BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush

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

plus 1...

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?

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.

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~

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

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?

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.

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.

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. "

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.

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.

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.

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.

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~

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~

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.

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.

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???

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?

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~

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.

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.

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

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)

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

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~

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.

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~

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...

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!'

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.

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???

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.

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~

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.

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.

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~

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

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.

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~

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~

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.

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

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.

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

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~

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.

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~

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?

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?