or data on the consumption of the missiles.

There has been a range of developments in the missile field during the past four years, presented by Iraq in the declaration as non-proscribed activities. We are trying to gather a clear understanding of them through inspections and on-site discussions. Two projects in particular stand out. They are the development of a liquid-fueled missile named Al-Samoud II, and a solid propellant missile called Al Fatah. Both missiles have been tested to a range in excess of the permitted range of 150 kilometers, with the Al-Samoud II being tested to a maximum of 183 kilometers, and the Al Fatah to 161 kilometers. Some of both types of missiles have already been provided to the Iraqi armed forces, even though it is stated that they are still undergoing development. The Al-Samoud's diameter was increased from an earlier version to the present 760 millimeters. This modification was made despite a 1994 letter from the executive chairman of UNSCOM directing Iraq to limit its missile diameters to less than 600 millimeters. Furthermore, a November 1997 letter from the executive chairman of UNSCOM to Iraq prohibited the use of engines from certain surface-to-air missiles for the use in ballistic missiles.

During my recent meeting in Baghdad, we were briefed on these two programs. We were told that the final range for both systems would be less than the permitted maximum of 150 kilometers.

These missiles might well represent prima facie cases of proscribed systems. The test ranges in excess of 150 kilometers are significant, but some further technical considerations need to be made before we reach a conclusion on this issue. In the meantime, we have asked Iraq to cease flight test of both missiles.

In addition, Iraq has refurbished its missile-production infrastructure. In particular, Iraq reconstituted a number of casting chambers which had previously been destroyed under UNSCOM's supervision. They had been used in the production of solid-fuel missiles.

Whatever missile system these chambers are intended for, they could produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 kilometers.
Also associated with these missiles and related developments is the import which has been taking place during the last two years of a number of items despite the sanctions, including as late as December -- (inaudible word). Foremost among these is the import of 300 rockets engines which may be used for the Al-Samoud 2.

Iraq has also declared the recent import of chemicals used in propellants, test instrumentation, and guidance and control system. These items may well be for proscribed purposes. That is yet to be determined. What is clear is that they were illegally brought into Iraq. That is, Iraq or some company in Iraq circumvented the restrictions imposed by various resolutions.

Mr. President, I have touched upon some of the disarmament issues that remain open and that need to be answered if dossiers are to be closed and confidence is to arise. Which are the means at the disposal of Iraq to answer these questions? I have pointed to some during my presentation of the issues. Let me be a little more systematic.

Our Iraqi counterparts are fond of saying that there are no proscribed items and, if no evidence is presented to the contrary, they should have the benefit of the doubt, be presumed innocent. UNMOVIC, for its part, is not presuming that there are proscribed items and activities in Iraq; but nor is it or, I think, anyone else, after the inspections between 1991 and '98, presuming the opposite, that no such items and activities exist in Iraq. Presumptions do not solve the problem. Evidence and full transparency may, may help.

Let me be specific. Information provided by member states tells us about the movement and concealment of missiles and chemical weapons and mobile units for biological weapons production. We shall certainly follow up any credible leads given to us and report what we might find, as well as any denial of access.

So far, we have reported on the recent find of a small number of empty 122-millimeter warheads for chemical weapons. Iraq declared that it appointed a commission of inquiry to look for more. Fine. Why not extend the search to other items, declare what may be found, and destroy it under our supervision?
When we have urged our Iraqi counterparts to present more evidence, we have all too often met the response that there are no more documents; all existing relevant documents have presented, we are told; all documents relating to the biological weapons program were destroyed together with the weapons.

However, Iraq has all the archives of the government and its various departments, institutions and mechanisms. It should have budgetary documents, requests for funds, and reports on how they have been used. It should also have letters of credit and bills of lading, reports on production and losses of material.

In response to the recent UNMOVIC request for a number of specific documents, the only new documents Iraq provided was a ledger of 193 pages, which Iraq stated included all imports from 1983 to 1990 by the Technical and Scientific Importation Division, the importing authority for the biological weapons program. Potentially, it might help to clear some open issues.
The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the laser enrichment of uranium, support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals. This interpretation is refuted by the Iraqi side, which claims that research staff sometimes may bring home papers from their workplaces. On our side, we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated, and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes. "


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 02:12 AM

Don,

From the "Statement of Principles":

"Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;


• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;


• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;


• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next."

I can see absolutely nothing wrong with any of that taken from an American point of view. There is nothing within the statement taken as a whole that indicates the desire, intention or value in herding us all into Frank's "Concentration Camps" - Frank is, I believe, the person who claimed elsewhere that they had already been built. I have seen no evidence of this, I therefore consign it to the dustbin of looney, unsubstantiated, left-wing conspiracy theories.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Stu
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 04:35 AM

"It seems that those here who opposed action against Saddam have already abdicated any responsibility FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS and WORDS."

On the contrary - I stand by my convictions and always have. The fact I was against the invasion of Iraq and attended a peace vigil on the 15th February because I couldn't get to London is an action I am glad I did.

It takes a man to admit he's wrong bruce. Your ceaseless unreasoned and uncritical defense of your neo-con role models is suspicious because it seems unquestioning of motive and the importance of moral integrity - which the American leadership has abandoned, held in the thrall of it's own military might and drunk on it's ability to kill more or less whom it wants without fear of being accountable for it's actions.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Stu
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 05:24 AM

"But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise."

Ah, the responsibilities that come with empire - looks like the ordinary American is funding this arrogant delusion, and at what cost to the poorest in that society?

Times change, and America is no longer the ideological leader of the free world, yet it has not woken up to the fact and continues to rumble on - a deaf and dumb behemoth of an anachronism steamrollering it's way into the oblivion of climate change and economic decrepitude fuelled by it's insatiable greed and onanistic military fixation.

That the American Dream is a Hollywood myth is no longer in doubt. The land of the free decided to leave it's principles in the 20th Century and embrace the moral abyss of unregulated capitalism and economically-driven military interventionisn, with all the sordid and dishonorable consequences that has propagated; the euphemisms for torture, the unaccountability of it's intelligence and military to the people that fund it, the fact those organisations attempt to mislead the country's own elected representatives when transgressions occur and they realise they could be called to account.

It's unsettling how we don't learn from the past. Inevitably, the American Empire will fall as all the others have done, bloated with appropriated wealth while staring narcissistically at it's own self-image.

This is reflected in the "Statement of Principles" Teribus posted. He is correct in there is nothing wrong with that statement from the American point of view - but the rest of the world will be raising two fingers to the idea America has some sort of inherent right to impose it's own amoral abstractions on the rest of the world. The statement betrays the arrogance, belligerence and

This might sound anti-American, but that would be to misinterpret the point of the argument. America has become corrupted by it's leaders intoxication with wealth and power. The fact America can no longer abide by or even see the ideals is so vehemently purports to defend demonstrates how far it has drifted from the hopes it's founding fathers had for it as a nation.

An America who could realise it's potential would be a wonderful sight to behold; I believe that other America stills exists - it can be heard in it's music, seen in it's art and read in it's books, I felt it on the streets of New York when we visited in the warmth of welcome we received from truly delightful people. But unless it's people decide to transcend the moral corruption of empire and embrace the principles of humanitarianism, then it will face increasing isolation and marginalisation, and face the slow decline into debilitation and irrelevance - the way of all Empires in the end.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 09:02 AM

1% percent of Haiti does not hold all the wealth. Bobert's fact is not a fact regardless of weather I want to live there or not.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 09:10 AM

Yo, bb...

You are not only back to your ususal SCREAMING but also back to cherry picking...

I made the statement that Dr. Blix said in his report that Iarq was cooperating...

You challenged me on that staement...

I provided the actual quote...

You responded by cherry picking the negatives of D. Blix's report...

I asked you to provide just Dr. Blix's closing statement which you refused to do... What you did provided was a War and Peace length cut 'and post which is of little value in a discussion where people aren't going to read and reread the sme old stuff...

No, you conviently avoided posting just Dr. Blix's closing statement because if you had it would have severely weakened Bush's case to invade Iraq...

This, IMO, is the kind of behavior that got US into Iraqmire...

It is war-mongering...

This was not a war of defense... It was a war of choice... No one is safer now... Not Americans... Not the Iraqis... No one...

I will be glad when this period of nationalism and militarism looses it grip on so many people in our country... It is terribly destructive and counterproductive toward international cooperation on the real problems that the inhabitants of this Earth face...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 10:10 AM

Too late on that one, Homey...

Already been addressed, thank you...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 12:50 PM

Hey Bobert, that report delivered by the good Dr. Blix on the 27th January, 2003 that you keep referring to. I asked you to clarify a few points, I note that you ducked them. Well as promised here's the answers:

- Can you recall him mentioning any problems?

Having stated that the co-operation required by 1441 had to be in two-parts, process and substance, to be successful, he said that while the Iraqi's were co-operating well with regard to process, there was extremely limited co-operation with regard to substance. The latter, he stated, being vital if UNMOVIC were ever going to complete their work. In fact thereafter his report is a catalogue of inconsistencies, harrassment and obstruction. Material Breach Bobert.

- Did Dr. Blix mention any conflict between the information provided by the Iraq Authorities and hard evidence gathered by his inspection teams?

Quite a number of instances are highlighted where the Iraqi Authorities state one thing and UNMOVIC Inspectors turn up evidence that contradicts the Iraqi information. Material Breach Bobert

- Was there any mention of the discovery of some 3000 documents hidden at an Iraqi scientist's house related to enrichment of uranium?

What was an Iraqi scientist doing with a mass of documents related to enrichment of uranium? Could it have anything to do with recently (i.e. summer 2002) leaked news from Iran? Although their reactor had been taken out by the Israelis in the early 1980's, Saddam Hussein's Iraqi Nuclear weapons programme was pursuing five different means of uranium enrichment, most were supposedly abandoned/destroyed in the early 1990's. But you cannot destroy knowledge Bobert. The presence of these documents, particularly in the location in which they were found, serves as a good indication that a nuclear weapons programme could have been running on the quiet and was only waiting until Saddam's trading partners on the Security Council got the sanctions lifted for work to resume in earnest. Material Breach Bobert

- Did the good Dr. Blix table his concerns about this discovery and the implications of this discovery?

Apart from the obvious concerns related to that particular find, Hans Blix voiced his serious concern about how widespread this practice might be in both scope (i.e. How many prohibited WMD projects) and scale (i.e. to what level). If as widespread as he feared the work could never be detected by UNMOVIC except by chance. Again illustrates lack of Iraqi co-operation with regard to substance. Material Breach Bobert

- Did he detail how many U2 Flights, specifically requested by UNMOVIC and required under the terms of 1441, had taken place?

As required by 1441, over-flight by U2 aircraft to support the work of UNMOVIC was supposed to have started from Day 1. From the time the UNMOVIC inspectors were invited back into Iraq until the invasion in March 2003, not one single flight took place. Material breach Bobert

- Did he mention how many names out of the 3500 Iraqi scientists and engineers known to have worked on Saddam's WMD programmes, the Iraqi Authorities submitted to UNMOVIC for interview?

When asked to furnish the names of all scientists and engineers who had worked on Saddam's WMD and missile programmes the Iraqi Authorities came up with a list of 450 names - Unfortunately UNMOVIC happened to know that there had been some 3500. When asked to revise the list the Iraqi's came up with an additional 80 names. Some Iraqi secret service officers even impersonated scientist/engineers on the list - A tactic that had been described by UK intelligence in the "Dodgy Dossier".

- Did he mention how many of those scientists and engineers were interviewed?

Required under the terms of 1441 and requested by UNMOVIC - Not a single person was interviewed outside the gaze of Iraqi Security. Material Breach Bobert.

Now Bobert under the terms and conditions of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 the Iraqi's were not allowed a single material breach, there were in actual fact seven of them detailed. Can anyone wonder that the view was taken in certain quarters that "the same old game" was about to be re-enacted. You might not Bobert, but I sure as hell could appreciate that.

Dr. Hans Blix and UNMOVIC were concerned with WMD and delivery systems Bobert. Could you tell us at what time Saddam Hussein was going to tell the United Nations that he had murdered the 603 Kuwaiti nationals he had abducted in 1990? For their sake alone his ass deserved the roasting it got as did the collective asses of all who were involved in their murder. Just as well there was someone on hand prepared to do it and capable of doing it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 01:01 PM

I suggest that anyone who doubts that things have become far worse for Iraqi women under the changed regime than they even were under Saddam, read this feature from today's guardian Freedom lost:

"After the invasion of Iraq, the US government claimed that women there had 'new rights and new hopes'. In fact their lives have become immeasurably worse, with rapes, burnings and murders now a daily occurrence....

...Even under Saddam, women in Iraq - including in semi-autonomous Kurdistan - were widely recognised as among the most liberated in the Middle East. They held important positions in business, education and the public sector, and their rights were protected by a statutory family law that was the envy of women's activists in neighbouring countries. But since the 2003 invasion, advances that took 50 years to establish are crumbling away.

In much of the country, women can only now move around with a male escort. Rape is committed habitually by all the main armed groups, including those linked to the government. Women are being murdered throughout Iraq in unprecedented numbers.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 01:44 PM

"The fact I was against the invasion of Iraq and attended a peace vigil on the 15th February because I couldn't get to London is an action I am glad I did."

But did you invest any effort into letting SADDAM know that he should comply wit the UN???


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 01:47 PM

"I asked you to provide just Dr. Blix's closing statement which you refused to do... What you did provided was a War and Peace length cut 'and post which is of little value in a discussion where people aren't going to read and reread the sme old stuff...

No, you conviently avoided posting just Dr. Blix's closing statement because if you had it would have severely weakened Bush's case to invade Iraq.."

So, to look at the ENTIRE report is a problem? YOU are the one insisting that we look ONLY at the last paragraph- perhaps in fear that the entire report would give backing to what Bush had said?

Does reality scare you that much that you don't even want to know what it is?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,Bobert at the Library
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 01:51 PM

No, T-Bird... I didn't duck them... I made a refernce to the problems in my above post to bb...

WHat you and yer bud keep ducking, however, is the ***big question** of why the big hurry in invading Iraq when Blix, inspite of the problems, repeated three times during the the report that things were moving along well... He even said that Iraq was cooperating and letting the inspectors inspect where ever they wanted...

Why the big rush, T???

Are we really back to the senseless arguemnt on how Saddam could go about proving that the he didn't has stuff that we now know he didn't have???

I mean, your arguments don't justify killing upwards of a million people and bankrupting the US in the process...

So, again, tell us why the big rush???

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 01:55 PM

Deadline- Early December


Invasion - March


I guess the "rush" was to allow Saddam time to remove all the evidence, and be sure that there was little to find.

IMO, the invasion should have been Jaunary 28th.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 01:59 PM

"on how Saddam could go about proving that the he didn't has stuff that we now know he didn't have???"

You mean proving that he no longer had that which he had, or claimed to have had, earlier?


"The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1998, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tons. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for. "

Blix report of January 27th


BLIX is the one stating "MUST ASSUME"

Not Bush

Not me - I just happen to think that Blix is more honest than you are, in regards to the dangers of letting Saddam ignor the UNR.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 03:47 PM

Teribus, can you find a post in which Frank made claims about concentration camps? I believe that you are either confusiing him with our "GUEST,of many names" of some time back, or--a bit less flattering to you--trying to pull the rug out from under Frank's quite reasonable points, not by refuting them, but by trying to make Frank look like a bit of a kook, which I know is not the case.

That's called the argurmentum ad hominem (attempting to refute a argument by attacking the person who enunciates it), a phenomenon which a) is easily recognized by anyone who has taken a first-year "survey of philosophy" course, and b) is wearisomely prevalent in these discussions.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 04:32 PM

"That's called the argurmentum ad hominem (attempting to refute a argument by attacking the person who enunciates it), a phenomenon which a) is easily recognized by anyone who has taken a first-year "survey of philosophy" course, and b) is wearisomely prevalent in these discussions."



you think?


( I am in agreement with your statement)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 04:50 PM

Teribus, the whole neoconservative view, enunciated by the policies and principles of the Project for the New American Century and put into practice by the Bush administration, has less to do with spreading democracy throughout the world than it does with empire, particularly economic empire. This involves the attempt ot monopolize the world's resources and markets. Bush's idea of spreading "democracy" has less to do with alleviating tyranny in the world and bettering people's lives than it does with making the world "safe for American business."

The United States is less of a democracy than it is a plutocracy / corporatocracy.

I believe that the whole world—with the exception of a lot of Americans who are more concerned with the latest antics of Paris Hilton's Chihuahua than they are with politics and economics—knows this.

You might educate yourself by reading Supercapitalism : The Transformation of Business, Democracy, and Everyday Life by Robert B. Reich. That gives a pretty good overview. And I have a number of other books I could recomment.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 04:58 PM

Well, whoes deadline, bb???

I mean, let's get real here for one danged minute... Isn't it mankind's ultimate goal to prevent war???

look, if a guy on feath row is found out to be innocent even though he is scheduled to die there are mechanisms to stop the execution...

I don't buy "deadlines" as justification for Bush to invade Iraq...

Now, to bb's "guess" as to why the hurry... This is about the dumbest argument that I have read yet in that you guess it was to prevent Saddam from removing the evidence...

Wasn't that the goal... I remwember clearly Condi and Dick runnin' 'round tellin' everyone about mushroom clouds and all that... Well, if the "evidence" was WMD, if Saddam removed them then wasn't that what we wanted???

Your arguments don't make any sense, bb...

Your final opinion that we should have invaded obn January 28th is ***proof positive*** that you never cared one bit about whether of not Iraq had any WMD... You just wanted a war...

Well, now you have your war...

And how is your war going???

Tell ya' what, bb... We are all judged by not only our actions but the actiions of those who we support...

I'd put the slaughter of upwards of a million people right where it belongs and that blood is on your hands as well as Bush's...

Youi have not come up with one logical excuse to invade Iraq but just a bunch of war-mangering mumbo-jumbo...

Why don't you sign up to go to Iraq??? I'll drive you to the recruiting office... Heck, I see where 50-something men are gettin' killed in Iraq, many who are clueless aas to why the war is even being fought... So, why not you voluteering to take one of their places???

I'm serious...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 05:13 PM

"Well, whoes deadline, bb???"

The UN Security Council, per UNR 1441.


"I mean, let's get real here for one danged minute... Isn't it mankind's ultimate goal to prevent war???"

Agreed. So you believe that letting Saddam continue was in the best interests of Peace?

I do not agree with that assessment

"look, if a guy on feath row is found out to be innocent even though he is scheduled to die there are mechanisms to stop the execution..."

Had Saddam declared his borders open, or even abdicated power, there would have been no war.

"I don't buy "deadlines" as justification for Bush to invade Iraq..."

You seem determined not to accept any reason at all.

"Now, to bb's "guess" as to why the hurry... This is about the dumbest argument that I have read yet in that you guess it was to prevent Saddam from removing the evidence... "

Sarcasm, old chum. The delay did allow for the removal of unknown material and evidence, just what certain nations wanted.

Per Blix:"Iraq has also declared the recent import of chemicals used in propellants, test instrumentation, and guidance and control system. These items may well be for proscribed purposes. That is yet to be determined. What is clear is that they were illegally brought into Iraq. That is, Iraq or some company in Iraq circumvented the restrictions imposed by various resolutions. "

Care to ask what countries were sending prohibited material to Iraq? ( Hint: They voted against holding Saddam to the UNR)

"Wasn't that the goal... I remwember clearly Condi and Dick runnin' 'round tellin' everyone about mushroom clouds and all that... Well, if the "evidence" was WMD, if Saddam removed them then wasn't that what we wanted???"

NO! YOU have not ever understoodd the plain English that was actually SAID. It was the transfer of thos WMD to unknown and/or terrorist elements that was wanted: And the delay just made that more likely, and certainly easier.

"Your arguments don't make any sense, bb..."

On the contrary, I have attempted to show the reasoning behind my arguements, whereas you have NOT demonstrated that your arguments have any basis in the facts.

:Your final opinion that we should have invaded obn January 28th is ***proof positive*** that you never cared one bit about whether of not Iraq had any WMD... You just wanted a war...:

False conclusion.

*** I *** wanted the prohibited materials ( KNOWN by the UN to have been in Iraqi hands in 1998) to be under UN control, and NOT be accessable to other groups such as Syria or Hezballah. It is the attitude that anything ios better than war that has caused the most death- Hitler would NOT have started WWII if he had not been given the green light, achieving "Peace in our time" but dooming 27 million shortly afterward.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 05:18 PM

You are right, Don... These folks couldn't care less about democracy ot they wouldn't have hired and flown goon squads into Florida in 2000 to harrass poll workers...

As far as democracy goes, the current crop of crooks has probably set it back as far as any administration in the history of the US...

For one thing, Tom Jefferson warned US that it wasn't going to work unless we are informed... These guys don't wnat the voters to know jack from jack... They only want US to know what ***they*** want US to know... That ain't democracy... That is totalitarianism at its best!!!

Democracy, my butt...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 05:22 PM

"Your final opinion that we should have invaded obn January 28th is ***proof positive*** that you never cared one bit about whether of not Iraq had any WMD... You just wanted a war..."

By January 28th, the UN had determined that Iraq was in substantial breach of UNR1441, and earlier UNR. The reports had been made, and the only thing to be gained by delaying was to allow the material and programs to be moved to other places. Those who sought to delay did not believe that the material was not present: They were looking to help Saddam tranfser it to others.

"Tell ya' what, bb... We are all judged by not only our actions but the actiions of those who we support..."

True- and when YOUR support of not dealing with problems such as Saddam increase the likelyhood of a thermonuclear war, YOU will be judged on that.

"I'd put the slaughter of upwards of a million people right where it belongs and that blood is on your hands as well as Bush's..."

You might- I place it on the hands that supported Saddam continuing in violation of the UNR for 12 years. I place it on the hands of those who insiust on telling Bush how to act, but seem incapable of even hinting that they would like Saddam to comply with the UNR.

You may have the best of intentions: But when the course of action that you advocate increases the chance of a thermonuclear war, I cannot go along with it regardless of how pure the intention.

"You have not come up with one logical excuse to invade Iraq but just a bunch of war-mangering mumbo-jumbo..."

Actually, I have tried to give the reasons I supported the invasion. YOU have only given me a bunch of anti-Bush mumbo-jumbo...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 05:29 PM

"For one thing, Tom Jefferson warned US that it wasn't going to work unless we are informed... These guys don't wnat the voters to know jack from jack... They only want US to know what ***they*** want US to know... That ain't democracy... "


" asked you to provide just Dr. Blix's closing statement which you refused to do... What you did provided was a War and Peace length cut 'and post which is of little value in a discussion where people aren't going to read and reread the sme old stuff...

No, you conviently avoided posting just Dr. Blix's closing statement "

Of course, I DID post the last paragraph- just not in isolation like you wanted.


Bobert, you seem to be the perfect poster child of "They only want US to know what ***they*** want US to know..."

'ONLY read what Bobert wants you to! You might not agree with him if you read more than the last paragraph!'


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 05:31 PM

typo:

NO! YOU have not ever understood the plain English that was actually SAID. It was the */prevention of the /* transfer of thos WMD to unknown and/or terrorist elements that was wanted: And the delay just made that more likely, and certainly easier.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 05:31 PM

So is it your argument ***now*** that the UN ordered up the invasion, bb???


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 05:43 PM

"So is it your argument ***now*** that the UN ordered up the invasion, bb??? "

How did I say that?

The UNR was passed, giving Saddam a FINAL CHANCE to comply with all the previous UNR. The earlier UNR had already authorized the use of force, and when the ceasefire terms were invalidated by Saddam being in violation of UNR1441, some of the nations previously authorized to take action did so.


I never saw a single vote in Congress authorizing the occupation of Germany or Japan in 1945- I did see the declaration of war which was passed in 1941.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 05:50 PM

Exactly who was Saddam going to give these weapons to, bb...

He hated al-Qeada... He didn't trust any of his neighbors... So it is illogical that, if he had anything, given that Bush was pounding the war drum with all his might, that he would give away anything that he might use to defend himself...

Another illogical argument...

Also, there was no UN resolution that ordered bush to invade Iraq...

Lastly (for now) yes, I'd rather have Saddam back in power in Iraq than to see all the senseless killing which on a scale makes Saddam look like a Boy Socut... The inspections were working and evenmtuallu would have proved what we now know and that is that Iraq didn't have much in the way of WMD's... A few SCUDs and that was about it... Oh yeah, a real scarey model airplane that looked like something I used to have as a kid that Rumsy put all over the news and if was going to wipe out the US????

You arguments just dig you in deeper and deeper, bb... I don't think that even Bush would claim you anymore...

As for recruiting, my offer stands open... I can make some calls and maybe you can be in Irag before Ground Hogs Day!!!

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 06:11 PM

It was illogical of Saddam to think he could violate the UNR and remain in power- But ( with the support of you and others like you) he tried to do so.


"Also, there was no UN resolution that ordered bush to invade Iraq..."


And there was no bill in Congress ever calling for the invasion of Japan or Germany.


The UNR calling for the use of force to remove Iraqis from Kuwait was still in effect, and allowed for the invasion of Iraq, as Saddam had violated the terms of the cease-fire.


"I'd rather have Saddam back in power in Iraq than to see all the senseless killing which on a scale makes Saddam look like a Boy Socut... "

You obviously have been ignoring the facts again; More Iraqis were killed by Saddam than have been killed by US troops- INCLUDING the 1991 war.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Folkiedave
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 06:29 PM

I see what you are saying BB.

Thanks to the expenditure by the USA of 477 billion dollars - life is better for people in Iraq and much worse for the USA as its economy collapses.

Now I understand.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 06:35 PM

Okay, let's do a little review here of the various arguments that have come forth from Bush and/or his lap-dog supporters:

1. Mushroom clouds

2. Aluminum tubes

3. Various and sundry WMD's

4. 45 days to make a nuke

5. Saddam tried to kill my daddy

6. Saddam is a bad man

7. Clinton told US to do it

8. Iraq needs democracy

9. The UN made us do it

10. Iraq is better off now without Saddam

Hmmmm??? If your side can't even keep your justifications straight, bb, it should come as no wonder that many folks who didn't buy any of that crap are now well beyond suspect when we hear you folks respin it as if it will change the fact that this was one of the, if not the worst, foriegn policy blunders in the history of the US...

It's bad enough that it has weakned our military, tarnished our reputation around the world, cut into the money for programs that our own citizens need but even worse considering the the huge collaterial damage on mothers, like yours, fathers, garndparents, brothers, sons, daughters, sisters, aunt and uncles...

This is the sddest part of this entire tragedy and one that I don't think that Bush's defenders, let alone Bush himself, understand... To you folks it is like some western movie where everything is fake.. Problem is that it isn't fake... All the carpola you folks write won't bring back any of these people...

There are estimates of upwards of a million people who have been killed and/or wounded by this unilaterial decision... This blood is on your hands... Not mine...

If you thought that Saddam was such a bad man then you should have had him killed and left everyone else alone... That was an option that your guys had... Why didn't you do that???

Becasue yuou wanted a war... You thirsted for a war... You wanted to see your Shock 'n Awe becauase most of you who are supportive of this war knopw nothin' about war... To you it is a political game... You won't be the ones who die... And be asked to kill... No, from the safety of yer little worlds in front of pixil box and your little computers you are safe from being hurt or killed...

There is plenty of war left if either you, bb, or yer bud, T, want to enlist...

Didn't think so...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 06:56 PM

Nit-pick, but it's one pretty big nit!

"And there was no bill in Congress ever calling for the invasion of Japan or Germany."

On December 8, 1941, within less than an hour after a stirring, six-minute address by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Congress voted, with only one member dissenting, that a state of war existed between the United States and Japan, and empowered the President to wage war with all the resources of the country. Then
Four days after Pearl Harbor, December 11, 1941, Germany and Italy declared war on the United States. Congress, this time without a dissenting vote, immediately recognized the existence of a state of war with Germany and Italy, and also rescinded an article of the Selective Service Act prohibiting the use of American armed forces beyond the Western Hemisphere.
From THIS web site (randomly selected from hundreds).

There is no comparison between George W. Bush and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, even though on at least one occasion, Bush alluded to such. No comparison whatsoever!!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 07:31 PM

Don,

I said "the invasion of Japan or Germany". Bobert keeps demanding a UNR that states the US should invade Iraq. That does not exist- NOR does a vote in Congress for the invasion of Japan or Germany- BUT a reasonable person would consider that the acts that origianet the war ( the declaration by Congress in 1941, the UNR in 1991) contain the implicit authorization to prosecute the war to its conclusion.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 07:45 PM

Tell ya' what, Don...

If Iraq had invaded the US I would have been the first ol' hillbilly in my holler to go down to the enlistment office...

It's one thing to defend and quite another to strike...

Bush defending nothing at all... What he did was strike... He came into office wanting to strike... He was spossessed about striking...

Problem is that Bush is a mental case... He has guilt over going AWOL in Nam and now he wants to make up for it... There ain't nothin' he can do that will cover up his copwardice... Iraq is "Exhibit A" of just what a coward Bush is... He ain't tough... He's a punk who was handed an opportunity to look as if he was tough...

He is nothing but a chickenhawk... Just like most of his ***tough-my-boney-butt*** chickenhawk supporters...

That's what really irks me... These folks don't have a clue what they are supporting... Show the friggin' caskets at Dover and maybe they will understand that this ain't no friggin' viseo game... Show the faces of the Iraqis that these folks have supported Bush in killing and mayeb they'd understand...

Nah, thwey will never understand... Thay are tto barinwashed to think for themselves...

I'm gettin' a tad sick of them thinking that they can make things okay with their bullsh*t arguments...

Deep inside they have to know these arguments atre bogus but they are in too far to turn back and now they are stuck spinning the same ol' crap...

Like I said, I'm sick of 'um... I hope that the two of them will put their money (lives) where their mouths are and enlist...

Until then, I for one, won't let them sleep... I', not going to let them respin the propaganda...

What they want now is yet another fu*ked up decison from their chickenhawk hero: the bombing of Iran... This is why they are trying desperately to rewrite Iraq...

Well, Don, I don't think you are up to lettin' get any traction... I know I'm not...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 07:51 PM

No, bb, I am not demanding a UN resolution of any thing like that... You staed that the resaon that Bush diecide to pull the plug on Blix and his folks was because "time was up" because of the UN resolution...

The reality was that the UN didn't want the US to invade and made ebvery effort, including the resolution, to try to slow Bush down... But Bush wasn't to be slowed... Even after Blix said that the Iraqis were cooperating, which would have led to the inspectors not finding anything that was a threat to the US, Bush was in the ***hurry up*** mode...

He had sold the war and like in any sales ther is a window before buyer's remorse sets in and he knew that he had better get the war going before Blix's folks had time to find even more evidence that Iraq had nothing...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 07:55 PM

"If Iraq had invaded the US I would have been the first ol' hillbilly in my holler to go down to the enlistment office.."


Of course, when a country that we had reaty obligations to, Kuwait, WAS invaded by Iraq YOU were where? And this is just the tail end of that invasion: Saddam was supposed to meet certain conditions for the cease-fire, and failed to do so. So, Bobert, show me the UN resolution that declared PEACE ( a treaty, not a ceasefire) and I will let you rave on insulting those you disagree with. But if you do not, I will object that you are callin me names.

As for what * I * want in regards to war, if you insist on repeating lies about what I want, I WILL call you what you are.



" When fols go callin' each other names because they don't agree then it becomes very bothersome..."

Except when Bobert wants to insult someone because he cannot refute some fact.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 07:57 PM

BB, that's one helluva tap-dance you just did! But Fred Astaire? Sorry, no.

I wasn't aware until you just made it clear to me that invading Japan and Germany during World War II might be construed as "illegal."

Absolutely fascinating. . . .

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 08:09 PM

"that invading Japan and Germany during World War II might be construed as "illegal." "

It is the logic that Bobert appears to be using.


** I ** have not claimed so: I just pointed out that there is no direct order from Congress about that invasion. There is no direct UNR about removing Saddam, but IMO it was implicit in the many UNR, if Saddam did not comply. And the UN stated that Saddam did not comply. Anyone wjho states otherwise is an illiterate or deliberate liar. the UN declared that Iraq was NOT im compliance with UNR1441.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 08:14 PM

Talk about a mind-boggling view of history!

Lemme see, now.

We drive the German invaders out of France and the Russians drive them out of Eastern Europe, and we chase the Japanese off the Pacific Islands they invaded and off of the Asian mainland.

Then what? Simply pack up and go home, hoping the Germans and the Japanese have been duly chastened and will, henceforth, behave themselves?

Tell me, Bruce! I want to know!??

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 08:18 PM

Geeze, I don't really recall Iraq invading US, bb... BTW, what I was doing, howver, was working with the Kuwait's here in the Washington, D.C. area in procurments in things that they would need after Iraq was driven out...

Ahhhh, what were you doing during Gulf I??? I was working 16 hour days with Kuwaitis in and around Wahington, D.C....

I'm not trying to insult anybody here... I'm just asking that the propaganda be put aside long enough for folks of **free will*** to understand that we don't ned to follopw Bush into another major screw up and it seem that the only way to do that is to not allow you, bb, to revise history...

The truth is what people need to know... Not the latest propaganda campaign by the Bushites...

That is why I will not allow you here to get a foothold in mis-telling the real story about how and why the US got into Iarqmire...

If you think it is insulting it is not meant to be...

It's about not allowing mythology to cloud out history becauase mythology is the only thing that can bring about the circumstances where Bush can get away from another major screw up...
And I don't mean to insult anyone by saying the blood is on their hands... It's just a fact... If in your heart a person knows that they are blowing a bunch of hot air to defend the taking of upwards of a million lives then that person will have to live with the consequences of their actions...

Life is simple in that respect...

I'm not the one with blood on my hands here... I am terribly saddened by the emense loss of life that this "war of choice" has brought about but I am not an accomplice... I have spoken out going back to the very beginning...

If those with blood on their hands think this an insult than so be it...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 08:43 PM

Bobert, there was NEVER (Shouting), repeat, NEVER (shouting again) supposed to be any leeway at all given to Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

We'd had 12 years of their bullshit, now was the time that they had to straighten up. They were given one last final chance to do so to remain intact. Did they do so - Did they fuck. Saddam and Co., screwed up as best they could, and got caught in a cross-fire that completely and utterly consumed them. Now I hate to put this to you Bobert but that was their choice and theirs alone. Basically Bobert they were talking when they should have been listening. So they were consumed and relegated to the dustbin of history and quite rightly so in my opinion but there it is.

All those who claim that everything would have been better with Iraq under the rule of Saddam Hussein declare so now, here on this thread now.

By the bye before you all rush to vote, consider how many voices have been raised to wish the return of Saddam within Iraq? - I have heard none so far.

This I believe is brilliant, from someone who I do not respect politically, but in this instance he had it spot on:

"There are glib and sometimes foolish comparisons with the 1930s. I am not suggesting for a moment that anyone here is an appeaser or does not share our revulsion at the regime of Saddam. However, there is one relevant point of analogy. It is that, with history, we know what happened. We can look back and say, "There's the time; that was the moment; that's when we should have acted." However, the point is that it was not clear at the time—not at that moment. In fact, at that time, many people thought such a fear fanciful or, worse, that it was put forward in bad faith by warmongers. Let me read one thing from an editorial from a paper that I am pleased to say takes a different position today. It was written in late 1938 after Munich. One would have thought from the history books that people thought the world was tumultuous in its desire to act. This is what the editorial said:

"Be glad in your hearts. Give thanks to your God. People of Britain, your children are safe. Your husbands and your sons will not march to war. Peace is a victory for all mankind . . . And now let us go back to our own affairs. We have had enough of those menaces, conjured up . . . to confuse us."

Now, of course, should Hitler again appear in the same form, we would know what to do. But the point is that history does not declare the future to us plainly. Each time is different and the present must be judged without the benefit of hindsight. So let me explain to the House why I believe that the threat that we face today is so serious and why we must tackle it." - Tony Blair.

Thank goodness for everyone that somebody realised that NOW was the time to confront this evil.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 09:26 PM

Fine, T... Enlist!!! Yeah, take the safety of yer little world and go fight in Iraq...

What you say is nuthin' more than BS, BS and more BS... Sure Saddam was defiant... I recently heard a guy on NPR who had many coverstaions with Saddam afetr he had been captured... This guy said that Saddam bluffed becasue it was all he had...

Take your ownself and make yourself the leader of Irag with enemies on every front and see what you would do if you really didn't have the means to defend yourself and were in the middle of ssnactions which further crippled your ability to defend yourself...

You'd porbably do just as Saddam did...

I eman, it's easy to run a country, or the world for that matter, from the safety of your warm living rooms and dens in front of your computers... ot so east being the leader of a Middle Eastern country...

Do I view Saddam as some great hero??? No... He did what he had to do to survive fropm internal and external threats until Bush got a hard-on for his hide... It was never a queation whether or not the US military could put Saddam in a box... That was a given...

But what wasn't a given was the costs to do so...

You are a Brit, t... Yes, the UK made and continues to make some finacial sacrifices... The US, however, has set its domentsic agenda back maybe 2 decades... We are now borrowing more money to fight wars and just half way maintain our domestic promises, which BTW, there has been much discussion about cutting back...

Beyond the loss of life and the very screwed up situtaion the US finds itself in, the domestoc agenda is very much a part of the security of our country... We have kids who can'tr read... We have 40 million people leivibng in poverty... We are deeply in debt to China... Our kids can't think... This is where the money could have gone... Instead, we have another Vietnam on out hands... Meanwhile, oil rich Russia is seanakingg abck up on US... Afganisatn is falling back into Takliban hands...

Yeah, as a Brit, there is probably a little bit of ***well-thwey-desreve-it*** in you... No, we don't desereve this... Bush may... But he American people who are suffering from stagnant wages and a general decline in quality of life don't deserve this... All for what??? So Bush could get his jollies???

Well, historians will be more than happy to delvier him a platter full of jollies, 'cept they won't be too tastey...

And my offer still stands... You want a war then enlist!!!

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 10:11 PM

"Then what? Simply pack up and go home, hoping the Germans and the Japanese have been duly chastened and will, henceforth, behave themselves? "

If one accepts Bobert's view that the violation of the ceasefire means nothing, then you have stated it very well- So, shall I presume you see my point that we had the right to invade Iraq?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 10:25 PM

"it seem that the only way to do that is to not allow you, bb, to revise history..."

IF I was revising history, why is it that I am using facts about what really happened, and you have not been able to demonstrate that those facts are incorrect?

You claim to have read the Blix report, yet ignore all that he said. Then you demand that ONLY the last paragraph be posted- as if that cherrypicking would make your false statements true.

You accuse Bush of what you yourself have been doing here, to push people to your own viewpoint; Yet you seem to think it is a crime for him to do so, and perfectly ok for you.

You made comments about Republicans not working even 5 days: I have been working every day but one in the last 5 weeks, and am scheduled to work this weekend as well. Yet your braod misstatements are to be considered absolute truth, and the real situation to be covered up for fear of pointing out your insistance of your opinions as actual fact.

When was it you demanded that Saddam comply with the UNR???

I have noted your extensive criticism of Bush for taking the action he thought needed: When have you criticised Saddam, or does he get a free pass because he left some Kuwaitis alive?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 10:27 PM

The truth is what people need to know... Not the latest propaganda campaign by the anti-Bushites...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 11:35 PM

The tap-dance gets even more involved. Dancing in the clouds.

Bruce, you're amazing!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 01:07 AM

I think beardedbruce should 'get over himself' and teribus should 'grab a brain'.

I have nothing more to say on the subject.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 08:31 AM

"All those who claim that everything would have been better with Iraq under the rule of Saddam Hussein declare so now."

No takers? Bit different to the rush to proclaim belief in the fact that a nuclear Iran would pose no threat.

Bobert advises that I "Enlist!!!", that if I want a war then I must "enlist!!!" (Hey Bobert is !!! = SHOUTING?)

So "What you say is nuthin' more than BS, BS and more BS" if so Bobert it is BS, BS and more BS that can be backed-up and substantiated, which is a damn sight more than the drivel you and your fellow travellers come out with on this forum.

So "Saddam bluffed becasue it was all he had..." All he had to do what Bobert? Rhetorical question Bobert, Saddam lied and bluffed and acted in every way possible to make the world believe he still possessed WMD for two reasons, one solely for domestic purposes and the other international, to maintain his dream of becoming the leader of a pan-Arabist movement united against Israel, and also to counter Iran. Domestically, he required the people of Iraq including his regular armed forces to believe that he still possessed the capability to mount another Anfal campaign, he still required to maintain a credible threat to terrorise large sections of the population of Iraq.

One thing is for certain Bobert, it had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any external threat from the USA. Why am I so certain of that Bobert? Again a rhetorical question, because when he was faced with a similar threat in 1990, when he most certainly did possess WMD in abundance, he did not use them.

So Bobert, before I go off to enlist!!! I have to imagine myself, "the leader of Irag with enemies on every front and see what you would do if you really didn't have the means to defend yourself and were in the middle of sanctions which further crippled your ability to defend yourself..."

Now then, "enemies on every front" eh Bobert, well they were all of Saddam's own making. Among them number, an army that he could not trust beyond providing them with 24hrs supply of ammunition and fuel; more than 60% of a population that he had preyed upon and terrorised for 24 years. Saddam's Iraq was surrounded by neighbours that he had threatened and bullied over those same 24 years, two of them he had actually invaded and plundered.

Well Bobert, I'll let you into a little secret, in his place I would never have done anything remotely like what Saddam did.

Now this next bit is absolutely astounding:
"Do I view Saddam as some great hero??? No... He did what he had to do to survive fropm internal and external threats until Bush got a hard-on for his hide..."

"He did what he had to do to survive fropm internal and external threats" sort of like all the other villains of history (Ghengis Khan; Nero; Napoleon; Hitler; Stalin; Pol Pot; etc, etc) On your reasoning you would have done nothing against any of them, proof of that assumption being the lack of condemnation of what is, and has been, happening in Darfur for the past 20 years. It's ten times worse than what has happened in Iraq but not a peep out of any of you, why because it cannot be laid at George W. Bush's door, God are you pathetic, your hypocracy beggars description.

Example of how pathetic and self-centred comes from this jewel:

"It was never a queation whether or not the US military could put Saddam in a box... That was a given...

But what wasn't a given was the costs to do so..."

As the old saying goes - Freedom ain't free. One thing is for certain, you Bobert would never stir yourself off your ass for it.

Another classic example of socialist, left-wing whining, "Oh its all somebody else's fault":

"the domestic agenda is very much a part of the security of our country..." - Very true.

"We have kids who can'tr read..." - then maybe more parents should actually try parenting Bobert. Neither myself, my brother or my sister were taught to read in school, that job was done by my mother before we reached school age. My wife and I did exactly the same when we became parents. Now if we can do it then so can the rest as a parent its your job not the Governments.

"We have 40 million people leivibng in poverty..." Good heavens I never knew that the ancient germanic sport of "leivibng" was so popular in Poverty. 40 million people eh Bobert? Out of a population of 300 million, that's just over 13%, no wonder all the third world and its dog are trying their utmost to get into the US.

"We are deeply in debt to China..." Really Bobert? well simple matter of choice ould son, stop buying shit from them.

"Our kids can't think..." - Here we come back to parenting again Bobert, parents job Bobert not the Governments

"This is where the money could have gone..." Bobert both you and I know that with the crop of politicians you have not one single penny would have gone anywhere near those areas.

"Instead, we have another Vietnam on out hands..." Nothing like it Bobert, and you know that very well. At present you have less than 17% of your military deployed.

"Meanwhile, oil rich Russia is seanakingg abck up on US..." At $90 per barrel I hope they enjoy their "seanakingg" whatever that may be. They are sneaking back up on the good old USofA Bobert, because they have ditched all that communist crap, they don't give a hoot for civil rights, human rights and they will sell arms to anybody that wants them. But do I hear any condemnation from the likes of you - not a whisper, you see not GWB, so its alright eh?.

"Afganisatn is falling back into Takliban hands..." I could well believe it Bobert, but meanwhile in Afghanistan, the Taleban are getting their arses kicked very effectively.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 08:42 AM

No, bb, it is you who is ignoring facts... I have never once said that Blix's report was all roses... I freely admit that their were still lots of concerns... That is a million times more open minded than you who has never answered the question "What's the hurry" when Blix also stated in his report that the Iraqi's were ***cooperating*** in letting the inspectors inspect where ever they wanted...

See, my view emcompasses the total report where yours and t's focus only on those things that in you minf justified invading Iraq... This is the problem I have with you and it's the same problem I have with Bush... You seem to draw conclusions from only the facts that you want to focus on... That is why you both make serious errors in judgement... Cherry picking facts or even possible facts and building a foriegn policy around them is ***narrow*** minded and a sure formula for failure...

Thus... Iraqmire which is a collasal failure...

"The mind is like a parachute... It only works when it is open."

And you also don't answer the question that I've asked over and over going back to the mad-dash-to-Iraq days and that is if you had so much distaste for Saddam why didn't you just have him killed???

(But, Bobert, that would have been against international law!!!)

Oh??? But invading and occupying a sovergn nation, installing a handpicked government, executing Saddam and killing upwards of a million folks is fine???

Like I said, ***narrow*** little thinking...

As for the propaganda??? Follow the $$$$... In these day$ of corporate media con$olidation and the Billion$ and BillionS that are out there for the taking it is the folk$ with the microphone who are in the po$ition to ram propaganda down the throat$ of the people...

Those of us who have opposed this war since the very beginning don't have the microphone... What we have is enough smarts to know when the stories that the corportist/militarists are tellin' US smells like dead fish...

But I guess you, bb, and yer bud, T, have gotten used to that smell because you are no longer capable of independent thought and both highly susceptable to propaganda...

And again, how 'bout the two of you marchin' your "true beleiver" butts down to your local recruiting offices???

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 10:36 AM

Now then Bobert while we are talking about cherry-picking:

"What's the hurry" when Blix also stated in his report that the Iraqi's were ***cooperating*** in letting the inspectors inspect where ever they wanted..."

Here is what Dr Hans Blix said in his report relating to Iraqi co-operation, note Bobert these are his words not mine:

"I turn now, Mr. President, to the key requirement of cooperation and Iraq's response to it. Cooperation might be said to relate to both substance and process. It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has DECIDED IN PRINCIPLE to provide cooperation on process, notably access. (NOTE: Decided in principle Bobert, he does not say that they have decided in fact, he does not say that they have decided in practice)

A similar decision is indispensable to provide cooperation on substance in order to bring the disarmament task to completion through the peaceful process of inspection and to bring the monitoring task on a firm course. (NOTE: What he is stating here is that co-operation in substance is totally lacking, the Iraqi's have not even decided in principle to provide any co-operation in substance - that Bobert represents a "material breach" of the terms and conditions of UN Resolution 1441)

On co-operation relating to substance Dr. Blix goes on:

"The substantive cooperation required relates above all to the obligation of Iraq to declare all programs of weapons of mass destruction and either to present items and activities for elimination or else to provide evidence supporting the conclusions that nothing proscribed remains.

Paragraph 9 of Resolution 1441 states that this cooperation shall be "active." IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO OPEN DOORS. INSPECTION IS NOT A GAME OF CATCH AS CATCH CAN. Rather, as I noted, it is a process of verification for the purpose of creating confidence. It is not built upon the premise of trust. Rather, it is designed to lead to trust, if there is both openness to the inspectors and action to present them with items to destroy or credible evidence about the absence of any such items."

The truth of the situation as of 27th January 2003 with regard to the 100% full, unstinting and pro-active co-operation required under the terms of 1441, was reported by Dr. Hans Blix as being somewhat less than 50%.

By the bye Bobert the question that you've asked over and over going back to the mad-dash-to-Iraq days and that is if you had so much distaste for Saddam why didn't you just have him killed???. Has been answered many, many times. You just don't like the answer, but seeing as you have asked I'll lay it out for you one more time. And this time you address that answer and tell me where I am wrong, or where the logic of my answer is at fault.

The assassination of Saddam Hussein would have accomplished nothing by way of improvement in the lives of the citizens of Iraq. It would accomplish nothing in terms of increasing the prospects of peace and stability in the region.

Why would it do neither of these things? Because the Ba'athist Regime and the Revolutionary Council would still be in power in Iraq with an unaltered agenda and Saddam would have been replaced by one of his sons, who believe it or not were a damn sight worse than their father.

Take your pick Bobert, who would you have preferred:

Uday Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti
- Eldest son of Saddam Hussein.
- He headed the Iraqi Olympic Committee. In this role he tortured athletes who failed to win. Uday had his bodyguard Mohammed Haroon executed in 1995 for not showing enough enthusiasm in torturing Iraqi journalists at the Iraqi Olympic Committee. Uday seemed proud of his reputation and called himself "abu sarhan", Arabic for "father of the wolf."
- He was the head of one of Saddam's security organizations
- He raped and murdered scores of young women across Iraq during his father's reign, although, presumably due to nepotism, he was never charged with or tried for such crimes.
- In October 1988, at a party in honor of Suzanne Mubarak, wife of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Uday murdered his father's personal valet and food taster, Kemal Hana Gegeo. Before an assemblage of horrified guests, Uday—intoxicated and in cold blood — bludgeoned Gegeo with a cane, reputedly administering the coup de grâce with an electric carving knife. Briefly imprisoned for this crime, Saddam released Uday, banishing him to Switzerland as the assistant to the Iraqi ambassador there. He was expelled by the Swiss government after he threatened to stab a person in a restaurant.

Qusay Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti
- The second son of Saddam Hussein.
- He was appointed as his father's heir apparent in 2000, so no doubt about my contention that one of his sons would have taken over.
- Head of the internal security forces and had some authority over the Iraqi Republican Guard and other Iraqi military units.
- Played a vital role in crushing the Shiite uprising in the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War and is also thought to have masterminded the destruction of the southern marshes of Iraq. The wholesale destruction of these marshes was aimed against the Marsh Arabs, as retribution for their participation in the 1991 uprising.
- Responsible for the killing of many political activists. The Sunday Times (London) reported that Qusay Hussein ordered the killing of Khalis Mohsen al-Tikriti, an engineer at the military industrialization organization, because Qusay believed he was planning to leave Iraq. In 1998, Iraqi opposition groups accused Qusay Hussein of ordering the executions of thousands of political prisoners after hundreds of inmates were summarily executed to make room for new prisoners in crowded jails.

Another couple of facts that you might not really like to acknowledge Bobert:

- MNF troops are present in Iraq at the specific request of the Iraqi Government.
- MNF troops are present in Iraq under the terms of a legally constituted United Nations Security Council Mandate.
- The Governmentof Iraq was elected in free and fair elections by the population of Iraq 70% of those eligible to vote did so in spite of dire threats.
- No country is being occupied
- No hand-picked Government has been put in place.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Barry Finn
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 11:26 AM

In the end there were no WMD's, this administration fucked up & we will pay through the nose & pocket & the ghosts of the dead for ages to come.

We are no safer now (less safe IMO) than before cause we were not under a real threat to begin with.

Who's fault is this fuck up's? The guys that pushed the envolope & the button, not the guy who the button was pushed on.

I say fuck you, you take out a gun & shoot me, what's your excuse?

Barry


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 01:56 PM

"because you are no longer capable of independent thought and both highly susceptable to propaganda..."

And I can say the same about you, with more justification. Care to reply to ANY of T.'s comments?

As for enlisting, have I seen YOU go to any third world country and lend a habnd? No, you seem to be working hard ( which is not a bad thing) in your own self-interest.

As for what I was doing in 1991,

UMPAC System Manager        1990 - 1992
UMPAC (UVPI [UltraViolet Plume Instrument] Mission Planning and Assessment Center) LAVC System Manager for LACE (Low-power Atmospheric Compensation Experiment).
•        Responsible for computer and network development, operations, management support and configuration
•        Responsible for secure operations of the MV3800 and workstations as the AISSR
•        Developed the UMPAC Secure System SPP Annex
•        Managed user interaction and problem resolution
•        Interfaced with DEC and other vendors to provide customer with information and options
•        Enhanced the Siting Ephemeris Generation (SEG) software as required by UMPAC
•        Provided software and analysis support for DSPSE
•        Interfaced with the PDS (Planetary Data System) for data format requirements and design


Just working to expand human knowledge, and support the SDIO program as best as I could.

In other words, I was doing a job I thought to be worthwhile, as you were at the same time.

As for enlisting, they will not have me, with CHF, cardiomiopathy, and 9 stents. If they would, I would jump at the chance.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 02:01 PM

Barry,

" say fuck you, you take out a gun & shoot me, what's your excuse?"

IF you were a criminal,had been given 12 years to comply with the law and refused, been found guilty in a court such as the UN, and had been told MANY times to "STOP or I'll shoot!" and STILL refused to stop your illegal actions, YOU would be shot- legally, and all the cases correctly so.

BANG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 03:16 PM

Outstanding questions for Bobert:

1.        Could you tell us at what time Saddam Hussein was going to tell the United Nations that he had murdered the 603 Kuwaiti nationals he had abducted in 1990?

2.        You first state that the US should have assassinated Saddam Hussein, you then clearly state that you would prefer to see him still in power. Which one is it Bobert, can't have both.

3.        Had he been assassinated who would you have preferred carry on Saddam's task of killing all those innocent Iraqi civilians? Who would you have preferred to confront Iran and prosecute the second Iran/Iraq War? Uday or Qusay?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 03:21 PM

Bobert,

""The mind is like a parachute... It only works when it is open.""


You may be full of hot air, but I fail to see how your mind is open- you do not acknowledge anything that might dispute the "facts" as you WANT them to be, nor do you attempt to address any of the points that have been brought out that do not back you up.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 03:56 PM

Some things are better as a result of the invasion and its aftermath. Some are worse.

I've seen no evidence that the former outweigh the latter. And it seems very possible indeed that, when all this is over, the regime or regimes in power in Iraq will be just about as bad as Saddam's.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 05:20 PM

Well, first of all, T... Here is where you're not seeing clearly...

You still are playing the prove-you-don't-have-something game... That is, in essence, Blix's critisim of the Iragis...

But this, given the short time (some two months) that the inspectors were back in Iraq coup0led with the fact taht it had been close to 10 years since the last inspections, was ***not*** grounds to invade... Blix repeatedly reported cooperation from the Iraqis in giving the inspectors freedom to inspect where ever they wanted... Blix also spoke with some amazement on just how many well the team was organizized...

So this invasion was grossly premature!!! Millions of people took to the street aropund the world because of the complete insanity of what we all knew and that was the Bush wasn't going to let the inpector ecceeed... That is why he pulled the plug...

The decision to invade Iraq was made long before 9/11... There is sufficient testimoney to that for this not even to be debateable...

Bush wanted his war and he wasn't going to let not psky UN or inspectors ruin it for him... Period... End of story...

Now, to wit: Saddam killed 603 Kuwaitis!!! Okay, so he did... Bush has killed upwards of a million people!!!

As for me I'd rather see Saddam still in power... By now he would be back in the fold having done his repentence, Donnie Rumsfelf woulf still be the Secretary of Defense and over there showering Saddam with gifts and Saddam and Bush would be back to exchanging Christman cards...

Lost in all various defenses of the Bushites is that Saddam was a company lap dog for the US until Kuwait... Saddam was such a Bush I inasider that he thought he had gotten a "wink" from the Bush I folks on taking Kuwait or I don't think he would have pulled off such a bonehead stunt...

But nevermind that... Bottom line is that Saddam coyuld have been broughjt back around... The US plays and/or contains bad dictators quite well when it is so motivated and had the inspectors finished their work Saddam would now be every much contained and repentent...

My opinion about assasinating him is why you, T, and your buddy Bush, thought that taking out upwards of a million Iraqis, plunging the US economy into ruin and killing the US reputation around the world was better than assasinating him and maybe even his sons???

That is the big queation for you...

As for killing innocent Iraqi civilians, you and Bush are in cahoots on the killing of upwards of a million Iraqis, most of whom were civilians... This was the dumbest question of your three...

As for your bud, bb, T??? He is beyond hope... Ahhh, not that you aren't... He won't answer any questions anymore with anything but thwe sme tired, worn out bumper sticker crap... His mind is so closed that you couldn't get a feeler guage between it and the propaganda...

Any more questions, T-zer??? Keep 'um in threes like in your last post and we can do this until they burty one of us in 30 or so years...

I know exactly why you have chosen this time to refight your previuosly lost batteles... It's that thirst for more blood... More Sock 'n Awe...

Whay don't you just take up video games where real moms and kids don't get killed???

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 05:28 PM

Bobert,

When YOU try to answer a question put to you, instead of ignoring it, I will try to answer your questions.

I had thought that between my statements and quotes, and T.'s observations, quotes, and comments, we had dealt with your comments- If not, let me know- BUT stop asking what YOU will not answer: When you even try to deal with what ** I ** have said, I might not have to repeat it again, and again, and again...

"He won't answer any questions anymore with anything but thwe sme tired, worn out bumper sticker crap"

Applies to ALL that you have said. You keep ignoring what is said, and trying to put words into other's mouths, then complain that you don't like the words YOU said they said.

Is the idea that someone can look at the facts and come to a different comnclusion than YOU have arrived at such a threat to your liberal ubermench ideals?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 05:34 PM

Bobert buddy - give up. It's useless. It absolutely kills them that you were right all along. They love to load up one gazillion nonsensical bullet points and questions then play gotcha if you try to answer any of it. It is not worth your time or effort. History has already proven you right, and will continue to confirm this. If a couple of Asshats don't agree, they can take their delusions to the grave. Don't waste your time.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 05:36 PM

"You still are playing the prove-you-don't-have-something game"

And you have never addressed the point I stated: That the items HAD been in existance, and Blix was asking that Saddam prove that he, Saddam HAD done something with it- IN OTHER WORDS, that Saddam prove what he said. If you were capable of reading the text of the Jan 27th report, you might even be aware of the specific items that Saddam had, and was responsible for proving the disposition of.


ONLY those who are ignorant of the UNR say that it is asking Saddam to prove a negative.


"Millions of people took to the street aropund the world because of the complete insanity of what we all knew "

Yet how many even ASKED Saddam to comply with the UN to avoid any conflict???

Still waiting to hear how you spent even 1% as much effort to tell Saddam to avoid war as you did to tell Bush.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Folkiedave
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 05:54 PM

Here's some news.

Seems like we really have made a big difference. Or not.

Of course it will be much better when the Americans leave - won't it?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 06:27 PM

Prove to me, bb, that you don't have "The Scream" painting by Edvard Munch...

End of argument...

As fir UN resolutions???

Here's 89 cents... Take it and all the UN resolutions combined to your local Kwik-Mart for a 12 ounce cup of coffee...

End of argument, Part B...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 06:42 PM

"Prove to me, bb, that you don't have "The Scream" painting by Edvard Munch..."

You obviously miss the point.

Show that I HAD that painting previously, and THEN you are entitled to ask me to prove that I no longer have it- OR YOU PRESUME THAT I STILL DO.

You are beginning to act like a real shithead about this.

Prove to me that YOU are not a liar.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 06:43 PM

"Here's 89 cents... Take it and all the UN resolutions combined to your local Kwik-Mart for a 12 ounce cup of coffee..."

YET YOU insist that the UN resolutions take priority over the requirement for the President to protect the interests of the US???


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 06:50 PM

Bobert,

I will state again, since you have shown yourself incapable of reading coprehension:

And you have never addressed the point I stated: That the items HAD been in existance, and Blix was asking that Saddam prove that he, Saddam HAD done something with it- IN OTHER WORDS, that Saddam prove what he said. If you were capable of reading the text of the Jan 27th report, you might even be aware of the specific items that Saddam had, and was responsible for proving the disposition of.


ONLY those who are ignorant of the UNR say that it is asking Saddam to prove a negative.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 06:55 PM

"Now, to wit: Saddam killed 603 Kuwaitis!!! Okay, so he did..."

OK Bobert, now answer my question, when was the ever so co-operative Saddam Hussein going to tell the United Nations that he'd murdered them? You are trying to put it across to us that Saddam was co-operating fully aren't you? By the bye Bobert the safe return of those hostages was a requirement of both UNSC Resolution 687 and 1441. Now I don't know about you Bobert but I would call the absence of some 600-odd people occasioned by the fact that they were dead, murdered in fact, a fairly clear case of a "material breach".

Your main problem Bobert is that you are incapable of reading something and understanding what it says.

One million Iraqis have been killed by GWB Bobert? - Now where on earth did you dream that one up from? Or is this just another "Bobert Fact".

Another link - I'm surprised that Folkiedave didn't put it up with his other one:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7089168.stm


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 07:01 PM

No, I don't miss the point, bb... You hoopelessly miss the point... It is a rediculous argument to make where you expect someone to prove that they don't have something that they clearly don't have...

So where do you have the painting... We know you have it... So where is it... Did you give it to someone else... If so, who... We will ntot let this rest until you tell us what you have done with the peinting... Might of fact if you don't ell us where it is we are going to blow you ass up!!! Now, what have you done with it???

I mean, this gets into a mindlessness in no time...

As for the UN resolution, it was a farce... Bush was ready to pull the trigger and Powell did about the only thing he copuld do to slow his boss down and suggest that Bush go thru the formality of the UN... What came out of this, however, was Bliz's team... Bush didn't forsee this most unfortunate roadblock so just as Blix said he was making progress, Bush told him to get the fu*k out... Times up!!!

This reminds me of the 2000 recount... Remember that... Just as the so-called lead was vanishing one vote at a time infavor of Gore, Bush's 7 Republican appointed Supreme Court Justices said "Stop the fu*king recount"!!! History does repeat itself...

I mean, if you had any level of worldly intellegence, bb, you would just back down... You have no winning arguments... All of them end up in the same place and that is on the wrong side of the facts and the wrong side of history...

Iraq is the worse foriegn policy decision perhaps in the history of our country...

Your arguments have grown stale... Thay aren't even half as thoughtfull as T-Birds and really not worth responding to until you find something with at least a little merit of thought so...

... that being the case...

... continue making a fool of yourself... That is your right... It is also my right to not waste any more time with you on this subject until you come up with something new or thoughtfull...

No dsirespect intended here but you'll ahve to work a liitle harder than what I read lately from you...

and don't take it persoanl... T-Bird ain't hittin' on much either and if he can't fo any better than his last little pop quiz then I'm gonna have to flush him, too...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 07:30 PM

Tell, ya' what, T... When you tell me where every Iraqi oman and chile was killed by an American bomb, artillery shell or by small arms, I'll answer your question...

I promise...

Until then your question, though more intertesting than BB's, is still a red herring...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 07:34 PM

"So where do you have the painting... We know you have it... So where is it... Did you give it to someone else... If so, who... We will ntot let this rest until you tell us what you have done with the peinting... Might of fact if you don't ell us where it is we are going to blow you ass up!!! Now, what have you done with it???"


Since you got the message that stated that you could ask that IF you had reason to believe- evidence- that I had it before, I will assume you will present that evidence NOW or be called the liar that you appear to be.

Have you ANY reports that I had that material at an earlier date?
Have you any reports that I pruchased it?
Have you any inspector's reports that I had it a few years ago?


If not, YOU are a damned LIAR.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 07:55 PM

"I burnt it"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 08:12 PM

No, BB, I am not "damned LIAR"...

You think it's quite okay to go to war by putting Saddam in a prove-you-don't-have-it-trick-bag but when I use the very same tactic on you you can't handle it???? Hmmmmm??? Try being the leader of a MIddle Eastern country with dangerous neighbors on all sides and having to play that game??? Hmmmmm???

See, bb, you aren't any better at Saddam at playing that game...

Might of fact, I think Saddam played it better than you just played it... But then again, he had more practice...

McG,

Say it ain't so... I loved that painting...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 09:16 PM

"You think it's quite okay to go to war by putting Saddam in a prove-you-don't-have-it-trick-bag but when I use the very same tactic on you you can't handle it???? "

If you really do not understand the difference as I have * pointed * it out, I am sorry for you- I pity the mentally handicapped.

If you are intentionally lying and trying to equate your unsubstantiated claim as being on the same order as the UN reports that had Saddam having the material as late as 1999, you are intentionally misleading us- What you accuse Bush of as "lying"

Are YOU telling us that the earlier UN reports were false?

Shall I call you Bushbert, for your choice of comment?

" the items HAD been in existance, and Blix was asking that Saddam prove that he, Saddam HAD done something with it- IN OTHER WORDS, that Saddam prove what he said. If you were capable of reading the text of the Jan 27th report, you might even be aware of the specific items that Saddam had, and was responsible for proving the disposition of.


ONLY those who are ignorant of the UNR say that it is asking Saddam to prove a negative. "

So, being so ignorant of the UNR, no wonder you stated:"Here's 89 cents... Take it and all the UN resolutions combined to your local Kwik-Mart for a 12 ounce cup of coffee..."


So, without the UNR, I guess the US can act as it sees in its own interest, and you will shut the fuck up about it?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 09:22 PM

Have you ANY reports that I had that material at an earlier date?
Have you any reports that I pruchased it?
Have you any inspector's reports that I had it a few years ago?

The UN had all of the above on Saddam- Unless you think that item found by the UN Inspection team should be ignored for some reason.

You seem unable to understand that the UNR was asking Saddam to prove he had done what he said that he had.

How is this proving a negative? Unless you claim he did NOT destroy that material?

Or show that the information he gave earlier was false- though I would think the earlier inspection teams might have something to ssay about that. I guess UN Inspection teams mean nothing, either- so what basis do you have for saying that the US response should wait on the results of the declared by Bushbert to be useless UN inspection teams?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 07 - 04:08 AM

No Bobert, you will never answer my question because the answer to it would completely contradict your unsupported claim that Saddam Hussein was co-operating fully with the UN with respect to Resolution 1441.

Counter to what Guest TIA believes I think that anybody reading through the posts of this thread would deduce the following:

1. Iran did have nuclear weapons programme, which was, on evaluation of new information received in August 2007, halted in the summer of 2003.

2. While the President was informed about the a new intelligence source in August 2007 he was not told what that information was because at that time it had not been fully analysed and evaluated.

3. From 1 & 2 above it is clear that when the President made his remarks on 23 October he was not aware that his intelligence services evaluation was leading them to the conclusion that the Iranian nuclear weapons programme had been halted. So when he made his remarks on 23rd October he could not have been lying as Bobert claims.

4. The President was informed with regard to the analysis and evaluation of the new information roughly one week before the NIE was made public, i.e. long after 23rd October.

5. Has the Iranian nuclear weapons programme been abandoned or renounced? No it has not, there has been no clear statement from Tehran on this. Nobody outside of Iran knows anything for certain about the status and aims of their nuclear programme. Recent reports suggest that it was restarted in 2004, so there is even uncertainty as to whether at the moment it has been halted or not.

6. If the Iranian nuclear weapons programme has in fact been halted, does it still pose a threat? Of course it does, it lies outwith the terms and conditions of the NPT and could be restarted at any moment in the future.

Conclusion #1
It would appear that Bobert was 100% wrong with regard to the World War III jibe and the "Bobert fact" that the President lied.

On WMD
1. Bobert claimed that Dr. Hans Blix stated that the Iraqi's were co-operating fully with UNMOVIC, quoting Dr. Blix's report to the UNSC of 27th January, 2003.

2. This claim has been disproved from at least two quarters purely by direct quotations from the same report which stated quite clearly that Iraq was not co-operating to the level required by UNSC Resolution 1441 or as claimed by Bobert, i.e. Bobert is knowingly misrepresenting the situation or he is deliberately lying.

3. On the "Prove a negative" aspect, BB has laid it out very well:
- Iraq was asked to submit a full declaration of what they had.
- UNSCOM/UNMOVIC have purchase orders, shipping records, import licences, manufacturing records, munitions records, disposal records.
- The Iraqis claim to have disposed of, or unilaterally destroyed it all.
- UNMOVIC point out that the Iraq disposal records do not accord with the amounts manufactured, that there is a shortfall that needs to be explained, to which the Iraqis offer no explanation. If unilaterally destroyed outwith the supervision of the UN there would be traces found at the disposal sites, none were found, surely the Iraqis would know where they had destroyed these items?

4. That France stated quite categorically that it would allow no "second resolution" that presented Saddam Hussein with an ultimatum to be tabled. This in effect eliminated the UN from the process of resolving what the USA and the UK saw as the clear threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq to the peace and security of the region.

5. Faced with the prospect of Saddam, supported internationally by France, Russia and China, playing the same old game he had successfully employed between 1991 and 1998, the US acted, they gave Saddam Hussein one last chance to quit and avoid the coming war. Saddam refused the offer and suffered the consequences.

6. Since May 2003 the following is now known about Iraq:
- They no longer have any WMD arsenal of weapons
- They no longer have any WMD programme running that could be used to terrorise its own population or its neighbours.
- They no longer sponsor international terrorist groups.

Conclusion #2:
It would appear that Bobert is 100% wrong about his claims relating to Iraqi compliance with UNSC Resolutions.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Stu
Date: 15 Dec 07 - 06:10 AM

- They no longer have any WMD arsenal of weapons

Unlike the USA

- They no longer have any WMD programme running that could be used to terrorise its own population or its neighbours.

Unlike the USA

- They no longer sponsor international terrorist groups.

Given the USA's history of sponsoring terrorism across the globe, there is a distinct possibility the USA is still sponsoring terrorism somewhere in the world.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 07 - 07:35 AM

Yes indeed Stigweard, the US does have a WMD arsenal, which, since the end of the Second World War they have threatened nobody with. They have been the leading world power when it has come to universal disarmament and act as the main point of storage and collection of chemical and biological weapons and agents for verifiable disposal. Russia and China on the other have always lagged behind, Russia has 50% more operational nuclear weapons than the US and both Russia and China still maintain for use massive quantities of chemical and biological weaponry. Can you explain why you didn't bring all this to our attention, or is this only one more "let's bash the USA" attempt.

I am unaware of any occasion in recent times when the USA has terrorised its own population, perhaps you could enlighten us.

The USA's much vaunted "School of the America's" - Shut down decades ago and strictly a "Cold War" phenomenon, comparable to its Soviet counterpart, the Patrice Lamumba Institute in Moscow.

So "there is a distinct possibility the USA is still sponsoring terrorism somewhere in the world" Well I would suppose that you could take the view that anything is possible, then counter that by evaluating what is probable. This I notice that you have not done Stig. Subsequent to the attacks of 911 I would think it highly improbable that the USA is sponsoring terrorism anywhere in the world.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Dec 07 - 08:19 AM

Here's 89 cents, t... Take it and 1441 to your local convience store and get you a cup of coffee...

You seem to have taken 1441 and elevated it to God0like proportions.... If you can remember back to when it was adopted, the reality on the ground was that the world was shocked by Bush's insistence on invading Iraq... You seem to conviently leave that out... Other than Blair, Bush had no real support for such a venture...

Bush was ready to invade in the fall of 2002... Remember them having to reload the "marketing" of the war from August until late September because the American people are too busy in August with late vations, upcoming Labor Day and getting kids back to school...

So they delayed the marketing after some August sabre rattling...

Powell was the long voice that fall as the Cheney/Wolfowitz/Rumdfelds War Machine pounded and pounded for war but Powell told Bush that no one was going to buy this war if there wasn't some level of legitimacey. meaning going to the UN... UIt was a delaying tactic on Powell's part as demonstartions around the countery and world brought pressure on Bush to reverse course...

This is the way historians will sort it out...

I mean, we were all there, T, so for you to now think that the UN was the motivation behind the invasion is not talling the correct story...

Everyone knew that Bush was going to invade... Even the half a million or so of US who marched in January on that very cold day knew that all we were doing was making a stand against a decision that had been made much earlier...

Secretary of the Treasury O'Niel said that Bush was consumed with invading Iraq from Day 1... Why would this loyal, lifetime Republican lie??? Just to sell a book??? I think not...

So the UN got pounded with new 'n improved propaganda fro Powell, who by now and been pounded into submission by the chickenhawk war machine in Bush's tiny circle of trusted advisors... They gave him photographs, which BTW proved nothin', and sent him off to do to the UN what had been done to him...

A reluctant UN passed 1441 but it wasn't what you have it made it out to be: the Holy Grail!!! It was an framework for the situation to be corrected without the invasion... Yes, there were expectations placed on Iraq, some of which were met and others, not...

There was alot of progress made in a very short time by the Blix team...

Now, there is a concept known as the "spirit of the law" as opposed to the letter of the law... Tghe spirit of the law allows people to use good judegment when the letter of the law isn't strictly followed...

What historians, unlike you, T, will get right is that the letter of the law was perhaps upheld at the expense of the spirit of the law and thus, upwards of a million people have been killed because folks like you only see balck and white... Black and white does not explain human behavior or exhistence... Most is in the gray...

Thus, by having no ability to see anything but black and white, this terrible decision was made.. It isn't what the UN forsawe with 1441 and certainly isn't way Congresss had in mind with it's own Resolution...

Historians will get this right...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Dec 07 - 08:26 AM

Basra opinion poll:

Residents of Basra believe British troops have had a negative effect on the Iraqi province since 2003, an opinion poll suggests.

The survey for BBC Newsnight of nearly 1,000 people also suggests that 56% believe their presence has increased the overall level of militia violence. ...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Dec 07 - 08:58 AM

"Historians will get this right..."

I agree with this statement- but I do not agree that they will come to the same conclusions that you have.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Dec 07 - 09:06 AM

"The verdict of history" can never decide for sure whether a particular course of action that wasn't followed would have led to a better or worse outcome. People still argue about that kind of stuff thousands of years after the event.

I imagine there'll be the odd revisionist historian saying that Bush wasn't as big a disaster as everyone assumes.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Dec 07 - 11:52 AM

""The verdict of history" can never decide for sure whether a particular course of action that wasn't followed would have led to a better or worse outcome. People still argue about that kind of stuff thousands of years after the event."

Verily. Total agreement here.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 07 - 09:36 AM

Interesting article Kevin, now what else would you expect a "survey" undertaken by the BBC to say. Hell if today's crop of BBC reporters had been reporting the events related to the Second World War we'd have lost.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Dec 07 - 10:49 AM

You all were well on your way to loosing WW II, T, when we Yanks came in an' saved yer butts...

Awwww, jus' funning wid ya'... I'm sure you had Hitler right where you wanted him... Right???

B;)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Folkiedave
Date: 16 Dec 07 - 12:46 PM


Yes indeed Stigweard, the US does have a WMD arsenal, which, since the end of the Second World War they have threatened nobody with


Clearly Vietnam didn't happen then.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 07 - 01:25 PM

Ah Bobert the truest, and most prophetic, words spoken during the course of the Second World War were spoken by Sir Winston Churchill in the summer of 1940:

"Hitler knows he must defeat us on this island or lose the war"

Fact was Bobert he didn't manage to defeat Britain, fact was Bobert he did lose the war. The Axis powers lost the war because of an allied effort, they were not defeated by any one nation, although Holywood and recent American TV Series might seem to suggest so. To do so is wrong, although IMO if any country has any right to claim that they defeated Nazi Germany it would be the USSR.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Amos
Date: 16 Dec 07 - 01:50 PM

The USSR defeated Germany on the Eastern front. Without the Western front, and particularly the Normandy and Italy invasions, it is doubtful whether they could have pulled it off, as their costs in repelling the German forces were very high. That is why Stalin repeatedly begged and demanded that the Western front be opened up. It is interesting to speculate how events would have turned out if we had launched the Western invasion a year earlier instead of investing resources in the North Africa campaign.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Dec 07 - 03:10 PM

Hey, I was jus' messin' with T, Amos... He knows that the UK couldn't have taken the German military by itself,,, Well, I think he knows that but given some of the bonwehead stuff he says here maybe that assumption on my part is just that??? Who knows???

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Stringsinger
Date: 16 Dec 07 - 04:13 PM

Teribus,

In reesponse:

"1. Iran did have nuclear weapons programme, which was, on evaluation of new information received in August 2007, halted in the summer of 2003."

this is true.

"2. While the President was informed about the a new intelligence source in August 2007 he was not told what that information was because at that time it had not been fully analysed and evaluated."

How in the world would you know this? This sounds like Dana Perino propaganda.

"3. From 1 & 2 above it is clear that when the President made his remarks on 23 October he was not aware that his intelligence services evaluation was leading them to the conclusion that the Iranian nuclear weapons programme had been halted. So when he made his remarks on 23rd October he could not have been lying as Bobert claims."

1 may be true but 2 is far from substantiated except through an opinion not a fact.


"4. The President was informed with regard to the analysis and evaluation of the new information roughly one week before the NIE was made public, i.e. long after 23rd October."

Bush probably knew about the information long before then.

5. Has the Iranian nuclear weapons programme been abandoned or renounced? No it has not, there has been no clear statement from Tehran on this. Nobody outside of Iran knows anything for certain about the status and aims of their nuclear programme. Recent reports suggest that it was restarted in 2004, so there is even uncertainty as to whether at the moment it has been halted or not.

Not much uncertainty. Only an agenda that would like to be accusatory to Iran and have an excuse to bomb them.

6. If the Iranian nuclear weapons programme has in fact been halted, does it still pose a threat?

Not really. There is more of a threat from North Korea or Pakistan.

"Of course it does, it lies outwith the terms and conditions of the NPT and could be restarted at any moment in the future."

The US and Israel are not now signatories to the NPT and Iran is.

"Conclusion #1
It would appear that Bobert was 100% wrong with regard to the World War III jibe and the "Bobert fact" that the President lied."

There is no evidence here to support that claim.

On WMD
1. Bobert claimed that Dr. Hans Blix stated that the Iraqi's were co-operating fully with UNMOVIC, quoting Dr. Blix's report to the UNSC of 27th January, 2003.

This is true and has been substantiated for some time.

"2. This claim has been disproved from at least two quarters purely by direct quotations from the same report which stated quite clearly that Iraq was not co-operating to the level required by UNSC Resolution 1441 or as claimed by Bobert, i.e. Bobert is knowingly misrepresenting the situation or he is deliberately lying."

No, the lies are coming from the "two quarters" that are not being mentioned. Iraq was indeed cooperating with 1441 and there was propaganda to insist that Saddam had ties to Al Quaeda which is also incorrect.

"3. On the "Prove a negative" aspect, BB has laid it out very well:
- Iraq was asked to submit a full declaration of what they had.
- UNSCOM/UNMOVIC have purchase orders, shipping records, import licences, manufacturing records, munitions records, disposal records.
- The Iraqis claim to have disposed of, or unilaterally destroyed it all."

It was in Bush's interest to ignore this claim because he had intended to go to war with
Iraq even prior to his election so that he could gain "political capital" according to his own statements.

"- UNMOVIC point out that the Iraq disposal records do not accord with the amounts manufactured, that there is a shortfall that needs to be explained, to which the Iraqis offer no explanation."

The US supplied Iraq with these nuclear materials at the time of the war with Iran.
The shortfall has been addressed by some who claim that they were sold on the black market. It wouldn't have mattered one bit what explanation the Iraqis offered because Bush's plans were already in place to invade Iraq.

" If unilaterally destroyed outwith the supervision of the UN there would be traces found at the disposal sites, none were found, surely the Iraqis would know where they had destroyed these items?"

They were destroyed under UN supervision. Pure and simple.

"4. That France stated quite categorically that it would allow no "second resolution" that presented Saddam Hussein with an ultimatum to be tabled. This in effect eliminated the UN from the process of resolving what the USA and the UK saw as the clear threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq to the peace and security of the region."

Only Bush and Blair were under the misapprehension that there was a clear threat.
Although I wonder if it was really a misapprehension at all and just a pretext for war and occupation of Iraq.

"5. Faced with the prospect of Saddam, supported internationally by France, Russia and China, playing the same old game he had successfully employed between 1991 and 1998, the US acted, they gave Saddam Hussein one last chance to quit and avoid the coming war. Saddam refused the offer and suffered the consequences."

This is patently false information. Saddam was never unilaterally supported by France, Russia or China. As to playing any game, of course he was not to be trusted. But neither was Bush who was playing his own game.

"6. Since May 2003 the following is now known about Iraq:
- They no longer have any WMD arsenal of weapons
- They no longer have any WMD programme running that could be used to terrorise its own population or its neighbours.
- They no longer sponsor international terrorist groups."

This is true. As far as sponsoring any groups, they are not a cohesive government as of yet and it is in the interest of defense industry corporations to advance their hegenomy in the reason and keep this from happening.

"Conclusion #2:
It would appear that Bobert is 100% wrong about his claims relating to Iraqi compliance with UNSC Resolutions."

No, not enough legitimate evidence has been presented to support this claim.
These speculative enumerations are based on hypothesis, not fact and reflect the
opinion of the writer.

" the US does have a WMD arsenal, which, since the end of the Second World War they have threatened nobody with."

You have never heard of the Cuban missile crisis? We nearly had WW III.

" They have been the leading world power when it has come to universal disarmament and act as the main point of storage and collection of chemical and biological weapons and agents for verifiable disposal."

Dream on. They have not signed the nuclear proliferation treaty and Bush has even sabre rattled with a prospect of limited nuke bombs. As to the disposal of the storage, this has not only been effectively done but because of Bush's economic priorities, nuke facilities are not protected against international terrorism.

" Russia and China on the other have always lagged behind, Russia has 50% more operational nuclear weapons than the US and both Russia and China still maintain for use massive quantities of chemical and biological weaponry. Can you explain why you didn't bring all this to our attention, or is this only one more "let's bash the USA" attempt."

I don't know the source for this information but there is no reason to believe that it is true.
There is no way to know just how much operational nuclear weapons exist in the US or Russia today since Putin and Bush both deal in propaganda to bolster their images.

"I am unaware of any occasion in recent times when the USA has terrorised its own population, perhaps you could enlighten us."

You might consider Blackwater and the National Guard's role in Katrina for one. Also,
I'm sure you have heard of the McCarthy era in American politics where an alcoholic
senator terrorized many people who lost their jobs as a result.

"The USA's much vaunted "School of the America's" - Shut down decades ago and strictly a "Cold War" phenomenon, comparable to its Soviet counterpart, the Patrice Lamumba Institute in Moscow. "

The School of the Americas is far from being shut down. It has a new name now
with the acronym WHIMSEC and is very active in supplying help to terrorists in Colombia,
and other Central American countries as well as Afghanistan.

"So "there is a distinct possibility the USA is still sponsoring terrorism somewhere in the world" Well I would suppose that you could take the view that anything is possible, then counter that by evaluating what is probable. This I notice that you have not done Stig. Subsequent to the attacks of 911 I would think it highly improbable that the USA is sponsoring terrorism anywhere in the world."

This is entirely naive. The assasination of Castro and of Chavez has been a subject of
controversey regarding the role of the CIA as was the deposition of Allende in Chile.
The US is not immune from dispensing terror when it serves the needs of those of the Bush Adminstration and their agenda.

The sanctions placed on Iraq were motivated by the GOP's political interest in occupying that territory. Many innocent civilians were horribly affected by these sanctions. Unfortunately the UN bought them by being pressured by the US Administration.

There would be no political gain to be made by Blix distorting his appraisal of the WMD
situation. There would be much "political capital" gained by Bush to deny Blix.


Frank


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Dec 07 - 08:17 PM

Some fine work there, Frank... Hurt my heard readin' it but, hey, I got Excederin....

Yeah, the real story is out there but it doesn't have mish shelf life before the Bush apologist/revisonists starte trying to make chicken salad outta chicken sh*t...

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 16 Dec 07 - 10:45 PM

"Counter to what Guest TIA believes..."

Here's what TIA believes.

I played four gigs this weekend with my daughters, while you and your toady spent the weekend screaming and throwing red herrings at Bobert.

TIA believes that TIA has a more productive and happy life than that.

Now, please, post at least twenty bullet points to prove me wrong.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Dec 07 - 08:23 AM

"...what else would you expect a "survey" undertaken by the BBC to say. (Teribus)

In fact the research evidently wasn't carried out "by" the BBC's Newsnight, it was carried out for the programme: "The Public Attitudes in Basra survey carried out for Newsnight by the UK-based polling agency, Opinion Research Business (ORB), interviewed a random sample of 922 adults across the southern city of Basra between 3 and 8 December."

Other clients of ORB include the Conservative Party and the Countryside Alliance.
Not exactly card-carrying left-winders...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,Keith A o Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 07 - 09:58 AM

Bobert, I expect that T was meaning that before US arrived Britain had defeated the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain, Halted Hitler's advances on all fronts except the East, and turned the tide aginst Rommel's Afrika Corps in the desert, by defeating them at El Alamein.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Dec 07 - 12:01 PM

"2. While the President was informed about the a new intelligence source in August 2007 he was not told what that information was because at that time it had not been fully analysed and evaluated."

How in the world would you know this? This sounds like Dana Perino propaganda."

Did you even bother to read the Washington Post piece that stated:

"Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce - PM
Date: 10 Dec 07 - 02:23 PM

quotes from the Washington Post Dec 8, 2007 article "A futile Quest on Iranian Arms" P A10:

"By mid-November, the agencies were ready to deliver their conclusions to the White House. Intelligence officials gave a preliminary breifing Nov. 15 in the Situation room to Vice President Cheney, national security advisor Stephen J. Hadley and other senior officials.

The process was climaxing just as Bush was convening a Middle East peace conference in Annapolis, a meeting designed at least in part to rally the region against Iran. No one told the participants about the new information, but on the same day they were gathering in Annapolis on Nov. 27, the National Intelligence Board met to finalize the new NIE. McConnell and others breifed Bush and Cheney the next day. Even though intelligence officials planned to keep it from the public, Bush later that day passed it on to Israeli Prime minister Ehud Olmert and Cheney told Defense Minister Ehud Barak."


Now Bobert stated:
""President Bush got the world's attention this fall when he warned that a nuclear-armed Iran might lead to World War III. But his stark warning came at least a month or two *******after****** he had been told about frssh indidctaions that Iran had actaully halted it's nuclear weapons program.""

So, Bush knew the results of the report last fall that were finalized on Nov. 27, and presented to him the next day ( Nov. 28th)"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Dec 07 - 12:09 PM

On WMD
1. Bobert claimed that Dr. Hans Blix stated that the Iraqi's were co-operating fully with UNMOVIC, quoting Dr. Blix's report to the UNSC of 27th January, 2003.

This is true and has been substantiated for some time."

Not by anyone capable of reading the text of the Jan 27th report by Blix. "FULLY?????"



**********************************
"2. This claim has been disproved from at least two quarters purely by direct quotations from the same report which stated quite clearly that Iraq was not co-operating to the level required by UNSC Resolution 1441 or as claimed by Bobert, i.e. Bobert is knowingly misrepresenting the situation or he is deliberately lying."

No, the lies are coming from the "two quarters" that are not being mentioned. Iraq was indeed cooperating with 1441 and there was propaganda to insist that Saddam had ties to Al Quaeda which is also incorrect."

You now claim that the direct quotes from the Jan 27th report by Blix are lies?

****************************************************
"3. On the "Prove a negative" aspect, BB has laid it out very well:
- Iraq was asked to submit a full declaration of what they had.
- UNSCOM/UNMOVIC have purchase orders, shipping records, import licences, manufacturing records, munitions records, disposal records.
- The Iraqis claim to have disposed of, or unilaterally destroyed it all."

It was in Bush's interest to ignore this claim because he had intended to go to war with
Iraq even prior to his election so that he could gain "political capital" according to his own statements."

SO?? Do you dispute that the material HAD been obtained, according to Iraqi records, and that no records or evicence of the destruction exist?


**************************************
"- UNMOVIC point out that the Iraq disposal records do not accord with the amounts manufactured, that there is a shortfall that needs to be explained, to which the Iraqis offer no explanation."

The US supplied Iraq with these nuclear materials at the time of the war with Iran."


SO??? That was under the NPT.

"The shortfall has been addressed by some who claim that they were sold on the black market. It wouldn't have mattered one bit what explanation the Iraqis offered because Bush's plans were already in place to invade Iraq. "

I fail to see any evidence other than your opinion to support this.




*******************************
" If unilaterally destroyed outwith the supervision of the UN there would be traces found at the disposal sites, none were found, surely the Iraqis would know where they had destroyed these items?"

They were destroyed under UN supervision. Pure and simple."

No, not according to the UN reports. Pleaseshow me where Blix says anything that could be twisted into this statement.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Dec 07 - 12:12 PM

Yeah, the real story is out there, but it does not have much shelf life before the anti0-Bush revisionists start trying to make chicken salad out of chicken shit.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Dec 07 - 12:56 PM

"The US is not immune from dispensing terror when it serves the needs of those of the Bush Adminstration and their agenda."

"Bush administration"
"The assasination of Castro and of Chavez ..."
"the role of the CIA as was the deposition of Allende in Chile."


Hmmm...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Dec 07 - 02:29 PM

Frank regarding your last post,

My response:

"2. While the President was informed about the a new intelligence source in August 2007 he was not told what that information was because at that time it had not been fully analysed and evaluated."

"How in the world would you know this? – Frank Hamilton"

Please refer to the White House Press Conference of 4th December, 2007. Here is the relevant question and the answer given:

Question:
Mr. President, thank you. I'd like to follow on that. When you talked about Iraq, you and others in the administration talked about a mushroom cloud; then there were no WMD in Iraq. When it came to Iran, you said in October, on October 17th, you warned about the prospect of World War III, when months before you made that statement, this intelligence about them suspending their weapons program back in '03 had already come to light to this administration. So can't you be accused of hyping this threat? And don't you worry that that undermines U.S. credibility?

THE PRESIDENT: David, I don't want to contradict an august reporter such as yourself, but I was made aware of the NIE last week. In August, I think it was Mike McConnell came in and said, we have some new information. He didn't tell me what the information was; he did tell me it was going to take a while to analyze. Why would you take time to analyze new information? One, you want to make sure it's not disinformation. You want to make sure the piece of intelligence you have is real. And secondly, they want to make sure they understand the intelligence they gathered: If they think it's real, then what does it mean? And it wasn't until last week that I was briefed on the NIE that is now public.

So Frank that would have meant that the President was not made aware of the content and considered evaluation of America's intelligence community until sometime during Week 48. Bobert's contention was that the President knew in Week 42 but that is based upon Bobert's unsubstantiated opinion only, he offers nothing to back it up.

"3. From 1 & 2 above it is clear that when the President made his remarks on 23 October he was not aware that his intelligence services evaluation was leading them to the conclusion that the Iranian nuclear weapons programme had been halted. So when he made his remarks on 23rd October he could not have been lying as Bobert claims."

So counter to what you have said - what is stated above is accurate and is based on verifiable information.


"4. The President was informed with regard to the analysis and evaluation of the new information roughly one week before the NIE was made public, i.e. long after 23rd October."

"Bush probably knew about the information long before then – Frank Hamilton."

Now that is a perfect example of pure unsubstantiated opinion Frank. Care to enlighten us on exactly how on earth you could possibly "know this to be the case". Just because the likes of yourself and Bobert want to believe it does not make it necessarily true.

The President at the Press Conference on 4th December, 2007, was asked a question and identified the advisor who can verify the following:
1.        When in Week 42 the President was informed that new intelligence had been received and was under evaluation.
2.        Can confirm that detail relating to the subject matter of the new intelligence was not passed to the President.
3.        When analysis and evaluation of the new intelligence was completed
4.        When the NIE was completed and approved for publication
5.        When in Week 48 the President was briefed on the content of the NIE.


5. Has the Iranian nuclear weapons programme been abandoned or renounced? No it has not; there has been no clear statement from Tehran on this. Nobody outside of Iran knows anything for certain about the status and aims of their nuclear programme. Recent reports suggest that it was restarted in 2004, so there is even uncertainty as to whether at the moment it has been halted or not.

"Not much uncertainty. Only an agenda that would like to be accusatory to Iran and have an excuse to bomb them. – Frank Hamilton"

So there is not much uncertainty Frank? Again solely your opinion, which I am supposed to take as fact? Well Frank, please forgive me if I pass on that. Those who voice concern over the uncertainty that I mentioned include the authors of the NIE themselves, the IAEA and the same Iranian dissident group that blew the whistle on Iran's secret uranium enrichment facilities. Now certainly with regard to the first two bodies mentioned there I would defer to their greater knowledge and experience on the subject than such as yourself and Bobert.

6. If the Iranian nuclear weapons programme has in fact been halted, does it still pose a threat?

"Not really. There is more of a threat from North Korea or Pakistan. – Frank Hamilton"

Correct me if I am wrong Frank but isn't North Korea in the process of disarming, having publicly renounced its nuclear weapons programme? If that is so what threat do they pose Frank? Pakistan? A threat? To whom Frank?

Now maybe you can explain why a country who did sign up to the NPT in order to gain access to the information and assistance required to establish a nuclear programme and then flagrantly disregarded the conditions of that treaty to construct massive uranium enrichment facilities in secret can be discounted so readily as "not posing a threat"? Or is this only Frank Hamilton's baseless and unfounded opinion?

"The US and Israel are not now signatories to the NPT and Iran is. – Frank Hamilton"

Can you tell us when the US withdrew from the NPT Frank? According all sources I have looked up the US is still very much a fully signed up party to that Treaty. Israel on the other hand Frank has never been a signatory but Israel started her nuclear programme in 1958, ten years before Ireland first proposed the NPT in 1968.

"Conclusion #1
It would appear that Bobert was 100% wrong with regard to the World War III jibe and the "Bobert fact" that the President lied."

"There is no evidence here to support that claim. – Frank Hamilton"

On the contrary Frank, I think that there is rather a great deal of evidence to support the above conclusion. Perhaps you and Bobert should start coming up with some form of evidence that can be substantiated as opposed to what can clearly be seen as your own baseless unfounded opinions.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Dec 07 - 02:40 PM

Her's Part II Frank:

On WMD
1. Bobert claimed that Dr. Hans Blix stated that the Iraqi's were co-operating fully with UNMOVIC, quoting Dr. Blix's report to the UNSC of 27th January, 2003.

"This is true and has been substantiated for some time. – Frank Hamilton"

Really Frank? Substantiated by who? Look down the thread, both Bruce and myself have quoted the report written, and signed off, by Dr. Hans Blix that completely contradicts the statements made by yourself and Bobert. Perhaps you could likewise come up with a source that clearly states that the Iraqi's were co-operating fully in accordance with the requirements of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441.

"2. This claim has been disproved from at least two quarters purely by direct quotations from the same report which stated quite clearly that Iraq was not co-operating to the level required by UNSC Resolution 1441 or as claimed by Bobert, i.e. Bobert is knowingly misrepresenting the situation or he is deliberately lying."

"No, the lies are coming from the "two quarters" that are not being mentioned. – Frank Hamilton"

Huh? Are you trying to tell us that Hans Blix was lying in his own report? The same report that Bobert was quoting? Your comment makes no sense at all.

"Iraq was indeed cooperating with 1441 and there was propaganda to insist that Saddam had ties to Al Quaeda which is also incorrect. – Frank Hamilton"

Well that is only your opinion Frank and extremely ill-informed opinion at that. The reference to Al Qaeda is somewhat baffling as it bears no relation to anything being discussed.

"3. On the "Prove a negative" aspect, BB has laid it out very well:
- Iraq was asked to submit a full declaration of what they had.
- UNSCOM/UNMOVIC have purchase orders, shipping records, import licences, manufacturing records, munitions records, disposal records.
- The Iraqis claim to have disposed of, or unilaterally destroyed it all."

"It was in Bush's interest to ignore this claim because he had intended to go to war with Iraq even prior to his election so that he could gain "political capital" according to his own statements. – Frank Hamilton"

Utter hogwash Frank, "he had intended to go to war with Iraq even prior to his election" ludicrous. Neither George W. Bush, or any member of his Administration, were part of the evaluation made by UNSCOM in 1998 and UNMOVIC in 2003

"- UNMOVIC point out that the Iraq disposal records do not accord with the amounts manufactured, that there is a shortfall that needs to be explained, to which the Iraqis offer no explanation."

"The US supplied Iraq with these nuclear materials at the time of the war with Iran. – Frank Hamilton"

This of course is as factual as the US no longer being a signatory to the Nuclear NPT. Tell us what nuclear materials the US supplied Iraq with during the war with Iran, could you also tell us exactly what use they would have been to the Iraqi's at that time Frank? Any idea why they weren't used Frank?

"The shortfall has been addressed by some who claim that they were sold on the black market."

What was sold/disposed of on the "black-market" Frank? Those nuclear materials that the US didn't supply Iraq with? Now if as those "some" said they had been sold, the "some" could also detail what was sold, to whom and when, couldn't they Frank? Especially if Iraq was co-operating fully with UNMOVIC as both you and Bobert claim. But they didn't did they Frank? Which, oddly enough Frank, was exactly Dr. Blix's point in his report of the 27th January 2003.

"It wouldn't have mattered one bit what explanation the Iraqis offered because Bush's plans were already in place to invade Iraq. – Frank Hamilton"

Nothing whatsoever to do with Bush, Frank, at the point we are talking about it was a matter between the Iraqi Authorities and the United Nations UNMOVIC Inspectors, the USA didn't even enter the equation.

" If unilaterally destroyed outwith the supervision of the UN there would be traces found at the disposal sites, none were found, surely the Iraqis would know where they had destroyed these items?"

"They were destroyed under UN supervision. Pure and simple. – Frank Hamilton"

What is evident "Pure and simple" Frank is that you have read nothing written by Dr. Hans Blix in all his time as head of UNMOVIC. It is obvious that you have not read the terms/requirements of 1441, otherwise there is absolutely no way that you would have come up with that ridiculous statement. If they had been destroyed under UN supervision I would at least have expected the good Dr., or one of his inspectors to mention it at some point or other - once again they didn't.

"4. That France stated quite categorically that it would allow no "second resolution" that presented Saddam Hussein with an ultimatum to be tabled. This in effect eliminated the UN from the process of resolving what the USA and the UK saw as the clear threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq to the peace and security of the region."

"Only Bush and Blair were under the misapprehension that there was a clear threat. – Frank Hamilton"

Again your opinion Frank, not many Kuwaiti's, or others in the region would share it.

"5. Faced with the prospect of Saddam, supported internationally by France, Russia and China, playing the same old game he had successfully employed between 1991 and 1998, the US acted, they gave Saddam Hussein one last chance to quit and avoid the coming war. Saddam refused the offer and suffered the consequences."

"This is patently false information. Saddam was never unilaterally supported by France, Russia or China. – Frank Hamilton"

Really Frank? Patently false information? Well tell us Frank, the Iraqi Republican Guard, what equipped their armoured formations? Russian T-72 tanks weren't they Frank? Between Russia/France/China you have the trading partners who for the some thirty years supplied Saddam Hussein with 93.4% of all his arms. Take a look at the list of currently active oil related contracts in Iraq Frank and tell us how many pre-date the March 2003 invasion and how many are held by Russian/French/Chinese Oil Companies.

"As to playing any game, of course he (Saddam) was not to be trusted. – Frank Hamilton"

"Of course Saddam was not to be trusted", yet he posed no threat? Bit of a contradiction there Frank.


"Conclusion #2:
It would appear that Bobert is 100% wrong about his claims relating to Iraqi compliance with UNSC Resolutions."

"No, not enough legitimate evidence has been presented to support this claim. These speculative enumerations are based on hypothesis, not fact and reflect the opinion of the writer. – Frank Hamilton"

Well in that case Frank the writer you are talking about is Dr. Hans Blix, which of course you would have realized if you had actually bothered to read his reports and terms of reference.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Dec 07 - 02:46 PM

Then finally Frank the odds and sods in Part III

"the US does have a WMD arsenal, which, since the end of the Second World War they have threatened nobody with."

"You have never heard of the Cuban missile crisis? We nearly had WW III. – Frank Hamilton"

I remember it very well Frank. And if memory serves correctly wasn't it Soviet Russia that was doing the threatening by parking IRBM's with nuclear warheads off the coast of the USA?

"They (the USA) have not signed the nuclear proliferation treaty – Frank Hamilton"

Well Frank counter to your wildest fancies, I can state with absolute certainty that United States of America signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty on 1st July, 1968 and ratified the Treaty on 5th March, 1970. So by all means Frank dream on, or at least come up with a date when the US renounced the treaty – I take it that you can do that Frank?

"Russia and China on the other have always lagged behind, Russia has 50% more operational nuclear weapons than the US and both Russia and China still maintain for use massive quantities of chemical and biological weaponry. Can you explain why you didn't bring all this to our attention, or is this only one more "let's bash the USA" attempt."

"I don't know the source for this information but there is no reason to believe that it is true. – Frank Hamilton"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/list_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons

"I am unaware of any occasion in recent times when the USA has terrorised its own population, perhaps you could enlighten us."

"You might consider Blackwater and the National Guard's role in Katrina for one."

No, you might consider that people had been terrorised Frank, I wouldn't.

"The School of the Americas is far from being shut down. It has a new name now with the acronym WHIMSEC and is very active in supplying help to terrorists in Colombia, and other Central American countries as well as Afghanistan. – Frank Hamilton"

Actually its WHINSEC, not WHIMSEC
"The Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC), located at Fort Benning in Columbus, Georgia, is the Defense Department's principal Spanish-language training facility for Latin American military and law-enforcement personnel (though some civilians attend as well). It is the successor to the School of the Americas (SOA), a facility established in 1946 and legally closed in 2001."

Now Frank says that it is – "very active in supplying help to terrorists" – well here's the make-up of student role for 2004 (latest published figures):

Military 633 (64%); Police / Law Enforcement 334 (34%); Civilian 18 (2%)

No terrorists mentioned Frank, how come?

Few more facts about WHINSEC for you Frank:
Section 911 of the 2001 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 5408) added a new section 2166 to Title 10, U.S. Code (the part of U.S. law that governs the military). The new section repealed the legal authorization for the old School of the Americas and made the following changes.
•        The Fort Benning facility was renamed the "Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation."
•        The renamed institute's official purpose is now "to provide professional education and training to eligible personnel of nations of the Western Hemisphere within the context of the democratic principles set forth in the Charter of the Organization of American States ... while fostering mutual knowledge, transparency, confidence, and cooperation among the participating nations and promoting democratic values, respect for human rights, and knowledge and understanding of United States customs and traditions."
•        Codifying an existing SOA policy, the new law requires that each student receive at least eight hours of instruction in "human rights, the rule of law, due process, civilian control of the military, and the role of the military in a democratic society."
•        The new law allowed Western Hemisphere civilians and police personnel to attend, and requires that the Secretary of State be consulted in the selection of students.
•        Courses must focus on leadership development, counter-drug operations, peace support operations, disaster relief, or "any other matter the Secretary [of Defense] deems appropriate."
•        The new law codified the old SOA's decade-old practice of inviting a "Board of Visitors" to review and evaluate "curriculum, instruction, physical equipment, fiscal affairs, and academic methods." A federal committee, the board must include the chairmen and ranking minority members of both houses' Armed Services Committees (or surrogates), the senior Army officer responsible for training (or a surrogate), one person chosen by the Secretary of State, the head of the U.S. Southern command (or a surrogate), and six people chosen by the Secretary of Defense ("including, to the extent practicable, persons from academia and the religious and human rights communities"). The board reviews the institute's curriculum to determine whether it complies with U.S. laws and doctrine, and whether it is consistent with U.S. policy goals toward Latin America and the Caribbean. Within sixty days of its annual meeting, the Board must submit a report to the Secretary of Defense describing its activities and its recommendations.
•        The law requires a detailed annual report on the institute's activities, which the Secretary of Defense, after consulting with the Secretary of State, must submit to Congress by March 15 of each year.

The sanctions placed on Iraq post signing of the Safwan cease-fire 3rd March 1991 and adoption of UNSC Resolution 687 3rd April, 1991 were the result of lack of Iraqi co-operation with regard to the cease-fire terms and non-compliance with obligations agreed to by Iraq. Frank, in the period you are referring to the many innocent civilians were horribly affected by the predations of their ruler Saddam Hussein who was not affected by the sanctions one jot. Now tell us Frank how many "Presidential Palaces" did he build during this period that could not be inspected by UNSCOM or the IAEA? What was all that fuss about the "Oil-For-Food" Programme? Tell us again just how effective those sanctions were Frank, illegal oil trading? 384 Rocket engines? The UN sanctions Frank were a joke, and that has been clearly proven.


Teribus


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Dec 07 - 05:43 PM

It must be embarrassing being President and nobody tells you what's going on...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Amos
Date: 17 Dec 07 - 06:28 PM

The endless iterations of terror by Cheney, Bush, Rice, could well be argued to qualify. They certainly infected a lot of people with fear, if not terror.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Dec 07 - 07:59 PM

Well, well, well...

Seems that both bb and T have them a nice little circle jerk between themselves while I was out, ahhhhh, actaully working for a living...

But nevermind that...

Seems they also are suffering from bad cases of "Gotcha, Bobert"... Problem is that they invent stuff they wished I'd said and then they attack what they wished I'd said...

BB, fir instant, says in his 17Dec07 12.01pm post that I "claimed that Dr. Hans Blix stated that the Iarqis were cooperating fully with UNMOVIC"...

Problem here is that I never made that statement the way that bb put it in his post...

Lie #1 for bb...

And then T'Bird jumps on bb's "FULLY" (sorry folks for the sceaming but I'm just typing it the way the SCREAMERs typed it) so now we have that game where one lie gets passed on and then the other half of the tag team, rather than verify that is exactly what I had said, assumes that his bud is telling the truth and so he just makes up his new argument based on defensing Lie #1...

Hmmmmmmmm???

But nevermind that stuff... These folks, especially bb, love to throw out the "lie" word, something that is quite distastefull in any civilized discussion where folks have differnt world views, so I won't continue doen the "L"-path...

But let's get to the meat and taters here... It about when Bush knew that Iran had discontinued it's nuclear weapons program....

I have been accused of fabricating (lieing) about what has been reported about whn Bush knew and if Bush knew before his Oct. 13th "WW III" speech or his Oct. 23 "Iran is pursuing" speech...

So, from Peter Baker and Robin Wright's Dec. 4, 2007 article in the Washington Post entitled "A Blow to Bush's Tehran Policy, and I quote:

"President Bush got the world's attention this fall when he warned that a nuclear-armed Iran might lead to World War III. But his stark warning came at least a month or two after he had first been told about fresh indications that Iran had actually halted it nuclear weapons program."

Now if you two, bb and T, want to get into calling folks liars (or telling lies) why not start with the Washington Post writers...

Do wither of you have any evidence that these writers lied??? If so, then have at them... I'm sure you would be heros to every Bushite in the land... I mean, folks would put up statues of both of you for exposing that the Washington Post lied... Hey, don't with of you know that Bush has folks that read the Washington Post lloking for innacuracies in reporting??? Why didn't Bush people jump on this one???

Well, don't hurt your heads on this one... It's becasue in spite of the fact that neither of you knotheads wished it weren't rue, apparently it is true...

Yeah, you can SCREAM whatever you want... You can misquote me and then argue with the misquotes but...

... you two are shamefull in not keeping up with the real story... I don't know if it's some right winged Bush-blog that has taken over your critical thinking but something sho nuff has...

You know, I don't mind debating ideas... I really don't mind debating the facts on the ground... But arguing aginst your mythology is getting rather tiresome...

Try to keep up with the facts, pleeeeeeze... Is that too much to ask???

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 17 Dec 07 - 10:44 PM

Aging hippie gets buzzed and blurts out totally incorrect statements, brags about his accuracy, then refuses to fess up.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Dec 07 - 11:29 PM

Bobert, try to read the post- that was a quote from someone else.

" RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Stringsinger - PM
Date: 16 Dec 07 - 04:13 PM

....
On WMD
1. Bobert claimed that Dr. Hans Blix stated that the Iraqi's were co-operating fully with UNMOVIC, quoting Dr. Blix's report to the UNSC of 27th January, 2003.

This is true and has been substantiated for some time."

Problem here is that I never made that statement the way that bb put it in his post...

Lie #1 for bb... NOT my lie, so back off.


"These folks, especially bb, love to throw out the "lie" word, something that is quite distastefull in any civilized discussion where folks have differnt world views, so I won't continue doen the "L"-path..."

Then YOU need to back off the unsupported statements that Bush is lieing whenever he says something YOU don't like- Or are you some kind of special case?


And MY quote about when Bush was briefed CAME from the POST NEWS SECTION. SO maybe YOU had best be carefull what you attribute, in terms of intent and actual statements.



"But arguing aginst your mythology is getting rather tiresome...

Try to keep up with the facts, pleeeeeeze... Is that too much to ask???"


I will agree with this- Will you try to keep up with the facts, and NOT state that your mythology has to be true since you want it to be?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Dec 07 - 01:12 AM

From Bobert:
"I have been accused of fabricating (lieing) about what has been reported about whn Bush knew and if Bush knew before his Oct. 13th "WW III" speech or his Oct. 23 "Iran is pursuing" speech...

So, from Peter Baker and Robin Wright's Dec. 4, 2007 article in the Washington Post entitled "A Blow to Bush's Tehran Policy, and I quote:

"President Bush got the world's attention this fall when he warned that a nuclear-armed Iran might lead to World War III. But his stark warning came at least a month or two after he had first been told about fresh indications that Iran had actually halted it nuclear weapons program."

Now you see that is the trouble with believing everything that you read in newspapers. Well Bobert it is normally best to go directly to source material to get what has actually been said by whom and when.

Lets go back and take a look at who started accusing people of lying, second post on this thread:

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert - PM
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 05:39 PM

Yeah, I mentioned something about this on the Maliki thread, Dick...

Seems that Bush was told that Iran had curtailed its nuclear program in 2003 *before* he made the speech about Iran and World War III!!!

The boy just can't stop telling lies...

B

Who can't stop telling lies Bobert? You took some inaccurate and shoddy example of journalism and immediately, because of your bias and prejudice, jumped to entirely the wrong conclusion.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus - PM
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 06:09 PM

He did not "lie" as you put it. When asked specifically about that he said that last August all he been told by his Intelligence Agencies was that there was new information under evaluation. He was not told that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons programme.

Now that came from listening to the source. It can be independently verified as to who was told what and when, and that is what has been pointed out throughout this thread by BB and myself.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Dec 07 - 09:36 AM

As per usual...

Neither of the usual two suspects have offered any evidence that:

1.) bb didn't misquote me

2.) that, unlike what the Washington Post has reprorted, that Bush wasn't told that Iran had curtailed it's nuclear-weapons program in 2003...

Just the usual smoke and mirrors defense...

For the record... One cannot find one single Bobert quote that reads, "Dr. Hans Bix stated the Iraqis were coopertaing fully with UNMOVIC"... This is what bb said I said...

I have, however, said that Dr. Blix reported that the Iraqi's were cooperating in letting the inspectors inspect where ever they wanted... That is found in Dr. Blix's Jan. 27th report to the UN... I have actually quoted three different parts of the report but I have never made the statement that bb says I made...

This is what I mean, folks... The T&b tag team repeatedly ***invents 'n twists*** what I say to fit their various arguments...

Then I am accused of not telling the truth!!?!?!?

Like what that all about???

Nevrmind, I'm not a psycho-anaylist...

Plus, I gotta go to work...

B~

Well,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Dec 07 - 01:53 PM

Things that Bobert has got wrong so far on this thread:

Bobert - 04 Dec 07 - 05:39 PM

"Seems that Bush was told that Iran had curtailed its nuclear program in 2003 *before* he made the speech about Iran and World War III!!!

The boy just can't stop telling lies..."

Wrong Bobert he wasn't told that Iran had halted its nuclear programme in August 2007, he was only told that new intelligence was being evaluated.

Bobert - 05 Dec 07 - 09:25 AM

"Bush says that if Iran had a nuke that would be the beginning of WW III... Right???"

Wrong again Bobert, go and read what he actually did say.

Bobert as GUEST 05 Dec 07 - 06:05 PM

"What I have said, which is also backed by yesterdays Washington Post story, is that Bush knew of this new intellegence report before he shot off his mouth about WW III and before he shot off his mouth saying that Iran is "pursuing"...

These are the facts of the case...

The man lied in saying that Iran "is pursuing" after being told they were not..."

Wrong again Bobert on two counts:
•        what you stated there were not the facts of the case
•        George W Bush did not lie on 17th October or on 23rd October. He had no idea what the content of the NIE report was in October, he was briefed on that about one month later.

Bobert - 05 Dec 07 - 08:24 PM

"BB and his bud, t,

You all would be better served by actually reading the newspapers..."

Wrong again Bobert, exactly the opposite, you would be better served reading source material and taking with a pinch of salt everything that you read in newspapers.


Bobert - 13 Dec 07 - 09:10 AM

"I made the statement that Dr. Blix said in his report that Iraq was cooperating..."

Yes you did Bobert but that statement that you said that you'd made was wrong. It was wrong because Dr.Hans Blix did not say that Iraq was co-operating, he said that they were co-operating with regard to process, there is a huge difference, taken in context with the content of the whole report BLix's remark is a massive qualification on the co-operation being experienced.

Bobert - 13 Dec 07 - 07:51 PM

"The reality was that the UN didn't want the US to invade and made every effort, including the resolution, to try to slow Bush down... But Bush wasn't to be slowed... Even after Blix said that the Iraqis were cooperating, which would have led to the inspectors not finding anything that was a threat to the US,"

Once again you incorrectly state that Blix said that the Iraqis were co-operating and infer that due to that co-operation the inspection effort would be successful. What Blix actually said in his report of the 27th January 2003 was exactly the opposite of what you infer above Bobert.

Bobert - PM
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 08:42 AM

"No, bb, it is you who is ignoring facts... I have never once said that Blix's report was all roses... I freely admit that their were still lots of concerns... That is a million times more open minded than you who has never answered the question "What's the hurry" when Blix also stated in his report that the Iraqi's were ***cooperating*** in letting the inspectors inspect where ever they wanted..."

Well then Bobert fact is that it took you rather a long time and a great deal of effort for you to make that statement – go check. The following simply beggars description:

"See, my view emcompasses the total report where yours and t's focus only on those things that in you minf justified invading Iraq... This is the problem I have with you and it's the same problem I have with Bush... You seem to draw conclusions from only the facts that you want to focus on... That is why you both make serious errors in judgement... Cherry picking facts or even possible facts and building a foriegn policy around them is ***narrow*** minded and a sure formula for failure..."

In this entire discussion you have done nothing but cherry-pick "facts" You have concentrated upon one bloody sentence and the last paragraph of a rather lengthy report which Bruce has put up for you to read in its entirety.


Bobert - PM
Date: 17 Dec 07 - 07:59 PM

"Seems they also are suffering from bad cases of "Gotcha, Bobert"... Problem is that they invent stuff they wished I'd said and then they attack what they wished I'd said...

BB, fir instant, says in his 17Dec07 12.01pm post that I "claimed that Dr. Hans Blix stated that the Iarqis were cooperating fully with UNMOVIC"...

Problem here is that I never made that statement the way that bb put it in his post...

Lie #1 for bb..."

Wrong again Bobert, but what has let you down is your inability to follow a discussion and extremely poor comprehension – Here is BB's post referred to above and I'll walk you through it:

beardedbruce - PM
Date: 17 Dec 07 - 12:09 PM

On WMD
1. Bobert claimed that Dr. Hans Blix stated that the Iraqi's were co-operating fully with UNMOVIC, quoting Dr. Blix's report to the UNSC of 27th January, 2003. (Teribus)

This is true and has been substantiated for some time." (Stringsinger)

Not by anyone capable of reading the text of the Jan 27th report by Blix. "FULLY?????" (beardedbruce)

Now then Bobert, your post of 13 Dec 07 - 07:51 PM infers that the Iraqi's were co-operating in such a manner as to guarantee the success of the inspection effort, hence what I stated with regard to what your view of the degree of co-operation was.

Now Frank Hamilton (Stringsinger) stated that he clearly believed this to be true and that Iraqi co-operation was a substantiated fact.

Beardedbruce then merely voiced his disagreement with what Frank said.   In this instance beardedbruce is not lying, or "inventing stuff that you said", he wasn't even addressing you or any specific remark that you made, he was addressing Frank.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 18 Dec 07 - 02:38 PM

Either Bush is a liar or he has really bad timing, depending on whose version of the story you wish to believe. Either way, he has a responsibility to convey the truth and to choose the timing of his words more carefully. Transparency and trust is crucial. Bush has done nothing but instill fear at home and abroad. He has done nothing but create conflict and animosity worldwide. He wanted to be a war president and he is. Trouble is, most people don't want war.

I also believe that the difference between whether or not Iraq was co-operating with the process of inspections or whether or not they were co-operating in other ways, is a moot point. If they were co-operating with the process of the inspections, there was no reason to invade.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Dec 07 - 02:41 PM

" Neither of the usual two suspects have offered any evidence that:"

Lie number one- I gave the time and posting THAT I WAS QUOTING FROM.


"1.) bb didn't misquote me"

Lie number two. The QUOTE from someone else shows that if the point was in error, it was NOT my lie, buit theirs.



"2.) that, unlike what the Washington Post has reprorted, that Bush wasn't told that Iran had curtailed it's nuclear-weapons program in 2003...

Just the usual smoke and mirrors defense..."

As opposed to your outright lies about what was said.

For the record... One cannot find one single Bobert quote that reads, "Dr. Hans Bix stated the Iraqis were coopertaing fully with UNMOVIC"... This is what bb said I said..."

Except that I was quoting from a previous post by someone else, and I DID NOT STATE YOU had said that.

You seem incapable of making a single reply without including at least one lie- so what does that make you?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Dec 07 - 04:43 PM

Blah, blah, blah...

More od the same crap...

Yo, T... Do you have a copy of the report??? You apparently don't or you wouldn't continue to say that Blix did noty make the satement that the Iraqis were cooperating beyond "process"... Meaning, in the field...

This, for the 3rd time is what Blix said: "...access has been provided to all sites..."

Why is this so difficult for you to grasp???

Let's deal with this one difference and once we have dont that then it is my guess that half of the other list of arguments will evaporate... But we can take them one at a time...

Unlike you and bb, I don't have the kind of time to engage in some how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-end-of-a-pin exercise but if you are willing to take 'um one at a time, let's have at it...

Now, for starters, in 100 words or less, why is it that you don't belive that Blix said that the Iraqis were providing access to all sites??? Yeah let's start there...


Now, as for you, bb...

Will you please rstate the time and post where I said these exact words: "Dr. Hans Blix stated the Iraqis were fully cooperating with UNMOVIC", por favor... Oh, I see, now you are saying that I didn't say that... Hmmmmmm??? But then you say you gave me the time and post when I said it, or didn't say it... Can you make up your mind, bruce???

Seems I've quoted both Hans Blix and an article from the Post and all I get proclamations that I am lieing???

You two need to get real jobs... And lives to go with them...

You both have way too much time on your hands...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Dec 07 - 04:53 PM

"Will you please rstate the time and post where I said these exact words: "Dr. Hans Blix stated the Iraqis were fully cooperating with UNMOVIC", por favor... Oh, I see, now you are saying that I didn't say that... Hmmmmmm??? But then you say you gave me the time and post when I said it, or didn't say it... Can you make up your mind, bruce???"


Obviously, you suffer from a lack of comprehension. I WAS QUOTING a post ( which I was replying to, and which I gave YOU the posting information on.


You are incapable of stating what ** I ** have said, much less what others here have said, it seems. You seem to insist on making false statements.

A. I was not the one saying you had said "Dr. Hans Blix stated the Iraqis were fully cooperating with UNMOVIC" as you accuse me of: I was replying to Frank's comment.

B. I have not stated you were OR were not stating that - "Oh, I see, now you are saying that I didn't say that... " is another invalid ( not true to fact) statement.

C. I gave the time of the POST I was replying to, with the quoted words - "But then you say you gave me the time and post when I said it, or didn't say it..." is another lie.

It seems that you are more interested in making false statements about what others have said or think than in attempting to justify your own statements with any evidence. Perhaps because of the falsehood of those statements? ** I ** don't know WHY you keep telling lies- After all, YOU have stated that you are NOT a liar.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Dec 07 - 04:58 PM

My apologies, bb... I finally get it... The way you take other folks stuff and put it in the middle of your posts is a tad hard to keep up with... You didn't quote me, you quoted someone else quoting me... Purdy tricky but I get it... Okay, that one is off the plate... My apologies on that point...

But I'm stickin' with the Post story I quoted until the stories get reconciled...

The problem with Bush and his folks is that they spin stuff so much that whatever come outta his mouth is being spun and revised almost as quick as it makes it to the nearest set of ears... Not exactly the most transparent administration...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Dec 07 - 04:59 PM

Seems I've presented far more of what both Hans Blix and several articles from the Post said and all I get proclamations that I am lieing???


Oh that is right - Ubermench Bushbert is always right, even when he is telling a false statement.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Dec 07 - 05:00 PM

"The problem with Bush and his folks is that they spin stuff so much that whatever come outta his mouth is being spun and revised almost as quick as it makes it to the nearest set of ears... Not exactly the most transparent administration...
"

In fact I agree with this- though I would add that those opposed to Bush are doing as much if not more spinning.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Dec 07 - 05:11 PM

And, t, seeing as Baker and Wright haven't retracted their Washington Post report that Bush had been "told about fresh indications that Iran had actually halted its nuclear weapons program"..."at least a month or two" before the Oct.17th "WW III" speech I'm going to stick with my source...

I would think that if they didn't have someone on record who told them that then these reporters would ahve been Dan Rathered outtta a job...

I sniff yet another scandal here where Bush's folks will invent stories to vover up this latest screw up...

Seems that takes about half of your bill of particulars off the table... Maybe 2/3's...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Dec 07 - 10:40 PM

"And, t, seeing as Baker and Wright haven't retracted their Washington Post report that Bush had been "told about fresh indications that Iran had actually halted its nuclear weapons program"..."at least a month or two" before the Oct.17th "WW III" speech I'm going to stick with my source..."

Washington Post, December 8, 2007 P A10

"By mid-November, the agencies were ready to deliver thier conclusions to the White House. Intelligence officials gave a preliminary briefing Nov. 15 in the Situation Room to Vice President Chaney, national security advisor Stephen J. Hadley and other senior officials."

From the World News article by Peter Baker and Dafna Linzer, Page A9 "Diving Deep, Unearthing a Surprise"

I have the paper copy here at work in Sterling, VA.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Dec 07 - 02:00 AM

"Yo, T... Do you have a copy of the report??? You apparently don't or you wouldn't continue to say that Blix did noty make the satement that the Iraqis were cooperating beyond "process"... Meaning, in the field..."

OK then Bobert, we'll take you over it once again:

Taken directly from the report presented to the UN Security Council on 27th January, 2003, by Dr. Hans Blix:

"I turn now, Mr. President, to the key requirement of cooperation and Iraq's response to it. Cooperation might be said to relate to both substance and process. It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, notably access."

(English Comprehension lesson for Bobert: Blix states that the co-operation required has two componebts, "substance and process". He goes on to say that "Iraq has decided in principle to provide co-operation on process", please note Bobert he says that had "decided in principle", which is a qualification Bobert, he does not state that they have decided to co-operate)

"A similar decision is indispensable to provide cooperation on substance in order to bring the disarmament task to completion through the peaceful process of inspection and to bring the monitoring task on a firm course."

(2nd English Comprehension lesson for Bobert: Here Blix is stating that on the subject of "substance" the other vital component of the co-operation required from Iraq - they have not even decided in principle to provide co-operation in substance and that a decision to do so is indispensable to the disarmament task)

"The substantive cooperation required relates above all to the obligation of Iraq to declare all programs of weapons of mass destruction and either to present items and activities for elimination or else to provide evidence supporting the conclusions that nothing proscribed remains.

Paragraph 9 of Resolution 1441 states that this cooperation shall be "active." It is not enough to open doors. Inspection is not a game of catch as catch can."

Note those last two sentences Bobert - they weren't there to play "hide-and-seek" - they weren't there to have to look for and find anything, the requirements of 1441 were that Iraq had to come clean on everything and deliver up proof of what they had, or what they had done with it.

On the "Bush lied" thing - You cling to your conclusion jumped to because of a sloppy piece of journalism, then state as "proof" that it is correct by stating that the journalists involved have not retracted what they reported. A question Bobert - Have they been asked to? One thing is for certain if GWB had been told that Iran had halted its nuclear programme back in August and then stated in October it was still running, the press and MSM would be all over it like a rash - They are not - Care to explain that? The day after the NIE was published the President was asked point blank about it. He explained exactly what had happened and identified the person who briefed him on what and when. The press and MSM appear to have accepted that explanation - even the ones who wrote the article you have quoted and misinterpreted.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Dec 07 - 08:49 AM

First, T, lets deal with the "Bush lied" portion of your post... Given the touchy nature of the Bush administration where every thing reported in the news that makes them look bad is swiftly countered it is my belief that if this was not true then the Bush team would have been all over the Post for printing it... But the Bush team let it ride... And it wasn't like a story printed on A-17... It was a front page story...

As for Blix's statements, I don't deny anything you've said... But I do find fault with not only your assessment that only one sentence in the report was psoitive and I also your assessment that there wasn't enough progrss "on the ground" to justify Bush's rush to invade...

Alot of this argument has been been hashed out in that the portion of Iraq's non-cooperation was in their inability to prove that the didn't have what we know know they didn't have... We had this argumnet back then, T, and as it turns out I was on the correct side of that one, unless of course, you know something that no one else knows about stockpiles of WMD's that Iraq possessed...

But back to Blix... Seein' as you are of the opinion that I am basing my position on just one sentence, perhaps you might go back thru the report because you are missing alot of it... I have posted at least 3 different paragrahs from it that in themselves would make any thinking person ponder on the wisdom or morality on invading Iraq at the time Busgh pulled the plug on the inspectors...

Bottom line, there was enough positives, given the 10 years since the inspectors were last there, for the process to have continued and war be just what Congress intended, a last resort...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Dec 07 - 12:21 PM

Bobert the full story on whether Bush lied or not:

Point 1 - Date 4th December, 2007
Peter Baker and Robin Wright's Dec. 4, 2007 article in the Washington Post entitled "A Blow to Bush's Tehran Policy, and I quote:

"President Bush got the world's attention this fall when he warned that a nuclear-armed Iran might lead to World War III. But his stark warning came at least a month or two after he had first been told about fresh indications that Iran had actually halted it nuclear weapons program."

Point 2 - Date 4th December, 2007 White House Press Conference Q&A on NIE Report

Question:
Mr. President, thank you. I'd like to follow on that. When you talked about Iraq, you and others in the administration talked about a mushroom cloud; then there were no WMD in Iraq. When it came to Iran, you said in October, on October 17th, you warned about the prospect of World War III, when months before you made that statement, this intelligence about them suspending their weapons program back in '03 had already come to light to this administration. So can't you be accused of hyping this threat? And don't you worry that that undermines U.S. credibility?

THE PRESIDENT: David, I don't want to contradict an august reporter such as yourself, but I was made aware of the NIE last week. In August, I think it was Mike McConnell came in and said, we have some new information. He didn't tell me what the information was; he did tell me it was going to take a while to analyze. Why would you take time to analyze new information? One, you want to make sure it's not disinformation. You want to make sure the piece of intelligence you have is real. And secondly, they want to make sure they understand the intelligence they gathered: If they think it's real, then what does it mean? And it wasn't until last week that I was briefed on the NIE that is now public.

Point 3 - Date 8th December, 2007
quotes from the Washington Post Dec 8, 2007 article "A futile Quest on Iranian Arms" P A10:

"By mid-November, the agencies were ready to deliver their conclusions to the White House. Intelligence officials gave a preliminary breifing Nov. 15 in the Situation room to Vice President Cheney, national security advisor Stephen J. Hadley and other senior officials.

The process was climaxing just as Bush was convening a Middle East peace conference in Annapolis, a meeting designed at least in part to rally the region against Iran. No one told the participants about the new information, but on the same day they were gathering in Annapolis on Nov. 27, the National Intelligence Board met to finalize the new NIE. McConnell and others breifed Bush and Cheney the next day. Even though intelligence officials planned to keep it from the public, Bush later that day passed it on to Israeli Prime minister Ehud Olmert and Cheney told Defense Minister Ehud Barak."


Now Bobert, can you explain how the President knew in August the conclusions of a report whose preliminary conclusions were only presented on 15th November to Vice President Cheney, national security advisor Stephen J. Hadley and other senior officials. And whose final conclusions were only reached on 27th November?

It's impossible Bobert, just could not be done, therefore, Peter Baker and Robin Wright's Dec. 4, 2007 article in the Washington Post is wrong.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Dec 07 - 04:37 PM

Well, yeah, T... I'm sure that the intellegence community didn't want to blindside Bush... It would have been the correct thing to do to bring something of this magnitude to his attention long before going public... That is why intellegence briefing aren't made public in the first place...

I don't believe Bush anymore... His credibility long ago went down the toilet... And don't go thinkingg that the intellegence people are much better so, yeah, they are perfectly willing to say whatever they are told to say... They did it during the mad-dash-to-Iraq and they are doing it now... They are afraid of Bush... No, not persoally but as an executive who with alot of help from Cheney has grabbed more power for the executuive branch rhan any president in the last 60 years...

But then agin, I understand that you continue to believe the stories because, afterall, you are indeed a loyal "true believer" and that is exactly what "true believers" do...

Can you offer any proof that, other than Bush's words and the story that the intellegence community told other writers at the Post, that proves that there isn't yet another cover-up, T???

(Cover-up, Bobert??? Not the Bush folks... How dare you???)

Ahhh, let me count the ways...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Barry Finn
Date: 19 Dec 07 - 05:06 PM

When you're living in a world of shit, it doesn't matter anymore who the shit belongs to only who own's the toilet bowl we're living in & when's the next flush coming.
The only question I have is why do folks like T & BB keep passing out the toilet paper when Bush keep wiping his ass with the American citizen

Barry


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Dec 07 - 05:09 PM

"Can you offer any proof that, other than Bush's words and the story that the intellegence community told other writers at the Post, that proves that there isn't yet another cover-up, T???"

Are YOU asking T. to prove a real negative. Bobert?????

Can YOU prove that there IS a coverup???


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Dec 07 - 05:15 PM

See my last post for the answer to your question, Barry...

Hint: Tr*e B*lie*er


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 19 Dec 07 - 05:32 PM

Y'know--I started this thread with a quote:

"I view this report as a warning signal that they had the program, they halted the program," Mr. Bush said. "The reason why it's a warning signal is they could restart it."

The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) "provides an opportunity for us to rally the international community – continue to rally the community to pressure the Iranian regime to suspend its program," Bush said.

The new NIE, made public Monday, said Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003 partly because of international pressure and scrutiny.


Regardless of the truth or falsity of Bush's proclamations, I still think that, in context, it's a pretty dumb quote.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Dec 07 - 06:26 PM

Well, yeah, bb...

I not askin' anything more of T-zer than Bush asked of Saddam... See, it ain't no fun 'cept in this case alot of folks ain't gonna get killed...

But nevermind that... What Dick has pointed out (again) is that it's not only a dumb quote but, worse than that, the conrenstone of even a dumber foriegn policy position...

Bush is blowing it... Heck, Iran, helped US in the aftermath of 9/11... That should have been seen as a diplomatic opportunity to thaw the bad relations between the two countries but Bush, rather than move toward a saner foreign policy went the other direction with his "Axis of Evil" dumbass speech...

Every time that Bush has an opportunity to do the right tghing, he does the wrong thing...

I'm not a psychologist but I'd say that Bush, at the very least,   suffers from a combination of an inferiority complex and a personality disorder... His decisons are so counter-productive...

I think he got bullyied and between those memories and his AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard he is now trying to prove that he is a "tough guy"... Problem is that it ain't him and his friends doing the fighting...

But yer right, Dick, dumb quote from the little sicko...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Dec 07 - 07:32 PM

"I not askin' anything more of T-zer than Bush asked of Saddam... "

1. So you think it is ok that Bush asked Saddam? YOU are doing it. So it must be OK for Bush, unless YOU have some special priviledge.



2. Bush actually did NOT ask Saddam to prove a negative- The UNR required Saddam to account for the material that was previously known to be in Saddam's possession.

I presume you can now show evidence that Bush had the information before it was decided by the groups working on the NIE????


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Dec 07 - 08:16 PM

No, techinally he didn't... He hid behind the UN resolution but was quick to strike when he didn't like Saddam's answers...

No evidence other than a lousy track record, bb... Seems thaqt Bush is a lot like the kid who dried "wolf"... Heck, maybe this time he is telling the truth but with his past of lies and misleading statements, he's run out of holes to punch on the credibility punch card...

So, ahhhh, I don't believe him and I would guess that between 60% to 70% of Americans wouldn't believe him either...

That's why his poll ratings are so low... He has lost whatever trust the American peoploe once had in him...

Okay, I'll be the first that I never trusted him... Anyone who pays ggons to dirupt the democartic process ain't all that trustworthy in my book...

Not that I was a big Gore fan but at least Gore didn't resort to such anti-democratic tactics...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Dec 07 - 11:12 PM

"at least Gore didn't resort to such anti-democratic tactics"

Hardly a TOTALLY true statement. Gore was asking for a recount ONLY of those places in FLA where he thought he couldd pick up votes- and FOUGHT AGAINST a recount in the panhandle. Seems that he objected to a total state recount, as well.


I think that countrywide there were instances of voter fraud and illegal acts by BOTH parties. Are you sure you want to open up that ball of worms, and get a recount of all the "voting dead" in Chicago?

Or are you saying that "anti-republican" tactics are ok?




"No, techinally he didn't... "

Not sure what this is in reference to- that Bush did NOT lie?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 19 Dec 07 - 11:34 PM

Now we can just stay they until we've lost 56,000 Americans and then say, ""hey, this ain't workin'..." or we can just say, "This ain't workin'" now and get with gettin the heck out odf the mess we have created but cannot fix...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Dec 07 - 11:55 PM

As Bobert, as usual seems reluctant to answer a perfectly simple question maybe someone else will:

Can you explain how the President knew in August the conclusions of a report whose preliminary conclusions were only presented on 15th November to Vice President Cheney, national security advisor Stephen J. Hadley and other senior officials. And whose final conclusions were only reached on 27th November?

Note - Applicable year to all dates/months mentioned above is 2007.

Oh and Bobert, Bush going AWOL that's another of your myths. By all means open it up for discussion and I'll bat it down one more time. By the way what ever happened to those "Heads on Sticks on the White House lawn"? or the 3000 Patriot Missiles raining down on Baghdad? And the never to be forgotten 1,000,000 dead Iraqi's who ain't dead at all, Hopkins and the other crowd is it ORB? only thought that they may be dead as a result of batch sampling.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Dec 07 - 08:05 AM

No, T... I answered your question... I answered your question... I believe that surely the intellegnce folks did tell Bush before going public... I mean, that's the way things work in the real world... And I would guess that seein' as the intellegence community ended up taking the bullet on Iraq that they didn't want to be manipulated again into a position of being the fall gyuys for yet another stupid war...

That's the way things happen in the real world, T...

As for the AWOL... Bush conviently never been able to prove he completed his service and folks who were there say they they can't reaclll him doing so either...

"Heads on a stick" was always a metaphor... You know that...

A million dead... Yeah, upwards of a million people have died depending on who is doing the counting... I'm certainly not going to buy into letting the Bush folks be the official counters... They have everything to lose if the real numbers get proven...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Dec 07 - 09:56 AM

You most certainly have not answered my question. Your claim was that Bush lied about the Iranian nuclear weapons programme being active in the content of a speech he made on 17th October. Your basis was a newspaper report inferring that he (Bush) had been told that the Iranian programme had been halted in 2003 some time in August this year.

On the same day that newspaper article came out Bush was asked about this at a news conference and he said that what he had been told in August was that there was new intelligence on Iran currently under evaaluation but he not told what that intelligence was. President Bush even identified the person who informed him of this in August.

Now Bobert, you read the newspaper article and believed it because you wanted to. Have you read the NIE Report itself? I would tend to think that you haven't, you hate the truth to get in the way of a good lie. Well go and read the NIE Report, particularly the last line picked out in "BOLD" at the foot of page four:

"This estimate incorporates intelligence reporting available as of 31st October, 2007."

The report wasn't written in August, the intelligence had not been analysed or evaluated in August, therefore it is impossible for the President to have been appraised of the conclusions of a report in August when that report was not even written in draft form until mid-November. The President was briefed on the conclusions of the November NIE Report on 28th November 2007, the Report was made public on 4th December 2007.

On the AWOL thing Bobert the military tend to be fairly particular time keepers, if your myth were true, he would have been noted absent without leave and charged accordingly, he wasn't charged, the matter was never even subject to complaint. He was given an early honourable discharge, as many in the same situation were, so it would appear Bobert that he was never AWOL. Being AWOL is a bit like being pregnant, you either are or you're not, anyone charged with being AWOL is guilty from the outset, because it is a plain bald fact, excuses why you were not where you should have been can only be entered in mitigation. No charge no AWOL.

On the numbers of civilian deaths in Iraq caused by the invasion and subsequent insurgency Bobert, the ones who are doing the counting are actually counting deaths at one tenth the number of those who are only estimating the numbers who may have died by batch sampling.

Now I know that you are not the best at English comprehension and I know that you hate to read source material, preferring instead to jump at sound bytes that feed your prejudices. But if you are going to insist on repeating things that are patently untrue please don't be too surprised if you're called to prove them.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Dec 07 - 12:04 PM

Ummmm, English comprehension ain't the problem... I comprhend just fine... And I read just fine... Okay, a tad slow because of lexdexia but once I have plowed thru the stuff I comprehand just fine... Yeah, spelling and typing suck but I get the material...

I don't know what I'm gonna do with you, T??? You expect me to provide the burden of truth behind what I not only read, comprehand and then share with you but you think that you shouldn't be held to the same standard on what you read, comprhend and share... You know what they call that, don't ya"??? Well, don't hurt your head... It's called hypocrsiy...

On every issue that you have listed in you above post there is ink that goes both ways... Yes, I will freely admit that I, like 60% plus Americans don't like Bush and/or his policies... One of the major problems I, along with many of these people, have with Bush is that he is not a credible person... We have seen repeated instances where he has just shot off his mouth and said whatever he thought would sound cool, or tough, or whatever and then his handlers have to come behind him and clean up from lies, half-lies and fantasies...

The "16 words" is probably the straw that broke the camel's back... G. Tenant had told him before the Oct.11 Cincinaati speech that there was no evidence that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program and to not use the words (i.e. don't tell the lie, George) and so George didn't tell the lie... But then he gets up with yer bud, Blair, and next thing ya' know here's some college kids term paper that was written a long time ago that is the basis of the "16 words"... By the time the State of the Union address came around alot of things had happened other than the college kid's term paper...

For starters, Dick Cheney had purdy much camped out at Langley (CIA headquarters) and was putting heavy pressure on the Langley folks... But even with Cheney's full-court=press there were still anylaists who disagreed with the college kid's term paper, thought it was bogus and in intellegence reprts made dieenting comments at the end of these reports...

Now, war ain't like a video game or a western movie, T... It's the real deal where people get seriously hurt or killed... Given the graveness of war a responisible president would have made every effore to get things right... Bush didn't... He jumped all over the term paper, or whatever it was, and ordered up the invasion... That was not the responsible thing to do...

Hey, if there weren't millions of people in the streets telling him that he was wrong to invade Iraq, I can kinda see where maybe Bush irresponsible decison could sonmewhat be justified by his supporters... But there were millions and people in the street... And there were crdible people like Scott Ritter saying "Hey, Bush. You got it wrong."

Like I said, war ain't a movie and Bush treated it as if it was... That, INO, is not only dishonest but dillusional...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Dec 07 - 06:24 PM

I mean, lets do a little review here, T, and maybe you'll get a glimpse of why Bush and hie people not credible:

*** "Not Child Left Behinf"... passed and signed into law but Bush would authorize spending the $27B to pay for it???

*** Katrina where Bush not only had to be flown over it to belive it actaully happened but continued his vaction while it happened???

*** The 2000 Election where he sent in paid goons to disrupt and harrass campaign workers???

*** Aluminum tubes???

*** Mushroom clouds???

*** Uranium percheses from Niger???

*** Saddam tried to kill my daddy???

*** AWOL???

*** Harken Energy where Bush took $700,000 just months before it folded???

*** Outing Valerie Plame???

You see, T, there is a definate pattern here of lies and deciet and so now when we see even more revisionism going on about his Oct. 17th and 23rd speeeches...

I mean, at least consider this, T... If the intellegence people had even told him that there was some new evidence on Iran's nuclear program that was under new scrutiny then it was irresponsible for him to have made those two speeches... Not that I am saying that is the case because until history gets it straight I still beleive that Buah, as has been reported and not refuted by the Bush folks, knew the general contents of the intellegence report...

But, for the sake of honest discussion, if Bush had been told that some new stuff was coming then he should have kept his big mouth shut...

Diplomacy ain't about running yer friggin' mouth every time you feel like it...

That's my call on why Bush is no longer a credible person...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 21 Dec 07 - 05:52 PM

Bobert -Don't forget:

"When we are talking about wiretapping, we need a warrant..."

"We don't do torture..."

"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended..."

"Wanted dead or alive", or is it "I don't really spend that much time worrying about him"

We could go on and on. There are entire websites dedicated to documenting the endless lies. Just google "bush lies".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Dec 07 - 06:08 PM

Yeah, TIA...

So many of 'um it's hard keepin' 'um straight...

"Bring it on" was one of his dumbest ones... That got another thousand or two American kids killed and maybe another 100,000 Iraqis...

"Axis of Evil" was also real dumb... Made Bush look to the world like the cowboy jerk that he really is...

But the "We don't torture" is probably the best example of being caught in the muiddle of Lies-burg with your pants down... Tell ya' what... Bush and Cheney could use a good waterboarding... We don't torture, my butt... The US prosecuted Japanese soldiers for doing it to US after WW II but now it's not torture???

Beam me up, Scotty...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Dec 07 - 07:20 PM

Don't forget how Bush called it a "Crusade against Terror". How many deaths resulted from his using that word at that time in that context?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Dec 07 - 07:27 PM

I'd almost forgotten that one, McG...

Just what we need... Another holy war...

Geeze, Louise... How much dumbass stuff can the boy come up with???

(Bobert, Bobert... Settle down... He doen't come up with this stuff... His handlers do...)

Well, waterboard the bunch 'o 'um...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 21 Dec 07 - 09:24 PM

Bobert: I still don't see an answer to the T's question. Are you avoiding it for some reason? Seems to me an expert like you could answer any question without hesitation, even predict that 56,000 Americans will be lost.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 22 Dec 07 - 01:09 AM

don't answer, bobert.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Dec 07 - 07:01 AM

He already did.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 22 Dec 07 - 08:27 AM

We have seen repeated instances where Bobert has just shot off his mouth and said whatever he thought would sound cool, or tough, or whatever and then his handlers have to come behind him and clean up from lies, half-lies and fantasies...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Dec 07 - 09:06 AM

LOL, Homey...

As fir T's questions, they are endless and, for the most part, not related to anything of substance... You see, what T likes to do is distract his opponenets away from the meat and taters and get them defending tiny little meaningless points... That has been his strategy going back to the mad-dash-to-Iraq days... But I fully understand his strategy and that is why he tries to change the conversation... It's all he has... Yeah, T, will never answer the "What-was-the-big-ass-hurry?" question in his own words.... No, he hides behind minute parts of his dumbass UN resoultion...

And when I point out several parts of Dr. Blixes report to the UN that woyuld lead any reasonable person to, at the very east, reconsider ordering up a war, T just glosses over them... T even has said that there's only "one sentence" in the report that is positive??? I guess T thinks he is the only operson on the planet that has, ahhhhhh, a copy of the report??? I don't know??? I know I've posted 3 complete ***paragraphs*** that should have had Bush thinking, "Hmmmmmmm??? Maybe Cheney and Wolfowitz are wrong here???"...

I mean, if you are going to take a country to war you'd better have it right... Right, Homester???

Right???

Well, Bush had it all wrong... He should have doen what Clinton did when Wolfy and Pearle came into the Oval Office with such a boneheaded paln and that was throw the war mongers out... But Bush was all ears... Tell me more... Then Rove was called in and Karl took one look at the prospects of a shiney new war and the '04 election and probably peed his pants in delight fo knowing that he wouldn't have to work as hard... I mean, shiney new war presidents just don't loose elections and Rove, I am sure, was the happiest man in town... I'd even bet that Rove came up with the "Shock and Awe" slogan to go with it... If not, you can take it to the bank, that Rove just loved "Shock 'n Awe"...

BTW, Homey, what ever happened to the "Shock 'n Awe"???

Well, well, well...

Me thinks I will just put this discussion out of my head for awhile... It is disgustly real at this time of year for all the families, both American and Iraqi, who have either had a family memeber killed of blown half up... That's the part that you and T don't like to dwell on... No, you'd rather reduce it to some academic exercise or a weastern movie where all the cowboys and indians go off and have a beer at night...

Peace,

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 22 Dec 07 - 10:12 AM

I've said it before, and I'll say it again...

It just *kills* 'em that what Bobert was saying back in 2002/2003 has actually come to pass, and what they were saying in the same period has been shown to be utter horsecrap.

A *lot* of people here were saying the same stuff back then, but for some reason, it really pisses them off that Bobert in particular was right.

Now they have to spin and parse and narrowly define and backpedal and flail wildy to try to prove that they have not been thoroughly out-thunk by the lowly WGSR.

The closest they can come to a "win" now, is a 5000 word essay with eleventeen bullet points, and a few red herring questions, that don't get answered in exactly the way they demand, so they can shout "gotcha!"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Barry Finn
Date: 22 Dec 07 - 02:01 PM

TIA, much of the world, some here on mudcat & a fair percentage (not near enough though) told this government that it was a fools mission to illegaly invade Iran & what would happen has come to pass. But none saw it as bad as it would eventually turn out to be. By the government's perdictions the war should've been over by now, paid for itself in oil revenues, the world would be a safer place & we would've found & confiscated the much feared WMD's, The mid east would become a democracy. We knew then that we hadn't a clue of the culture, there were no WMD's (though some still want to debate the point, in the end none were found), the counrty is in chapter 9/11, we are in more danger when we could've been talking, the decider & uniter has split the nation, ruined it's good name, he & this administration can't be trusted, we've lost much of our civil & human rights and the future looks too be dim

Barry


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Dec 07 - 02:57 PM

But none saw it as bad as it would eventually turn out to be. There were one, maybe two million, on the streets of London on the eve of the invasion who might disagree with that.

The common practice in this kind of situation is for those respopnsible to talk about "the wisdom of hindsight", and "nobody could have predicted". But all too often it's a matter of culpable lack of foresight about things that were very definitely predicted.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Dec 07 - 05:52 PM

Freudian slip, Barry...

We ain't invaded "Iran"...

...yet!!!

But give Bush and his buds here in Mudville time and they will concoct some dumbass arguement to ivade, or at least bomb, Iran...

Yeah, TIA... Seeems I do have a way of gettin' under the knotheads' skin...

Ask me just how much that bothers me??? LOL...

Ho, ho, ho...

Bobert & the WGSR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 22 Dec 07 - 06:35 PM

*** Outing Valerie Plame???
Ahhhh Richard Amritage outed Valery Plame. At least according to him and Novack.

Does any of Bobert's handlers want to jump in and clean that up?

And Bobert still has not answered T's very sober question except with personal attacks and rhetoric.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Dec 07 - 07:01 PM

Listen, Home-ster... T has asked my 2,378 questions over the years... Exactly which one of them has you so interested??? I'll be more than happy to answer it as I'd hate to ruin yer Christmas, 'er yer whatever...

As for Val Plame, I think it's safe to say that a lot of people were purdy busy outin' her... What we know is that Cheney did... Rove did... Libby did and then lied about it and that's why he's doin' time...

As for Bobert handlers... I don't need 'um... I'm on the correct side of the story, Homey, and on the correct side of history... The only folks who need handlers are screw-ups like your guy, Bush...

Now, Home, be a good home boy, and go out and do some Christmas shoppin' so Bush won't have to expalin why the economy has crashed under his administration...

And, oh yeah...































...Ho, ho, ho...

Bobert Claus & the WGSR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Dec 07 - 07:07 PM

The question being essentially, "why shouldn't people believe the story that has been put out about how the President was kept in the dark about all this because the intelligence people were keeping schtum until they had dotted all the i's and crossed all theg t's/"

And the simple answer is "Why should anyone believe a word that comes out of this administation about anything?" Or "Would you buy a used war from these people?"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Dec 07 - 09:11 PM

Exactly, McG...

These crooks have used up all the punches in their credibility punch card...

Game over for the current batch of liars...

Bring on the next batch...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 23 Dec 07 - 12:34 AM

...it's a matter of culpable lack of foresight about things that were very definitely predicted." - McGrath

Thats right. Bush wanted to believe it. He didn't question any of it because he wanted a war and he played the Christianity card by calling it a crusade. He instilled fear in the American public and manipulated that fear by creating hatred for Muslims. He should be prosecuted for hate crimes.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Barry Finn
Date: 23 Dec 07 - 01:48 AM

McGrath

Many folks predicted &/or knew it would be a bad outcome, a very bad outcome & spoke up about it too. But no one & I mean no one could've imagined how bad Bush could've fucked up & how deep in the shit he'd put us, there was no scale at the time capuable of that type of measurement. God didn't even realize what a disaster this guy turned out to be. God didn't think he made any human this base. Actually he may not have created him at all.

Barry


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Barry Finn
Date: 23 Dec 07 - 02:18 AM

& further more we ain't seen nothin' yet.

What we've seen from this administration so far, Iraq was just the peeble in the pond, we'll be reeling from the shock waves for many years to come, our grandchildren will feel the effects of the past 7 yrs.

A bankrupt nation borrowing at a rate that well exceed the present lending scandle

Disable vets without benifits or sufficent health care

Homelessness, including the poor, the mentally disabled, & war vets

Uneducated & undereducated working poor & middle classes

Unhealthy middle & poor classes

An inability to create new job markets or to supply intelligent workers for the markets that can be made

A national defense system that can't keep it's military ranks filled & on a payroll & will have to surfice with outside contractors

A VA health system that's become overwhelmed with in need of medically care vets

A world ready to implode under the green & energy policies that we've choosen to lead the world in

A drug, insurance & weapon's industries that govern the everyday choices of the major portion of our population

A system of choosing leaders where soon only a rich idiot will run for office & where only a rich idiot will get in

nd that's only the tip of the shit, wait till we get down into the bowl

We are so are down the slippery slope with no insight as how to stop or even the inclination to stop that by the time we hit the bottom we won't be able to see the top anymore, we'll be putting of scuba gear just to see & catch our breath.

Barry


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Dec 07 - 08:05 AM

You've hit the nail on the head, Barry...

The real costs of this war cannot easily be measured... Every empire in history was brought down by over reaching... I'm not confident that the US hasn't set in motion a chain on events that will bring it to its knee... The working class is just about there now...

I just think of the set of domestic priorities that faced our country in 2003 and just how much further along our country would be if Bush had turned his attention toward them... Now that opportunity is lost... The next administartion is going to have to have the balls to clean this crap up and it ain't going to be pretty... What really bugs me is that none of the candidates for president are offering a holistic plan for cleaning up the mess... Okay, Dennis Kucinich, is close but he doesn't get any microphone time so no one really hears his vision...

The rest, Ron Paul and my guy, Obama, aren't articulating their views of the big-clean-up-picture which, of course, will have to happen before we can talk about big ticket things such as nationalized health care and energy independence...

Yes, the cost of this war can't be measured strickly by how much we spent in dollars to invade and occupy Iraq...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 23 Dec 07 - 08:45 AM

That sounds real cool and tough Bobert.

Can you explain how the President knew in August the conclusions of a report whose preliminary conclusions were only presented on 15th November to Vice President Cheney, national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley and other senior officials. And whose final conclusions were only reached on 27th November? As asked by T.

After that one Bob, you can explain how the economy has crashed. I was sliding into a recession when Bush took over from BJ Clinton. Bush turned it around despite 9/11 which was the result of BL Clinton's regime also and you have prospered as never before Under the Bush adminstration. At least in your posts you brag about economic gain.

Notice I said ***After*** you answer the first question so you don't change the subject which always you is you first method to avoid answering a question, you just dish up some more inaccurate information like A lot of people were busy outin' Valerie Plame" well which one did it?

You think that big tidal wave of "lies, half-lies and fantasies" you have built up over the years prove something. You think that repetition and volume can overcome logic and fact so you never stop to reason anything out. If you did that big balloon of truth you think you have starts loosing air.

The fact is that Bush could not have known what was in the report when he made the speech. The article from the reporter of a newspaper that has been loosing readership is speculation designed to sell newspapers to gullible people that want to hear such things. These people are objectively looking for something to reinforce their prejudiced opinions rather than subjective looking for the truth.

And lastly I don't need to need told by some self righteous pothead, what to do when. This is still a free country until jerks that think they know what everybody else do, change it.

If you think you are particularly qualified to tell people what to do, begin by telling us what we should do about Iran.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Dec 07 - 09:50 AM

I guess you'd rather be a follower of a self righteous coke-head, Homey??? Now things seem a little clearer about your thinking processes...

As for proving that Bush knew??? Hey, I'll stick with my sources, my knowledge of the way things really work in governemnt and the arguments I've made... Perhaps you would like to prove that the Dec. 4th Washington Post article, which BTW the BUsh administartion never challenged, is wrong???

And lastly, you got the wrong guy... Im not the one who has built up a tidal wave of lies... All I have done is observe yer guy in action... Ain't rocket surgery...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Barry Finn
Date: 23 Dec 07 - 11:31 AM

"begin by telling us what we should do about Iran?"

That's simple, shouldn't be hard though I guess you haven't thought it through much, have you!

Iran is again no threat to US! Leave Iran to the Iranians & leave the US to US!

Why do we need to involove ourselves with Iran? Why did we need to involove ourselves with Iraq?

Is this nation growing fools for crops?

Barry


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Dec 07 - 11:53 AM

Not just fools but blind followers of fools who themselves are incapable of independent critical thought...

Huxley was right...

Einstien was also right in observing that insanity is repeating a bevavior expecting different results... The Bush foriegn policy is by that definaition "insane"... Every time he has had an opportunity to do the right thing his "cowboy" mentality has led him to do the opposite...

I just hope that if he orders up a bombing of Iran that the Joint Chiefs will refuse... I have heard from a couple of my retired career military friends who still have contacts in the Pentagon that such rumblings are prevailent...

And no, Homey, you can't have their names becuase this was told me in confidence...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 23 Dec 07 - 11:40 PM

Yeah, the smug pot calls the kettle black. In your big head you think everybody follows somebody. Unlike you, some people can actually think for themselves.

Your crap that you cobbled together does not even rise to the level of circumstantial evidence. Your reasoning runs like this: People usually have bacon and eggs for breakfast so it has purdy much been proven that he had bacon and eggs for breakfast and that is the truth. All hail the great thinker and revealer of the truth.

And the great predictor: "A brief look at it the scorecard is about all anyone needs to see to see that the "Surge" is just a bad joke being played on our troops, the Iraqis and the world in general...

This war was never winable...

B~

Washington Post: the Surge is Working Sunday, October 14, 2007

"A month later, there isn't much room for such debate, at least about the latest figures. In September, Iraqi civilian deaths were down 52 percent from August and 77 percent from September 2006, according to the Web site icasualties.org. The Iraqi Health Ministry and the Associated Press reported similar results. U.S. soldiers killed in action numbered 43 — down 43 percent from August and 64 percent from May, which had the highest monthly figure so far this year. The American combat death total was the lowest since July 2006 and was one of the five lowest monthly counts since the insurgency in Iraq took off in April 2004.

    During the first 12 days of October the death rates of Iraqis and Americans fell still further. So far during the Muslim month of Ramadan, which began Sept. 13 and ends this weekend, 36 U.S. soldiers have been reported as killed in hostile actions. That is remarkable given that the surge has deployed more American troops in more dangerous places and that in the past al-Qaeda has staged major offensives during Ramadan. Last year, at least 97 American troops died in combat during Ramadan. Al-Qaeda tried to step up attacks this year, U.S. commanders say — so far, with stunningly little success."

When are we going to reach that 56,000 mark you predicted?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 23 Dec 07 - 11:57 PM

The Washington Post Saturday, December 8, 2007; Page A17

Pete Hegseth, executive director of Vets for Freedom, has coauthored an op-ed with Major General John Batiste.

Batiste is the formerly "antiwar" general who spoke out against Donald Rumsfeld, and who, until recently, was a Board Member of VoteVets.org (the antiwar MoveOn.org vets front group.

   "First, the United States must be successful in the fight against worldwide Islamic extremism. We have seen this ruthless enemy firsthand, and its global ambitions are undeniable. This struggle, the Long War, will probably take decades to prosecute. Failure is not an option.

    Second, whether or not we like it, Iraq is central to that fight. We cannot walk away from our strategic interests in the region. Iraq cannot become a staging ground for Islamic extremism or be dominated by other powers in the region, such as Iran and Syria. A premature or precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, without the requisite stability and security, is likely to cause the violence there -- which has decreased substantially but is still present -- to cascade into an even larger humanitarian crisis.

    Third, the counterinsurgency campaign led by Gen. David Petraeus is the correct approach in Iraq. It is showing promise of success and, if continued, will provide the Iraqi government the opportunities it desperately needs to stabilize its country."

There are two stories here: 1) A formerly anti-war general flips on supporting the war, and now believes Petraeus has the right strategy; and 2) Batiste has left VoteVets.org, and the antiwar movement, and joined up with the pro-troop, pro-surge, pro-victory Vets for Freedom.

The antiwar movement has lost one of its most powerful voices.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Barry Finn
Date: 24 Dec 07 - 12:37 AM

Are you for real???

People, & they are people are still dying, doesn't matter if less died today than yesterday! They are still dying , there's no reverseal on death!

You arer still offering the same added on excuses that we've been hearing since day one "worldwide Islamic extremism", give me a break & please give it a rest. First it was WMD's, the some shit about democracy, oil, freedom, regime change. This isthe crusades with a new & improve cause, nothing more nothing less.
You want this to continue, yo go over & die but don't preach this shit so that others can go & die, undeservingly in your place. Let the bastard that failed to show up for his own war die there & that'll put an end to this insane blood letting.
There was no honor dying in Viet Nam & there'll be no honor dying here either. The shame falls on all those in government hat continues to allow this war to go on under it's so many excuses.

If the US & their allies had kept their collective noses out of the mid east for the past century there would be no anti-western feeling coming from that area of the world. God forbid they'd probably be our friends.

Barry


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 24 Dec 07 - 08:37 AM

Ever been to an abortion clinic?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Dec 07 - 08:56 AM

Oh, so abortion clinics are the excuse de jour for US attacking and occupying Iraq???

I'm with Barry on this one, Homey, Dickey or whoever you are... Take yer butt down to the recruiting office...

I'm growing a little tired of you tired excuses for not only invading a sovergn nation but continuing to occupy it... They have become like old dead fish... A little smellier every day...

Oh, BTW, if yer ready to put ***your*** life where your ***mouth*** is I have a friend who can expedite things and have your blowhard self righteous butt in Iraq in 90 days... That's my Christmas present to you...

B~

And for the record, I never actaully predicted 56,000 American deaths
in Iraq... If you are going to quote me or state that I said this or that, quote it in the context of of the way it was written... In other words... The quote with the ***entire paragraph*** with it...

Now, go pack your bags while I make the call...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 24 Dec 07 - 12:03 PM

So is the war in Iraq your excuse for abortions? Notice I have not said I am pro war or anti abortion so don't accuse me of either. I just want to know how anybody can be both but questions seem to anger you.

And I did Quote the entire thing on Date: 19 Dec 07 - 11:34 PM

I am not bragging about my wisdom and accuracy like you but merely pointing out how you use the same tactics you accuse GWB of using except you are ***justified***

If Iraq is being occupied, all the government there has to do is ask us to leave.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Amos
Date: 24 Dec 07 - 12:26 PM

Homey:

The question, to put it bluntly, is insane.

No answer would serve.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Dec 07 - 12:38 PM

"If Iraq is being occupied, all the government there has to do is ask us to leave."

Oh, really!!???

I'd be quite interested in seeing that put to the test.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Dec 07 - 12:45 PM

Sorry, Dickey... I mean, Homey... But I didn't ***predict*** 56,000 death in Iraq in that quote...

As for the occupation, Dickey, ahhhh, Homey... Think about it this way, if you will... The year, 1776... The colonies were being occupied, taxed and bossed around by a colonial power much the way that Iraq is being occupied by the US... I guess the only difference is that the US isn't taxing them... Just strikling deals with Big Oil...

There's really not much diffrence between the two situation... You have Torie Malaki and you have the Whig insurgents... And like 1776, both colonial powers had/have the biggest and baddest militaries which were/are really of no particular value in "winning" a war where an entire population had to be ***governed***...

This is why the Iraq War is and has been lost for along time... It cannot be won any more than the Vietnam War could have been won...

You see, colonialism is a failed concept when the oppressor has no real interst, knowledge, comapassion, understanding of those it oppresses... How can the oppressor *** govern*** such a people... The US has enough trouble trying to govern it ownself, Dickey, ahhhh, Homey... It's not up to the task from a cultural standpoint...

Oh sure, we hear the Bush folks saying stuff like, "The Iraqi governemnt will do this or that"... Fine... Let them do this or that but they can't do this or that while being occupied and oppressed by a colonial power... There will be no legitamcy of the Iraqi goverment until it is free to find it's own way, solve its own conflicts, provide its own security and services...

Think 1776 real hard and then maybe, just maybe, you will get it...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Barry Finn
Date: 24 Dec 07 - 01:06 PM

There's a past thread on abortion, address tht topic in it's proper thread.

You must be playing in the outfield. Stick to what's on the plate! Homely

"Notice I have not said I am pro war or anti abortion so don't accuse me of either"

You certainly present an argument pushing a pro war/occupation agenda or are you just playing a devil's advocate, in which case you're trolling. As far as abortion, I don't care what you think, maybe in a different thread.

Barry


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 24 Dec 07 - 02:42 PM

Please explain how I am pushing a pro war/occupation agenda. That is your biased knee jerk reaction.

And I don't see how you can separate the killing of innocent people from abortion except that abortion is deliberate and collateral damage is not.

And I am not defending collateral damage either.

Being anti-war and pro-abortion would be insane? Or it can not be justified or what?

There is quite a bit of difference between Iran and colonial America. I think the money is flowing in a different direction.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Amos
Date: 24 Dec 07 - 03:05 PM

The failure to distinguish between things which are actually different is the keynote of insanity.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Dec 07 - 03:30 PM

Yes, there is quite a bit of difference between "Iran" and colonial America, Dickey/Homey...

Not so with Iraq, however...

BTW, Dickey/Homey... Your abortion argument has absolutely nothing to do with a discussion about failed foreign policy, the invasion of Iraq, the occupation of Iraq, Bush's sabre rattling with Iran or the price of tea in China...

Might of fact, it has a *desperate* ring to it???

Hey, look, D/H... I am sorry that you have hunkered down in defending what sane people see as insane acts by Bush and his boyz... At any time you, being annonymous, can reinvent yourself as a sane thinking person and come back here with an new world view that isn't so utterly partisan and/or narrow minded... But until then, please expalin why the US's occupation of Iraq is much different than when the Brits occupied the colonies???

Oh, an a follow-up question, por favor... Given that the Bush foreign policy is about whackin' 'n occupyin' folks who he might *think* (ha, that's an oximoron) one day might like to take a shot at US, what other countries are you in favor of W-and-O'n???

And just a follow up to that question, again por favor... Who is going to pay for the W-'n-O'n binge???

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Dec 07 - 06:07 PM

Washington Post:

Subverting Bush at Langley


Outrage over the CIA's destruction of interrogation tapes is but one element of the distress Republican intelligence watchdogs in Congress feel about the agency. "It is acting as though it is autonomous, not accountable to anyone," Rep. Peter Hoekstra, ranking Republican on the House intelligence committee, told me. That is his mildest language about the CIA. In carefully selected adjectives, Hoekstra calls it "incompetent, arrogant and political."

Chairman Silvestre Reyes and other Democrats on the intelligence committee join Hoekstra in demanding investigation into the tape destruction in the face of the administration's resistance, but the Republicans stand alone in protesting the CIA's defiant undermining of President Bush. In its clean bill of health for Iran on nuclear weapons development, the agency acted as an independent policymaker rather than an adviser. It has withheld from nearly all members of Congress information on the Israeli bombing of Syria in September. The U.S. intelligence community is deciding on its own what information the public shall learn.

Intelligence agencies, from Nazi Germany to present-day Pakistan, for better or for ill, have tended to break away from their governments. The Office of Strategic Services, the CIA's World War II predecessor, was infiltrated by communists. While CIA tactics were under liberal assault in Congress during the Watergate era, current accusations of a rogue agency come from Republicans who see a conscious undermining of Bush at Langley.


The CIA's contempt for the president was demonstrated during his 2004 reelection campaign when a senior intelligence officer, Paul R. Pillar, made off-the-record speeches around the country criticizing the invasion of Iraq. On Sept. 24, 2004, three days before my column exposed Pillar's activity, former representative Porter Goss arrived at Langley as Bush's handpicked director of central intelligence. Goss had resigned from Congress to accept Bush's mandate to clean up the CIA. But the president eventually buckled under fire from the old boys at Langley and their Democratic supporters in Congress, and Goss was sacked in May 2006.

Goss's successor, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, restored the status quo at the CIA and nurtured relations with congressional Democrats in preparation for their coming majority status. Hayden, an active-duty four-star Air Force general, first antagonized Hoekstra by telling Reyes what the Democrats wanted to hear about the Valerie Plame-CIA leak case.

There is no partisan divide on congressional outrage over the CIA's destruction of tapes showing interrogation of detainees suspected of terrorism. Hoekstra agrees with Reyes that the Bush administration has made a big mistake refusing to let officials testify in the impending investigation.

Republicans also complain that the National Intelligence Estimate concluding that Iran has shut down its nuclear weapons program was a case of the CIA flying solo, not part of the administration team. Donald M. Kerr, principal deputy director of national intelligence, said on Dec. 3 that the intelligence community "took responsibility for what portions of the NIE Key Judgments were to be declassified." In a Dec. 10 column for the Wall Street Journal, Hoekstra and Democratic Rep. Jane Harman, a senior member of the intelligence committee, wrote that the new NIE "does not explain why the 2005 NIE came to the opposite conclusion or what factors could drive Iran to 'restart' its nuclear-weapons program." (Six days later on "Fox News Sunday," Harman called the NIE "the best work product they've produced.")

Hoekstra is also at odds with Hayden over the CIA's refusal to reveal what it knows about the Sept. 6 Israeli bombing of Syria's nuclear complex. Only chairmen and ranking minority members of the intelligence committees, plus members of the congressional leadership, have been briefed. Other members of Congress, including those on the intelligence committees, were excluded. The intelligence authorization bill, passed by the House and awaiting final action in the Senate, blocks most of the CIA's funding "until each member of the Congressional Intelligence committees has been fully informed with respect to intelligence" about the Syria bombing.

In a June 21 address to the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations, Hayden unveiled the "CIA's social contract with the American people." Hoekstra's explanation: "The CIA is rejecting accountability to the administration or Congress, saying it can go straight to the people."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Dec 07 - 07:33 PM

Well, bb, seein' as Bush rolled the CIA under the bus over ***his*** stupid decision to invade Iraq, I reckon there is a high level of paranoia in Langley... Do you blame them???

I don't...

Bush would roll his own mother under the bus...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Dec 07 - 01:06 PM

So, if the CIA makes a biased report for political reasons that YOU agree with, that is ok, while if they make a biased one for political reasons that YOU disagree with they should be held accountable?



Are you SURE you are not related to Bush?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 25 Dec 07 - 03:06 PM

Again Bobert, I am not defending anything. Just pointing out that fact that you claim accuracy that does not exist and use generalizations to arrive at facts that are not correct.

Your biased, objective reasoning is incorrect. When challenged you display your bias by claiming I am defending or supporting something or someone. That I am biased. I am defending free speech and logic. Got something against that? Or you are for free speech and logic only when it agrees with you and get huffy and puffy when it does not?

"The failure to distinguish between things which are actually different is the keynote of insanity."

What is the term for not being able to tell when things are the same but you choose to react in opposite ways about each? Is it called sanity or Bias?

"We can deliberately kill in the womb but convicted murderers do not deserve to die and no one should ever die in a war." Is that a sane statement? If it is sane, just say so. Back it up by stating it.

Just because the comparison of death by abortion to capital punishment death during armed conflict makes you uncomfortable does not mean I can't make the comparison here. It is still as free country right?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Dec 07 - 04:00 PM

Is "GUEST, Homey" the same person as someone else who is already a member? If not, why not sign up as a member and remove all that hassle of having to type in your name every time you post?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Dec 07 - 04:00 PM

Actually, Homey/Dickey (or is it Dickey/Homey 'er Old Guy/Dikey), I have provided my sources... No one has yet proved any of my source to be incorrect...

I provided my source on Bush having knowledge that Iran had curtailed its nuclear weapons program in 2003 prior to his "WW III' or "Iran is pursuing" speeches in October...

Do yu have any evidence that the Baker/Wright story was innacurate??? Well, no you don't... What you do have is another story which is not proof... You expect me to have to provide proof yet you don't hold yourself to the same standard...

Normal...

And, bet yer butt I'm bias... But I'm not prejudice... There's a big difference... Show me a wise man who isn't bias... You use the word bias as if there's something wrong with it when there instinctually isn't... Bias is good... Prejudice isn't...

That's bout it for now, OG/H/D 'er H/OG/D....

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Dec 07 - 04:30 PM

"Show me a wise man who isn't biased."

Can't argue with that. In Dante's Inferno, the lowest rung in Hell is reserved for those who insist on remaining "colorlessly neutral," those who make no moral or ethical distinctions, and there is no way one can do that and not favor one position or another (sometimes known as being "biased").

It has been said that one should "judge not, lest ye be judged." But a very wise philospher once said that the truly ethical person must make judgments. And be prepared to be judged for the judgments that he or she makes.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Dec 07 - 05:04 PM

Dante said it better than I did, Don...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Dec 07 - 05:38 PM

I just did a little checking, and it seems that after saying "Judge not, lest ye be judged," Jesus goes on to say, basically, what the philosopher I quoted said. Go ahead and judge, but be prepared to be judged for the judgments you make. But lots of people, for reasons of their own, quote only the first part. Typical out-of-context quotation behavior.

I have to agree wholeheartedly with what GUEST, TIA posted on 22 Dec 07 - 10:12 a.m.

Keep up the good work!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Dec 07 - 06:51 AM

Arriving at an opinion after examining the evidence isn't "prejudice".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Dec 07 - 08:59 AM

Exactly the point, McG...

Yes, bias is the fabric of wisdom...

And that is why when I hear Bush shootin' off his mouth about Iran much the way he shot off his mouth during the mad-dash-to-Iraq, my biases kick in big time...

I hate to say this but I firmly believe it but I don't trust Bush to not order up a little "Shock'n Awe" against Iran just to ***prove*** he is "relavent" (his word)...

Personally, I think the best think for the world and especially the US would be if Bush would just do what his daddy did and that is put his feet up on the Oval Office desk and do nothing... I don't want Bush screwing US up anymore... He's done enough damage allready...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Barry Finn
Date: 26 Dec 07 - 12:33 PM

Impeachment now Bobert would be better. But I agree short of that the world would be better off with him doing nothing. He can't seem to make one move that isn't a complete fuck up. It's the story of his life.

Barry


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Dec 07 - 12:45 PM

Yeah, let's do a little review...

***C student in college but probably was closer to being a d student but rich kids get a favorable grading...

***AWOL from Texas Air National Guard...

***Given the Texas Rangers by his daddy and the team's profits went down...

***Given Harkin Energy by his daddy and he ran it into the ground right after taking $700,000 out of the kitty for himself...

***Cokehead and alcoholic

***Convicted drunk driver and...

...worst president in American history, bar none but given his record it shouldn't come as any surprise...

But what I ***hope*** America has finally learned is don't let losers do the deciding... There is a reason why they are losers...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 30 Dec 07 - 04:22 PM

Funny how Bobert can dish out the criticism but he can't take any.

What should we do about Iran?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Barry Finn
Date: 30 Dec 07 - 10:22 PM

Why do you want to bother Iran, haven't we been enough of a bother to those already living in the Mid East without becoming a part of their daily life. Oh, forgot we are a part of their daily life, the part that's a nightmare.

You sure are worried about them that live 6,000 miles away, how about a little concern for those that could use our help rather than them that would do just fine without it.

What would you have us do about Iran Homey? The same as we've done with Iraq?

"Fine mess you've gotten US into this time Ollie!"

Barry


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Dec 07 - 08:48 AM

Homey (Dickey/Old Guy?)...

I'll juts wait until I hear your answer to Barry's question before investing any more time on this topic...

But have a happy new years, none the less...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Donuel
Date: 31 Dec 07 - 10:13 AM

I'll answer the question.


Russia and Iran combined have more oil than Saudi Arabia. Iraq is 2nd by themselves but third after Russian and Iran.

Its not that WE need to attack Iran as much as banking globalists can make more money on military needs, rising oil prices and investments in China.


This should be enough "answer" for most people yet if you read ahead more pieces of the puzzle will fall into place.

I have seen people here say they don't believe in the New World Order.
Yet they are watching it unfold more every month.

The term 'New World Order' is the gift of the banking and corporation funded think tanks. The exact term New World Order was first used in public addresses by President GHW Hush.

What is it really?
Here it is straight up with no satire or spoon feeding...
It is a push to privatize everything along the lines of an extreme fundamentalist Capitalism.

You might ask Everything?

Beyond private property and private corporations I point out: Private (oil) Wars, private armies, private police, private legislaters, Privatized National Parks, privatized health care, privatized social security schemes...et cetera.

Putting these corporate ideas of ultimate privatization into play via banking systems like the New World Bank is often called Globalization.

Conentrating wealth in a handful of banks and corporation which are in turn owned by even fewer families is effective in removing the last remaing vestigal powers of labor unions and Law (laws like zoning, tax and numerous consumer safety regulations)
To enhance Globalization the social safety nets of FDR are called socialist and very bad. National health care is communist and very bad. Social Security is broke and very bad. Social Spending has no place in a militarized society.

With legislators becoming essentially privatized by corporate contributions the only stumbling block to most Globalization (formerly called New World Order) tactics are the courts.

Perhaps you don't see as I do how the courts are under attack by Globalists.
Perhaps you don't see that threats of; terror, natural disaster, disease and impending doom actually changes the behavior of people to allow freedom itself to be traded away for huge sudden sweeping security laws and economic slavery, al in the sheeps clothing of security.

Yet let me assure you that the old term 'New World Order' (which did not play well since it sounds too close to the truth) is alive and well in Globalization.


A preconceived notion as to what New World Order/Globalization meant may be far from what it is. It is simply an extreme form of capitalism which relies on anti democratic and powerful media propoganda. The weakening of goverment agenices and the strengthening of private corporate agencies.

Thats why there was a private beefed up Blackwater and Walmart response to Katrina while FEMA had its guts brains and balls removed by the Globalist administration. The only goverment agency to respond to Katina immediately was the Coast Guard and the Royal Canadian Mounties.

People argue here all the time about various aspects of globallization as if its a red or blue issue or a democratic vs. fascist issue. The arguemnts can be anything we want it to be but Globalization ie NWO is swallowing us all as we bicker.

I suppose globalist think tank pundits even have an answer for a nasty but unintended nuclear war which is usually bad for business and living things...
there would be a great market for construction contracts and of course more nukes.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 Dec 07 - 05:51 PM

Happy New Year , ALL.


May the next year see peace and joy throughout the world, and all of us safe and secure.


Bruce


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Dec 07 - 07:41 PM

Back atcha, bruce...

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 01 Jan 08 - 12:24 PM

The above was by me.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Jan 08 - 12:41 PM

400!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Jan 08 - 12:58 PM

The problems with ABM's is that it's very difficult to convince the folks they are aimed at that these weapons cannot also be used as offensive weapons... I mean, if Russsia were to plant ABM's in Cuba the US would throw a fit, Homey...

This is perhaps why Russia is trhowing a fit about the US wanted to plant them on Russia's doorstep...

And for this same reason we cannot expect to produce an environment where the Iranian clerics can bring about moderation with the same sabre rattling from the US...

All that sabre rattling does is prolong conflict which, in turn, does not create an positive environment for the US and Iran to find common ground...

(But, Bobert, Iran did that and Iran did that!!!)

Iran also helped the US defeat the Taliban... Hmmmmmm???

The US has had one opportunity after another under Bush to make inroads in Iran and has bungled them all... Now, it is apparent that Bush has so poisoned the relationship that the Iranians don't trust him and are just, like the rest of the world, waiting Bush out... Bush's legacy is allready cast in stone and there is nothing now that he can do to change it...

Seems the next 12 months can't go by fast enough...

This is not meant to be a personal attack on anyone... This is just a sober assessment of the situation...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Jan 08 - 05:22 PM

"The problems with ABM's is that it's very difficult to convince the folks they are aimed at that these weapons cannot also be used as offensive weapons... I mean, if Russsia were to plant ABM's in Cuba the US would throw a fit, Homey...

This is perhaps why Russia is trhowing a fit about the US wanted to plant them on Russia's doorstep..."


Not sure that I see why.

Look at the ABM systems: Under SALT, the USSR and the US were allowed two each- The Soviets built them, and we started to, then dismantled them so that the ONLY option in case of attack would be all-out nuclear war.

With SDIO, the basic principle is that, IN THE CASE of a LIMITED launch, caused by accident or terrorists, the side with an ABM has the OPTION of NOT throwing it's entire arsenal at the percieved enemy, and waiting until it was understood whaht happened. A 95% hit rate would mean that of 10 missles launched, there would be a 50% chance that ONE would get through.
Since the alternative, without ABM, is to have a 100% chance that TEN will get through, it seems obvious that the OPTION of waiting is only there with an ABM system in place.

When the choice is between MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction ( as pushed by Democratic Administrations)) and SDIO, that allows the missles to be neutralized WITHOUT destroying the attacking country, it seem that only those committed to the idea that it is better to kill the (percieved) enemy even at the cost of one's own death than to block the attack and then deal as appropriate with the ones who launched the attack, could NOT be in favor of it.


If Country X launches 10 missiles at Japan, is it a better thing to

a. Shoot down the missiles and have no-one killed.
OR
b. Have the 10 missiles hit Japan, killing millions, then remove Country X from the face of the earth with the counterstrike?


And what about the fact that it might have been an error on the part of Country X's software that caused the launch in the first place?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Jan 08 - 07:15 PM

First of all thwere is failsafe measures that the country firing the offensive missle can use in the case of an "accident"...

So that argument is off the table...

The second argument, however, of a terrorist launching an offensive missile is, while farfetched, somewhat valid... But in ordeer for that to happen the terrorist would have to have gone thru a massive checklist of preocedures in order to pull it off... I'm not too sure what the chances are of a terrorist being able to penitrate the US or Russia but it is so small that it's perhaps not even worth discussion...

Now that brings up folks like Pakistan... or India... or Isreal that we are realistically talking about here...

Agreed???

The problem is that if one is making a case for a US ABM system on Russia's doorstep based on the threat to the US by Pakistan one needs to rememeber that Pakistan does not have the felivery capabilities to hit the US... Not does India... Isreal??? Maybe...

So, the discussion comes down to the logis in placing a US ABM system on Russia's doorstep to protect the US from Isreal???

If that is your argument, bb, and I'm not saying it is... But when one takes the window dressing off what you have said, I can't think of any other scenerio out there in the real world that would justify the US thinking that a ABM sysytem on Russia's doorstep would be of any value at all but...

...quite the contrary...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Jan 08 - 07:40 PM

Bobert:

"First of all thwere is failsafe measures that the country firing the offensive missle can use in the case of an "accident"...

So that argument is off the table..."

False conclusion. WE have such a systemn, and have offered it to the Russians, but there are a number of nuclear weapons which aee not under such control, both within NATA, and in other nations including the former Soviet Union.



"The second argument, however, of a terrorist launching an offensive missile is, while farfetched, somewhat valid... But in ordeer for that to happen the terrorist would have to have gone thru a massive checklist of preocedures in order to pull it off"

Again, a false conclusion from the present KNOWN inventory of nuclear weapons in the world- NOT including the ones in N. Korea, given out by Pakeustan, stolen from depots in the former Soviet Union, etc.


"... I'm not too sure what the chances are of a terrorist being able to penitrate the US or Russia but it is so small that it's perhaps not even worth discussion..."

Easily done, the shipping containers presently entering the US are just one example. Likelihood is 95% + (100% ability, about 5% that they would be caught)

"Now that brings up folks like Pakistan... or India... or Isreal that we are realistically talking about here...

Agreed???"

They are a PART of the problem, but far from the largest part.






"The problem is that if one is making a case for a US ABM system on Russia's doorstep based on the threat to the US by Pakistan one needs to rememeber that Pakistan does not have the felivery capabilities to hit the US... Not does India... Isreal??? Maybe..."


1. the ABM system proposed was for the KNOWN missiles from Iran ( the ones I have already shown the links to them HAVING NOW, or having under construction several years ago.

2. An attack on a US ally is, by treaty, considered the same as an attack on the US. I am sure the English and others in NATO would want us to keep our treaty obligations...




"So, the discussion comes down to the logis in placing a US ABM system on Russia's doorstep to protect the US from Isreal???"

False concliusion, as shown by my negation of your straw man arguement.






"If that is your argument, bb, and I'm not saying it is... But when one takes the window dressing off what you have said, I can't think of any other scenerio out there in the real world that would justify the US thinking that a ABM sysytem on Russia's doorstep would be of any value at all but..."

Then you have failed to think of the actual reality of the present nuclear weapons, the present delivery systems, and the real world.



Your comments about SDIO to me have about the same weight as MY comments about Blues singers would have to you.

You have expertise in Blues.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Jan 08 - 07:54 PM

"Pakistan does not have the felivery capabilities to hit the US... Not does India.."

You are WAY behind the times, Bobert.



"(1995)As Indian scientists watched their new space rocket ascend over the Indian Ocean, they were jubilant. The rocket's four giant stages lifted a three-quarter ton satellite into a near polar orbit, a tremendous achievement for Indian rocketry.

For the rest of the world, however, last October's launch was more ominous: India had just proved that it could soon reach any point on the globe with a nuclear warhead.

India tested its first nuclear device in 1974. Since then, according to the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency), its researchers have progressed to working on more powerful thermonuclear bombs and the missiles to deliver them. India's smallest nuclear-capable missile now threatens Pakistan, and its medium-range missile will threaten China's border regions. If India converts its new space rocket to a missile, it could reach cities as far away as London, Tokyo and New York. "

http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/india/missiles.html

India, Russia to make BrahMos missiles
21 Jul 2006, 1540 hrs IST,PTI

BANGALORE: India and Russia intend to make 1,000 BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles over the next 10 years through their joint venture company, with nearly 50 per cent of them expected to be sold in third countries, defence sources said on Friday.

"We already have a capacity to produce 100 missiles a year. One thousand missiles in 10 years is a reasonable target. Nearly 50 per cent will go to exports," a source said.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1789050.cms





"Pakistan has an extensive nuclear-capable ballistic missile program, as the April 1998 test-firing of the Ghauri missile illustrates. The program is almost entirely imported, despite official Pakistani claims to the contrary. Most recently, Pakistan has received assistance from the People's Republic of China and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK). Pakistan's limited scientific and industrial base has forced it to rely on continuous outside help. Pakistan possesses both the 300 km M-11 (Hatf III) missile acquired from China and the 1000 km Nodong (Ghauri) missile bought from North Korea. Pakistan has also imported plants to manufacture these missiles.

Pakistan's missile program is important for two reasons. First, Pakistan is a nuclear weapon state. Missiles give Pakistan the means to deliver its nuclear warheads farther and with more certainty than it could with aircraft. Second, the May nuclear weapons tests of both Pakistan and India illustrate the high tensions and spiraling arms race in South Asia. Ballistic missiles, which shorten warning times, increase the chances of accidental or preemptive nuclear conflict. "


http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/pakistan/missiles.html
http://www.missilethreat.com/thethreat/pageID.250/default.asp

How many OTHER references do you want???


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Jan 08 - 07:56 PM

India developing submarine launched ballistic missiles
The Associated Press

Published: September 11, 2007

NEW DELHI: India has tested systems that would enable it to launch ballistic missiles from submarines, officials said Tuesday, a move that boosts the country's nuclear deterrence capabilities.

Submarine launched ballistic missiles, or SLBMs, are considered an important element in creating nuclear deterrence, giving it second strike capabilities in the event its land or air-based weapons are disabled.

Indian media reports Tuesday said India had successfully launched a SLBM with a range of some 1,500 kilometers (930 miles) in recent days.

However, the Ministry of Defense denied this, saying only that India's state-run Defense Research and Development Organization had tested components of an underwater launch system.

"No SLBM of the said range has been launched by the DRDO," said ministry spokesman Sitanshu Kar. "Only the development of technology elements for potential underwater capabilities is in progress." He gave no further details of the test.

Last week Defense Minister A. K. Antony informed Parliament that a submarine-launched version of India's Brahmos supersonic cruise missile was ready. However, the Brahmos, which can carry nuclear warheads of up to 200 kilograms (440 pounds) in weight, has a maximum range of 290 kilometers (180 miles).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Jan 08 - 08:18 PM

So, bb, are you suggesting that Pakistan could pull off an nuclear attack on the US???

BTW, keep in mind that Pakistan's rocket techmology was sold to North Korea and look what happened when North Korea shot off one of their Pakistani designed missles...

You are giving way too much credit to folks who are clueless..

You also fail to recognize the reality that the US can wipe out anyone who is stupid enough to attack us with missels... T^his is the deterrent factor that folks who think we need more nukes can't get their minds wrapped around...

As for India attackin' US with subs??? Is this a reason to put ABMs on Russia's doorstep???

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jan 08 - 03:36 PM

Bobert:



"So, bb, are you suggesting that Pakistan could pull off an nuclear attack on the US???"

No, I was not- although they COULD.



"BTW, keep in mind that Pakistan's rocket techmology was sold to North Korea and look what happened when North Korea shot off one of their Pakistani designed missles..."

Sorry, it was N. Korea that sold the rocket technology to Pakistan...
AND Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, et al.

And what did happen? they went over Japan and into the Pacific Ocean.



"You are giving way too much credit to folks who are clueless.."

You are giving way too little credit to people who have shown they can develop what the US had 30 years ago.


"You also fail to recognize the reality that the US can wipe out anyone who is stupid enough to attack us with missels... :

Only if we

1. had the will/ public acceptance
2. knew who it was that launched the attack
3. had the capability to wipe them out- Were you one of those that stated it was impossible to eliminate Iran's nuclear program because we could not destroy the whole country?


"T^his is the deterrent factor that folks who think we need more nukes can't get their minds wrapped around..."

** I ** have never stated we need MORE nuclear bombs- I would prefer to see the effort used for defensive systems like ABMs.

"As for India attackin' US with subs??? Is this a reason to put ABMs on Russia's doorstep???"

No, it was a negation of your statements, showing them to be false.

The reason to put ABMs " On Russia's Doorstep" is to intercept the Iranian missles ( which they already have) IF they are launched against US ALLIES ( Those we have treaty obligations to protect) with the nuclear warheads that IRAN is capable of developing in the near future ( 2009? 2012?) and which they have a demonstrated capability to produce fissionable material for.

Or do you WANTY to wait until they are used, so you can destroy the entire country with our retaliation? I would far rather stop them ( by destroying those missles before they impact) before they kill millions than kill tens of millions more in revenge, as you seem to be advocating.



Try reading WHAT I have written, instad of using your own bias to warp the facts.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jan 08 - 04:27 PM

"Since the late 1980s and early 1990s, Pakistan has invested in both solid-motor and liquid-engine ballistic missile programs with Chinese and North Korean assistance, respectively. Pakistan's reasons for investing in both solid- and liquid-propulsion technologies remain unclear. However, analysts speculate the rival programs could be the result of intra-institutional rivalry and one-upmanship between the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) and Khan Research Laboratories (KRL), which have historically feuded over control and credits for Pakistan nuclear weapons-related efforts. This rivalry may have also carried over to the development of nuclear delivery systems. Furthermore, the diversification effort could also be viewed as a proactive attempt on the part of Pakistan's military to factor in possible bottlenecks or failure along one technological front, as well as an attempt to diversify suppliers in the face of U.S. efforts to restrict the international trade in weapons of mass destruction-capable ballistic and cruise missile technologies.

Although Pakistan's current fleet of missiles is restricted to SRBMs, the National Defense Complex (NDC) and KRL are actively pursuing programs to develop medium-range ballistic missiles. Most analysts believe that the Pakistani military has achieved or is close to achieving the capability to mount nuclear warheads on its current ballistic missile fleet. Some reports even go so far as to suggest that Pakistan may be further along than India on the path to achieving nuclear operability.[3]

Pakistan underscored its commitment to strengthening its military capability against India by conducting two ballistic missile tests in quick succession in February and March 2007, even as the two subcontinental rivals continued discussions on nuclear confidence building measures and anti-terrorism initiatives. The Pakistani tests came at a time when India has also sought to strengthen its strategic capabilities vis-à-vis Pakistan, as well as narrow the gap with China through development of more capable nuclear delivery vehicles, including advanced combat aircraft and missile systems.

Since 2005, Islamabad has also carried out several tests of its Babur (Hatf VII) cruise missile, two such tests coming in March and June 2007. This subsonic nuclear capable missile, has a range of 700 km.[48] In addition, in August 2007, Pakistan tested a new cruise missile, the Ra'ad (Arabic for "Thunder"). This missile, which is air-launched, has a range of 350 kilometers.[49] Thus, along with ballistic missiles, cruise missiles are increasingly part of Pakistan's nuclear calculus. [50]"

http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Pakistan/Missile/index_3066.html


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jan 08 - 05:19 PM

Perhaps I need to explain further:

""So, bb, are you suggesting that Pakistan could pull off an nuclear attack on the US???"

No, I was not- although they COULD."

ANY group that has a nuclear device capable of being placed on a missile of at least 30 Km range is CAPABLE of "pulling off a nuclear attack on the US."

Unless we are prepared to declare ALL vessals on the high seas to be subject to search and possible seizure, and we implement such a program for ALL cargo, naval, and civilian ships capable of carrying such a missile- ie, about 60 ft.long or larger.

You think that that is even possible, given the state of the US Navy and Coast Guard today?

Or should we just sink them all when the get close enough to launch such a misile? THAT we might be able to do, with air assets.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Jan 08 - 05:22 PM

"ABMs are purely defensive"

Armour is purely defensive too. For example, on a tank.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Jan 08 - 05:26 PM

Oh, so now the story is that we need more nukes because N. Korea sold their technology to Pakistan??? Hmmmmmm, bb, this story of yours is ghetting more farfetched every time you post... I mean, if I were Pakistan I'd be purdy danged worriwed if I was suing North Korean designs 'cause they just don't work too good...

So you are basing your foriegn policy around crappy missels, bb??? One somewhat seccessful test does not make Pakistan all worhgt the price of starting another round of ther Cold War over... But that, in essence, is what is going to happen if the United Sates keeps pushing for missles on Rissia's doorstep...

Somehow this little detail seems to escape your relm of undeerstanding...

The US might not win another Cold War with Russia becasue of Russia's oil reserves and new found wealth from those reserves...

This is a failed foreign policy built on 80's thinking... This isn't the 80's anymore, bb... The US is slowly bleeding to death finacially and I don't see much creative thinking, if any, from Bush and his gang...

Einstien said that a problem cannnot be solved with the same consciousness that created it and this is why Bush, apparently like you, cannot shift gears quickly enough to act responsibly and sanely in a modern world...

While you two rattle the sabres one opportunity after another after has been wasted... After 9/11 we had Iran right where we needed Iran... As much as I disliked Clinton personally he would used Iran's coooperation in defeating the Taliban as a grand opening for the normalization of relations...

Anyone who has ever served in the intellegence community will tell you that it's alot easier to keep an eye on folks when you have diplomatic relations... This is a no brainer... But did Bush use this opportunity to make US safer... No, becuase somehow he thought that might not keep his redneck base happy... I mean, it ain't tough and tough is what entertains alot of his base... Stupid base and stupid leader...

How about arguing why you think that diplomacy is for sissies, bb... You never seem to get around to that but, from your almost blind aceoptance of any thing that Bush does, and you full acceptance that the only way to get along in this world is to either whack or threaten whacking folks, it is apparent to most here that you really don't think much of diplomacy...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jan 08 - 07:01 PM

Boberty,

If you keep this up, I WILL call you a liar!

"Oh, so now the story is that we need more nukes because N. Korea sold their technology to Pakistan??? "

\
*** I *** HOVE NEVER SAID WE NEED MORE NUKES!.

You keep saying lies.

Shut up, or face the consequences.

More on the rest of your statement later.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jan 08 - 07:03 PM

"How about arguing why you think that diplomacy is for sissies, bb"


Another lie from that Bush-like liar, Bobert.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jan 08 - 07:04 PM

"So you are basing your foriegn policy around crappy missels, bb??? "


No, but YOU seem to think that you have some knowledge in a field that you have shown your ignorance in.


I expect YOU to now defer to MY statements on the Blues, since I am far more an expert on them than you are on missles or WMD.

OK, Ubermensch Bobert??


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jan 08 - 07:06 PM

"or threaten whacking folks"

If you can show how a defensive system that can only shoot down missiles that are being used OFFENSIVELY is threatening to "whack" anybody, I might actually have some respect for you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Jan 08 - 08:15 PM

N. Korea sold their technology to Pakistan It seems to have been much more he other way round.
.........................................

"...show how a defensive system that can only shoot down missiles that are being used OFFENSIVELY is threatening..."

If a potential enemy manages to install really effective defences, this reduces the deterrent effect of your own weapons, and in principal puts the other side in a position to use its own weapons without fear of effective retaliation.

Once again: "Armour is purely defensive too. For example, on a tank."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Jan 08 - 09:17 PM

BB,

Where in your history of posting here have you advocated diplomacy over militaristic responses...

I rest my case...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 12:41 PM

Bobert:

Where in your history of posting here have you ever advocated dealing with the problem of nuclear proliferation other than by threatening
other countries with complete destruction if we think they have attacked us?

The principle YOU seem to be advocating, MAD, is as morally bankrupt and inhuman as any ever concieved by human beings.


YOU are saying that the US should have enough warheads to destroy ALL the countries that might possibly attack us, in order to "deter" them.

EVEN when it has been demonstrated that there are groups opposed to the US that DO NOT FEAR being killed, and thus your threat has no effect other than to make the US look like the aggressor.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 12:43 PM

"the deterrent effect of your own weapons,"


You are claiming that it is the deterrent effect of Iran's future weapons that will keep the US from attacking them?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 12:49 PM

Bobert,

In a previous thread, talking about the ABM system near Russia,
I stated that the US should share the control of that site JOINTLY with the Russians, so that they would not feel threatened by it.

What was YOUR suggestion? That the US NOT try to protect those nations that we have a treaty obligation to protect?

I think on this topic, at least, I have shown less desire to wipe out tens of millions of people than YOU have.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 01:24 PM

I was responding to the specific point you raised, bruce, which was to question how defensive missiles could ever reasonably be seen as threatening to anyone. In the past the USA has very clearly indicated that attempts to develop a Soviet ABM system would be viewed as a hostile act.

You are claiming that it is the deterrent effect of Iran's future weapons that will keep the US from attacking them? I didn't make that claim - though I would assume that the essential purpose of seeking to acquire such weapons would be the hope that it could act as a deterrent to attacks by hostile countries. The same reason Israel, for example,has developed and built up its nuclear arsenal.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 08:11 PM

Six questions, BB...

1. Why are you back to SCREAMING???

2. Do you think that SCREAMING makes your points any more correct???

3. Why didn't you answer my question???

4. Why can't you respond with one post rather than 3 or 4 or 5???

5. Again, can you show us one single post where you have advocated diplomacy over militarism???

6. How's you militaristic foreign policy' workin' for ya???

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 02:45 PM

Six answers, Bobert:

1. Why are you back to SCREAMING???

Because you seem incapable of reading and understanding simple English statements, and I find that to be annoying.

2. Do you think that SCREAMING makes your points any more correct???

No. Nor do I believe, as you seem to, that it makes them any LESS correct.

3. Why didn't you answer my question???

I did:
"Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce - PM
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 12:49 PM

Bobert,

In a previous thread, talking about the ABM system near Russia,
I stated that the US should share the control of that site JOINTLY with the Russians, so that they would not feel threatened by it.

What was YOUR suggestion? That the US NOT try to protect those nations that we have a treaty obligation to protect?

I think on this topic, at least, I have shown less desire to wipe out tens of millions of people than YOU have. "

4. Why can't you respond with one post rather than 3 or 4 or 5???

Because THEN you complain that my post are too long for you to bother reading.

5. Again, can you show us one single post where you have advocated diplomacy over militarism???

See the answer to #3

6. How's you militaristic foreign policy' workin' for ya???

Since I am not the one saying we should have no option other than to destroy entire nations if a single madman attacks us, it would seem that YOU need to answer it, not me.

Since I have a pacific policy ( ie, I DON'T want to kill innocent civilians and burn babies, as you obviously do) the question is meanlingless.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly