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: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...

Bobert 19 Dec 08 - 06:59 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 19 Dec 08 - 07:11 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 19 Dec 08 - 07:14 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 19 Dec 08 - 07:15 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 19 Dec 08 - 07:16 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 19 Dec 08 - 07:17 PM
Bobert 19 Dec 08 - 07:30 PM
SINSULL 19 Dec 08 - 07:35 PM
katlaughing 19 Dec 08 - 07:52 PM
kendall 19 Dec 08 - 08:18 PM
Bobert 19 Dec 08 - 08:22 PM
Bobert 19 Dec 08 - 08:24 PM
artbrooks 19 Dec 08 - 08:45 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 19 Dec 08 - 08:48 PM
Bobert 19 Dec 08 - 09:02 PM
kendall 19 Dec 08 - 09:51 PM
Sawzaw 20 Dec 08 - 01:17 AM
Barry Finn 20 Dec 08 - 01:51 AM
kendall 20 Dec 08 - 08:09 AM
Sawzaw 20 Dec 08 - 08:40 AM
Bobert 20 Dec 08 - 08:52 AM
Bobert 20 Dec 08 - 10:20 AM
kendall 20 Dec 08 - 12:45 PM
Little Hawk 20 Dec 08 - 12:58 PM
artbrooks 20 Dec 08 - 01:31 PM
Riginslinger 20 Dec 08 - 02:12 PM
kendall 20 Dec 08 - 03:38 PM
michaelr 20 Dec 08 - 03:43 PM
DougR 20 Dec 08 - 05:11 PM
Bobert 20 Dec 08 - 05:35 PM
kendall 20 Dec 08 - 07:26 PM
Bobert 20 Dec 08 - 07:44 PM
kendall 20 Dec 08 - 08:31 PM
artbrooks 20 Dec 08 - 08:36 PM
Bobert 20 Dec 08 - 08:45 PM
Riginslinger 20 Dec 08 - 09:09 PM
Bobert 20 Dec 08 - 09:16 PM
Riginslinger 20 Dec 08 - 09:54 PM
Little Hawk 20 Dec 08 - 10:15 PM
Q (Frank Staplin) 20 Dec 08 - 10:53 PM
artbrooks 20 Dec 08 - 10:55 PM
michaelr 20 Dec 08 - 11:25 PM
Riginslinger 20 Dec 08 - 11:27 PM
artbrooks 20 Dec 08 - 11:52 PM
Amos 21 Dec 08 - 01:24 AM
Sawzaw 21 Dec 08 - 01:45 AM
Stilly River Sage 21 Dec 08 - 02:07 AM
michaelr 21 Dec 08 - 02:34 AM
akenaton 21 Dec 08 - 05:35 AM
kendall 21 Dec 08 - 08:21 AM
artbrooks 21 Dec 08 - 09:02 AM
Sawzaw 21 Dec 08 - 12:40 PM
Little Hawk 21 Dec 08 - 01:31 PM
Sawzaw 21 Dec 08 - 01:31 PM
Bobert 21 Dec 08 - 01:49 PM
kendall 21 Dec 08 - 02:30 PM
Sawzaw 21 Dec 08 - 03:00 PM
pdq 21 Dec 08 - 03:09 PM
McGrath of Harlow 21 Dec 08 - 04:43 PM
Amos 21 Dec 08 - 05:56 PM
McGrath of Harlow 21 Dec 08 - 06:10 PM
Amos 21 Dec 08 - 06:17 PM
Little Hawk 21 Dec 08 - 06:42 PM
Bobert 21 Dec 08 - 07:37 PM
Amos 21 Dec 08 - 07:50 PM
Bobert 21 Dec 08 - 07:55 PM
Barry Finn 21 Dec 08 - 08:02 PM
Little Hawk 21 Dec 08 - 08:33 PM
kendall 21 Dec 08 - 08:36 PM
Little Hawk 21 Dec 08 - 08:48 PM
Amos 21 Dec 08 - 09:11 PM
Bobert 21 Dec 08 - 09:30 PM
Little Hawk 21 Dec 08 - 09:35 PM
Bobert 22 Dec 08 - 08:06 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 22 Dec 08 - 09:20 AM
kendall 22 Dec 08 - 12:50 PM
Amos 22 Dec 08 - 01:04 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 22 Dec 08 - 02:06 PM
beardedbruce 22 Dec 08 - 02:39 PM
Amos 22 Dec 08 - 02:51 PM
Little Hawk 22 Dec 08 - 03:00 PM
Bobert 22 Dec 08 - 06:39 PM
michaelr 22 Dec 08 - 06:53 PM
kendall 22 Dec 08 - 07:23 PM
Bobert 22 Dec 08 - 08:01 PM
Little Hawk 22 Dec 08 - 08:06 PM
Bobert 22 Dec 08 - 08:29 PM
kendall 23 Dec 08 - 05:57 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 23 Dec 08 - 09:01 AM
Bobert 23 Dec 08 - 05:10 PM
kendall 23 Dec 08 - 07:33 PM
beardedbruce 23 Dec 08 - 07:49 PM
Bobert 23 Dec 08 - 07:49 PM
michaelr 24 Dec 08 - 01:31 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 24 Dec 08 - 06:57 AM
Bobert 24 Dec 08 - 07:53 AM
kendall 24 Dec 08 - 07:54 AM
Keith A of Hertford 24 Dec 08 - 08:05 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 24 Dec 08 - 08:15 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 24 Dec 08 - 08:17 AM
Bobert 24 Dec 08 - 08:21 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 24 Dec 08 - 08:44 AM
kendall 24 Dec 08 - 08:50 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 24 Dec 08 - 09:39 AM
Riginslinger 24 Dec 08 - 10:01 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 24 Dec 08 - 10:05 AM
kendall 24 Dec 08 - 10:30 AM
kendall 24 Dec 08 - 11:39 AM
Bobert 24 Dec 08 - 01:08 PM
Barry Finn 24 Dec 08 - 01:42 PM
Bobert 24 Dec 08 - 02:01 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 24 Dec 08 - 02:05 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 24 Dec 08 - 02:07 PM
Bobert 24 Dec 08 - 03:37 PM
Barry Finn 24 Dec 08 - 03:41 PM
Sawzaw 24 Dec 08 - 04:20 PM
Sawzaw 24 Dec 08 - 04:28 PM
Bobert 24 Dec 08 - 07:26 PM
kendall 24 Dec 08 - 07:57 PM
Bobert 24 Dec 08 - 08:08 PM
kendall 25 Dec 08 - 03:54 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 25 Dec 08 - 10:52 AM
GUEST,beardedbtruce 25 Dec 08 - 12:04 PM
Bobert 25 Dec 08 - 12:31 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 25 Dec 08 - 12:45 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 25 Dec 08 - 12:49 PM
Bobert 25 Dec 08 - 01:01 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 25 Dec 08 - 01:03 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 25 Dec 08 - 01:06 PM
michaelr 25 Dec 08 - 02:31 PM
GUEST,Amos 25 Dec 08 - 03:18 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 25 Dec 08 - 03:51 PM
Bobert 25 Dec 08 - 04:14 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 25 Dec 08 - 04:37 PM
kendall 25 Dec 08 - 04:53 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 25 Dec 08 - 04:56 PM
Greg F. 25 Dec 08 - 05:29 PM
Bobert 25 Dec 08 - 05:40 PM
Don Firth 25 Dec 08 - 05:51 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 25 Dec 08 - 06:09 PM
Bobert 25 Dec 08 - 06:40 PM
Barry Finn 26 Dec 08 - 01:04 AM
kendall 26 Dec 08 - 08:32 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 26 Dec 08 - 04:55 PM
Bobert 26 Dec 08 - 05:09 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 26 Dec 08 - 05:13 PM
Bobert 26 Dec 08 - 05:45 PM
freda underhill 26 Dec 08 - 06:31 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 26 Dec 08 - 07:13 PM
Bobert 26 Dec 08 - 07:23 PM
kendall 26 Dec 08 - 07:39 PM
Bobert 26 Dec 08 - 07:44 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 26 Dec 08 - 07:49 PM
Bobert 26 Dec 08 - 08:24 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 26 Dec 08 - 08:37 PM
Bobert 26 Dec 08 - 09:09 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 26 Dec 08 - 09:19 PM
freda underhill 27 Dec 08 - 03:19 AM
akenaton 27 Dec 08 - 03:54 AM
akenaton 27 Dec 08 - 03:57 AM
kendall 27 Dec 08 - 06:56 AM
beardedbruce 29 Dec 08 - 06:20 AM
kendall 29 Dec 08 - 09:18 AM
GUEST,Beardedbruce 29 Dec 08 - 09:26 AM
kendall 29 Dec 08 - 11:09 AM
Greg F. 29 Dec 08 - 12:48 PM
Sawzaw 07 Jan 09 - 09:00 PM
Sawzaw 07 Jan 09 - 09:32 PM
kendall 07 Jan 09 - 09:46 PM
Sawzaw 07 Jan 09 - 10:27 PM
Teribus 08 Jan 09 - 01:43 AM
Bobert 08 Jan 09 - 06:39 PM
kendall 08 Jan 09 - 08:05 PM
Bobert 08 Jan 09 - 08:22 PM
Amos 08 Jan 09 - 08:47 PM
Bobert 08 Jan 09 - 09:15 PM
Sawzaw 08 Jan 09 - 11:35 PM
Teribus 09 Jan 09 - 02:09 AM
Gervase 09 Jan 09 - 02:47 AM
beardedbruce 09 Jan 09 - 07:07 AM
Gervase 09 Jan 09 - 08:10 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 09 Jan 09 - 08:13 AM
Gervase 09 Jan 09 - 09:01 AM
Amos 09 Jan 09 - 09:05 AM
beardedbruce 09 Jan 09 - 09:13 AM
Gervase 09 Jan 09 - 10:18 AM
pdq 09 Jan 09 - 10:29 AM
beardedbruce 09 Jan 09 - 10:48 AM
Gervase 09 Jan 09 - 11:13 AM
beardedbruce 09 Jan 09 - 11:22 AM
Gervase 09 Jan 09 - 12:04 PM
Teribus 09 Jan 09 - 01:15 PM
pdq 09 Jan 09 - 01:30 PM
beardedbruce 09 Jan 09 - 01:33 PM
Bobert 09 Jan 09 - 04:21 PM
beardedbruce 09 Jan 09 - 04:32 PM
Teribus 09 Jan 09 - 05:30 PM
Gervase 09 Jan 09 - 05:31 PM
Bobert 09 Jan 09 - 05:32 PM
Gervase 09 Jan 09 - 05:40 PM
kendall 09 Jan 09 - 08:45 PM
Bobert 09 Jan 09 - 09:05 PM
Sawzaw 10 Jan 09 - 12:56 AM
Teribus 10 Jan 09 - 04:53 AM
Sawzaw 24 Jan 09 - 12:59 PM
Bobert 24 Jan 09 - 04:48 PM
Sawzaw 25 Jan 09 - 01:01 PM
Sawzaw 25 Jan 09 - 02:20 PM
Amos 25 Jan 09 - 02:47 PM
Nickhere 25 Jan 09 - 09:29 PM
Sawzaw 25 Jan 09 - 11:07 PM
Teribus 25 Jan 09 - 11:08 PM
Sawzaw 25 Jan 09 - 11:40 PM
Amos 26 Jan 09 - 10:59 AM
Stringsinger 26 Jan 09 - 02:29 PM
Bobert 26 Jan 09 - 07:41 PM
Sawzaw 27 Jan 09 - 12:33 AM
Amos 27 Jan 09 - 12:55 AM
Teribus 27 Jan 09 - 02:30 PM
Amos 27 Jan 09 - 06:27 PM
Bobert 27 Jan 09 - 06:38 PM
Barry Finn 27 Jan 09 - 07:48 PM
Teribus 28 Jan 09 - 11:20 AM
Teribus 28 Jan 09 - 11:33 AM
Amos 28 Jan 09 - 02:41 PM
Stringsinger 28 Jan 09 - 02:54 PM
Bobert 28 Jan 09 - 06:40 PM
Teribus 28 Jan 09 - 07:06 PM
Bobert 28 Jan 09 - 09:11 PM
Amos 28 Jan 09 - 09:16 PM
Barry Finn 28 Jan 09 - 09:55 PM
Teribus 29 Jan 09 - 04:46 AM
Teribus 29 Jan 09 - 08:14 AM
Sawzaw 29 Jan 09 - 02:15 PM
Amos 29 Jan 09 - 02:36 PM
Bobert 29 Jan 09 - 07:53 PM
Sawzaw 29 Jan 09 - 08:21 PM
Amos 29 Jan 09 - 08:43 PM
Sawzaw 30 Jan 09 - 04:33 PM
Bobert 30 Jan 09 - 05:05 PM
Stringsinger 30 Jan 09 - 05:33 PM
Teribus 30 Jan 09 - 05:49 PM
Sawzaw 30 Jan 09 - 08:54 PM
Sawzaw 30 Jan 09 - 09:11 PM
Sawzaw 30 Jan 09 - 09:32 PM
Sawzaw 30 Jan 09 - 09:50 PM
Sawzaw 30 Jan 09 - 10:23 PM
Sawzaw 30 Jan 09 - 10:37 PM
Bobert 31 Jan 09 - 09:00 AM
Sawzaw 31 Jan 09 - 10:27 AM
Sawzaw 31 Jan 09 - 10:29 AM
Sawzaw 31 Jan 09 - 10:55 AM
Sawzaw 31 Jan 09 - 11:14 AM
Stringsinger 31 Jan 09 - 01:03 PM
Amos 31 Jan 09 - 02:28 PM
Teribus 31 Jan 09 - 06:44 PM
Amos 31 Jan 09 - 06:57 PM
robomatic 31 Jan 09 - 07:03 PM
Bobert 31 Jan 09 - 07:54 PM
Stringsinger 01 Feb 09 - 04:06 PM
Bobert 01 Feb 09 - 04:51 PM
Teribus 01 Feb 09 - 06:00 PM
Keith A of Hertford 02 Feb 09 - 03:00 AM
Bobert 02 Feb 09 - 08:00 AM
Keith A of Hertford 02 Feb 09 - 09:19 AM
Teribus 02 Feb 09 - 11:37 AM
Stringsinger 02 Feb 09 - 12:44 PM
Bobert 02 Feb 09 - 04:23 PM
Keith A of Hertford 02 Feb 09 - 04:51 PM
Teribus 02 Feb 09 - 05:40 PM
beardedbruce 03 Feb 09 - 07:43 AM
Bobert 03 Feb 09 - 08:24 AM
beardedbruce 03 Feb 09 - 10:04 AM
Teribus 03 Feb 09 - 11:52 AM
Bobert 03 Feb 09 - 06:37 PM
Sawzaw 03 Feb 09 - 10:31 PM
beardedbruce 04 Feb 09 - 07:19 AM
Teribus 04 Feb 09 - 11:26 AM
beardedbruce 04 Feb 09 - 11:35 AM
Bobert 04 Feb 09 - 05:43 PM
Teribus 04 Feb 09 - 07:08 PM
Bobert 04 Feb 09 - 07:26 PM
Teribus 05 Feb 09 - 01:39 AM
Bobert 05 Feb 09 - 07:58 AM
Teribus 05 Feb 09 - 05:24 PM
Sawzaw 06 Feb 09 - 01:35 AM
Bobert 06 Feb 09 - 07:49 AM
TIA 06 Feb 09 - 12:45 PM
Teribus 06 Feb 09 - 01:03 PM
Sawzaw 06 Feb 09 - 01:30 PM
Stringsinger 06 Feb 09 - 04:04 PM
Bobert 06 Feb 09 - 04:13 PM
Amos 06 Feb 09 - 10:22 PM
Sawzaw 07 Feb 09 - 10:36 PM
Bobert 08 Feb 09 - 08:27 AM
Sawzaw 08 Feb 09 - 11:36 AM
Sawzaw 08 Feb 09 - 11:55 AM
Stringsinger 08 Feb 09 - 03:07 PM
Bobert 08 Feb 09 - 04:19 PM
Sawzaw 08 Feb 09 - 04:24 PM
Bobert 08 Feb 09 - 06:37 PM
Teribus 09 Feb 09 - 04:37 AM
Barry Finn 09 Feb 09 - 09:15 AM
Teribus 09 Feb 09 - 09:58 AM
TIA 09 Feb 09 - 10:36 AM
Teribus 09 Feb 09 - 10:53 AM
Stringsinger 09 Feb 09 - 12:47 PM
Barry Finn 09 Feb 09 - 04:57 PM
Bobert 09 Feb 09 - 05:18 PM
Folkiedave 09 Feb 09 - 05:30 PM
Sawzaw 09 Feb 09 - 11:15 PM
Teribus 10 Feb 09 - 12:54 AM
Bobert 10 Feb 09 - 07:52 AM
Teribus 10 Feb 09 - 11:26 AM
Sawzaw 10 Feb 09 - 01:44 PM
Stringsinger 10 Feb 09 - 04:32 PM
Teribus 10 Feb 09 - 04:50 PM
TIA 10 Feb 09 - 06:08 PM
Bobert 10 Feb 09 - 06:34 PM
Sawzaw 10 Feb 09 - 06:42 PM
Sawzaw 10 Feb 09 - 06:52 PM
Sawzaw 10 Feb 09 - 07:22 PM
Sawzaw 10 Feb 09 - 07:34 PM
Bobert 10 Feb 09 - 07:46 PM
Sawzaw 10 Feb 09 - 09:59 PM
Bobert 10 Feb 09 - 10:20 PM
Sawzaw 10 Feb 09 - 10:42 PM
Sawzaw 10 Feb 09 - 11:43 PM
Teribus 11 Feb 09 - 02:42 AM
Bobert 11 Feb 09 - 07:58 AM
Teribus 11 Feb 09 - 08:48 AM
TIA 11 Feb 09 - 10:34 AM
beardedbruce 11 Feb 09 - 10:39 AM
beardedbruce 11 Feb 09 - 10:41 AM
Teribus 11 Feb 09 - 11:57 AM
TIA 11 Feb 09 - 02:04 PM
Teribus 11 Feb 09 - 05:19 PM
TIA 11 Feb 09 - 05:27 PM
Bobert 11 Feb 09 - 05:37 PM
Teribus 11 Feb 09 - 05:38 PM
Teribus 11 Feb 09 - 06:02 PM
Folkiedave 11 Feb 09 - 07:13 PM
Bobert 11 Feb 09 - 08:41 PM
Sawzaw 11 Feb 09 - 11:04 PM
Teribus 12 Feb 09 - 01:54 AM
Sawzaw 12 Feb 09 - 01:29 PM
Bobert 12 Feb 09 - 07:57 PM
Sawzaw 12 Feb 09 - 11:43 PM
Sawzaw 12 Feb 09 - 11:50 PM
Bobert 13 Feb 09 - 07:48 AM
Teribus 13 Feb 09 - 09:57 AM
Sawzaw 13 Feb 09 - 10:07 AM
Sawzaw 13 Feb 09 - 11:12 AM
Stringsinger 13 Feb 09 - 03:50 PM
Bobert 13 Feb 09 - 06:26 PM
Stringsinger 13 Feb 09 - 07:17 PM
Bobert 13 Feb 09 - 07:38 PM
Barry Finn 13 Feb 09 - 07:42 PM
Teribus 13 Feb 09 - 08:23 PM
Bobert 13 Feb 09 - 08:48 PM
Sawzaw 13 Feb 09 - 10:13 PM
Teribus 14 Feb 09 - 06:52 AM
Bobert 14 Feb 09 - 08:03 AM
Barry Finn 14 Feb 09 - 08:23 AM
Sawzaw 14 Feb 09 - 09:34 AM
Bobert 14 Feb 09 - 05:01 PM
Teribus 14 Feb 09 - 06:53 PM
Folkiedave 14 Feb 09 - 07:02 PM
Teribus 14 Feb 09 - 07:21 PM
Bobert 14 Feb 09 - 07:35 PM
Bobert 14 Feb 09 - 08:19 PM
Teribus 15 Feb 09 - 02:54 AM
Folkiedave 15 Feb 09 - 06:16 AM
Teribus 15 Feb 09 - 08:56 AM
Folkiedave 15 Feb 09 - 12:04 PM
Sawzaw 15 Feb 09 - 12:30 PM
Bobert 15 Feb 09 - 02:22 PM
Sawzaw 16 Feb 09 - 02:00 AM
Sawzaw 16 Feb 09 - 02:01 AM
Sawzaw 16 Feb 09 - 02:10 AM
Sawzaw 16 Feb 09 - 02:14 AM
Folkiedave 16 Feb 09 - 04:05 AM
Bobert 16 Feb 09 - 08:15 AM
Sawzaw 16 Feb 09 - 10:12 AM
Teribus 16 Feb 09 - 01:03 PM
Stringsinger 16 Feb 09 - 06:09 PM
Sawzaw 16 Feb 09 - 06:17 PM
Teribus 17 Feb 09 - 10:35 AM
Folkiedave 17 Feb 09 - 02:35 PM
Teribus 17 Feb 09 - 06:52 PM
Folkiedave 18 Feb 09 - 05:02 AM
Bobert 18 Feb 09 - 07:40 AM
GUEST,AR 18 Feb 09 - 10:09 AM
Folkiedave 18 Feb 09 - 03:38 PM
Sawzaw 02 Mar 09 - 01:23 AM
Bobert 02 Mar 09 - 08:53 AM
Sawzaw 02 Mar 09 - 11:02 PM
Barry Finn 03 Mar 09 - 01:03 AM
Bobert 03 Mar 09 - 07:16 AM
Teribus 03 Mar 09 - 10:37 AM
Teribus 03 Mar 09 - 10:50 AM
Amos 03 Mar 09 - 11:19 AM
Teribus 03 Mar 09 - 11:46 AM
Sawzaw 03 Mar 09 - 01:41 PM
Sawzaw 03 Mar 09 - 02:49 PM
Lighter 03 Mar 09 - 03:56 PM
Sawzaw 03 Mar 09 - 05:39 PM
Amos 03 Mar 09 - 05:43 PM
Bobert 03 Mar 09 - 06:02 PM
Bobert 03 Mar 09 - 06:40 PM
GUEST,TIA 03 Mar 09 - 08:08 PM
Bobert 03 Mar 09 - 08:42 PM
Lighter 03 Mar 09 - 09:35 PM
Sawzaw 03 Mar 09 - 10:55 PM
Amos 03 Mar 09 - 11:07 PM
Bobert 04 Mar 09 - 07:55 AM
Lighter 04 Mar 09 - 09:03 AM
Sawzaw 04 Mar 09 - 11:24 AM
Sawzaw 04 Mar 09 - 11:50 AM
Amos 04 Mar 09 - 11:51 AM
Amos 04 Mar 09 - 12:20 PM
Barry Finn 04 Mar 09 - 01:06 PM
Sawzaw 04 Mar 09 - 03:35 PM
Amos 04 Mar 09 - 03:53 PM
Sawzaw 04 Mar 09 - 04:11 PM
Amos 04 Mar 09 - 04:13 PM
Bobert 04 Mar 09 - 05:52 PM
Sawzaw 04 Mar 09 - 09:34 PM
TIA 04 Mar 09 - 11:11 PM
Bobert 05 Mar 09 - 08:11 AM
Sawzaw 05 Mar 09 - 10:24 AM
Bobert 05 Mar 09 - 11:10 AM
Peter K (Fionn) 05 Mar 09 - 06:33 PM
Sawzaw 05 Mar 09 - 10:49 PM
Teribus 06 Mar 09 - 01:04 AM
Amos 06 Mar 09 - 01:30 AM
Bobert 06 Mar 09 - 07:26 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 06 Mar 09 - 08:01 AM
Bobert 06 Mar 09 - 08:36 AM
Peter K (Fionn) 06 Mar 09 - 09:08 AM
Sawzaw 06 Mar 09 - 09:43 AM
Amos 06 Mar 09 - 10:30 AM
Teribus 06 Mar 09 - 01:10 PM
Stringsinger 06 Mar 09 - 03:39 PM
Gervase 06 Mar 09 - 05:39 PM
Teribus 06 Mar 09 - 06:02 PM
Amos 06 Mar 09 - 08:16 PM
Bobert 06 Mar 09 - 09:24 PM
Sawzaw 06 Mar 09 - 11:51 PM
Amos 07 Mar 09 - 12:12 AM
Teribus 07 Mar 09 - 02:54 AM
Barry Finn 07 Mar 09 - 03:52 PM
Amos 07 Mar 09 - 04:17 PM
Teribus 08 Mar 09 - 05:45 AM
Bobert 08 Mar 09 - 08:01 AM
Gervase 08 Mar 09 - 03:06 PM
Teribus 08 Mar 09 - 05:39 PM
Bobert 08 Mar 09 - 08:41 PM
Teribus 09 Mar 09 - 02:00 AM
Barry Finn 09 Mar 09 - 06:46 AM
Gervase 09 Mar 09 - 07:54 AM
Teribus 09 Mar 09 - 01:49 PM
Gervase 10 Mar 09 - 08:42 AM
Bobert 10 Mar 09 - 09:49 AM
Teribus 10 Mar 09 - 12:33 PM
Gervase 10 Mar 09 - 12:44 PM
Teribus 10 Mar 09 - 01:32 PM
Teribus 10 Mar 09 - 01:34 PM
Gervase 10 Mar 09 - 06:43 PM
Bobert 10 Mar 09 - 07:34 PM
Teribus 11 Mar 09 - 02:25 AM
Gervase 11 Mar 09 - 03:07 AM
Teribus 11 Mar 09 - 01:14 PM
Gervase 11 Mar 09 - 01:48 PM
Teribus 11 Mar 09 - 02:24 PM
Amos 11 Mar 09 - 02:30 PM
beardedbruce 11 Mar 09 - 02:57 PM
Teribus 11 Mar 09 - 05:13 PM
Bobert 11 Mar 09 - 08:03 PM
Amos 11 Mar 09 - 08:51 PM
Bobert 11 Mar 09 - 09:10 PM
beardedbruce 12 Mar 09 - 06:49 AM
beardedbruce 12 Mar 09 - 06:57 AM
beardedbruce 12 Mar 09 - 07:19 AM
Bobert 12 Mar 09 - 07:39 AM
beardedbruce 12 Mar 09 - 07:59 AM
Teribus 12 Mar 09 - 11:47 AM
Bobert 12 Mar 09 - 06:27 PM
Gervase 12 Mar 09 - 06:50 PM
Bobert 12 Mar 09 - 07:28 PM
Barry Finn 12 Mar 09 - 07:58 PM
Amos 12 Mar 09 - 08:16 PM
Bobert 12 Mar 09 - 09:07 PM
GUEST,TIA 12 Mar 09 - 10:21 PM
Teribus 13 Mar 09 - 01:27 AM
Barry Finn 13 Mar 09 - 02:49 AM
Amos 13 Mar 09 - 09:59 AM
Amos 13 Mar 09 - 11:18 AM
Teribus 13 Mar 09 - 11:50 AM
Teribus 13 Mar 09 - 11:51 AM
Teribus 13 Mar 09 - 12:42 PM
Amos 13 Mar 09 - 03:14 PM
Teribus 13 Mar 09 - 04:58 PM
Gervase 13 Mar 09 - 06:02 PM
Bobert 13 Mar 09 - 08:10 PM
Teribus 13 Mar 09 - 09:49 PM
Teribus 13 Mar 09 - 10:04 PM
Ron Davies 13 Mar 09 - 10:14 PM
Barry Finn 14 Mar 09 - 12:40 AM
Teribus 14 Mar 09 - 07:47 AM
Teribus 14 Mar 09 - 08:20 AM
Gervase 14 Mar 09 - 06:22 PM
Bobert 14 Mar 09 - 06:54 PM
Teribus 14 Mar 09 - 07:08 PM
Bobert 14 Mar 09 - 07:17 PM
Teribus 14 Mar 09 - 08:03 PM
cobra 14 Mar 09 - 08:22 PM
Gervase 15 Mar 09 - 03:58 AM
Teribus 15 Mar 09 - 05:13 AM
Gervase 15 Mar 09 - 07:12 AM
Teribus 15 Mar 09 - 07:36 AM
Gervase 15 Mar 09 - 10:50 AM
Bobert 15 Mar 09 - 11:01 AM
Teribus 15 Mar 09 - 03:32 PM
Stringsinger 15 Mar 09 - 04:09 PM
Bobert 15 Mar 09 - 05:39 PM
Gervase 15 Mar 09 - 05:51 PM
Teribus 16 Mar 09 - 02:07 AM
Gervase 16 Mar 09 - 04:21 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 16 Mar 09 - 06:37 AM
Bobert 16 Mar 09 - 07:52 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 16 Mar 09 - 08:31 AM
GUEST,TIA 16 Mar 09 - 09:07 AM
Teribus 16 Mar 09 - 12:54 PM
Bobert 16 Mar 09 - 03:21 PM
Amos 16 Mar 09 - 03:36 PM
Teribus 16 Mar 09 - 04:02 PM
Bobert 16 Mar 09 - 04:54 PM
GUEST,TIA 16 Mar 09 - 05:35 PM
Teribus 16 Mar 09 - 06:40 PM
Barry Finn 17 Mar 09 - 01:28 AM
Teribus 17 Mar 09 - 01:59 AM
Gervase 17 Mar 09 - 03:32 AM
beardedbruce 17 Mar 09 - 06:34 AM
beardedbruce 17 Mar 09 - 07:30 AM
beardedbruce 17 Mar 09 - 07:33 AM
beardedbruce 17 Mar 09 - 07:39 AM
beardedbruce 17 Mar 09 - 08:08 AM
beardedbruce 17 Mar 09 - 08:17 AM
beardedbruce 17 Mar 09 - 08:20 AM
GUEST,TIA 17 Mar 09 - 08:53 AM
Gervase 17 Mar 09 - 09:01 AM
Gervase 17 Mar 09 - 09:05 AM
Amos 17 Mar 09 - 09:54 AM
beardedbruce 17 Mar 09 - 10:25 AM
Gervase 17 Mar 09 - 10:35 AM
beardedbruce 17 Mar 09 - 10:59 AM
Gervase 17 Mar 09 - 11:08 AM
Amos 17 Mar 09 - 11:17 AM
beardedbruce 17 Mar 09 - 11:24 AM
beardedbruce 17 Mar 09 - 11:25 AM
Amos 17 Mar 09 - 11:28 AM
beardedbruce 17 Mar 09 - 11:37 AM
Stringsinger 17 Mar 09 - 01:45 PM
GUEST,TIA 17 Mar 09 - 01:53 PM
beardedbruce 17 Mar 09 - 02:05 PM
Teribus 17 Mar 09 - 02:05 PM
beardedbruce 17 Mar 09 - 02:11 PM
Amos 17 Mar 09 - 02:35 PM
beardedbruce 17 Mar 09 - 02:45 PM
Bobert 17 Mar 09 - 05:23 PM
Gervase 17 Mar 09 - 05:23 PM
GUEST,TIA 17 Mar 09 - 11:21 PM
beardedbruce 18 Mar 09 - 06:05 AM
beardedbruce 18 Mar 09 - 06:10 AM
beardedbruce 18 Mar 09 - 06:13 AM
beardedbruce 18 Mar 09 - 06:18 AM
beardedbruce 18 Mar 09 - 06:20 AM
Bobert 18 Mar 09 - 08:20 AM
beardedbruce 18 Mar 09 - 08:30 AM
beardedbruce 18 Mar 09 - 08:46 AM
Amos 18 Mar 09 - 09:45 AM
beardedbruce 18 Mar 09 - 09:52 AM
Amos 18 Mar 09 - 10:05 AM
beardedbruce 18 Mar 09 - 10:17 AM
beardedbruce 18 Mar 09 - 10:20 AM
Bobert 18 Mar 09 - 10:46 AM
beardedbruce 18 Mar 09 - 10:57 AM
beardedbruce 18 Mar 09 - 11:01 AM
Teribus 18 Mar 09 - 11:53 AM
Amos 18 Mar 09 - 12:00 PM
GUEST,TIA 18 Mar 09 - 12:37 PM
Bobert 18 Mar 09 - 01:03 PM
Stringsinger 18 Mar 09 - 03:19 PM
Teribus 19 Mar 09 - 01:52 AM
Barry Finn 19 Mar 09 - 03:13 AM
Bobert 19 Mar 09 - 07:49 AM
Teribus 19 Mar 09 - 12:45 PM
GUEST,TIA 19 Mar 09 - 01:51 PM
Teribus 19 Mar 09 - 01:55 PM
Teribus 19 Mar 09 - 02:04 PM
Amos 19 Mar 09 - 02:26 PM
Stringsinger 19 Mar 09 - 06:50 PM
Amos 19 Mar 09 - 07:28 PM
Bobert 19 Mar 09 - 07:40 PM
Teribus 20 Mar 09 - 12:07 AM
Bobert 20 Mar 09 - 07:55 AM
Teribus 20 Mar 09 - 12:16 PM
GUEST,TIA 20 Mar 09 - 03:25 PM
Amos 20 Mar 09 - 03:39 PM
Bobert 20 Mar 09 - 03:39 PM
Stringsinger 20 Mar 09 - 06:31 PM
Bobert 20 Mar 09 - 06:49 PM
Teribus 21 Mar 09 - 05:29 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 21 Mar 09 - 06:02 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 21 Mar 09 - 06:58 AM
Bobert 21 Mar 09 - 07:55 AM
beardedbruce 22 Mar 09 - 12:52 AM
Sawzaw 22 Mar 09 - 12:56 AM
Barry Finn 22 Mar 09 - 01:39 AM
Teribus 22 Mar 09 - 04:09 AM
beardedbruce 22 Mar 09 - 10:07 AM
beardedbruce 22 Mar 09 - 10:10 AM
Amos 22 Mar 09 - 11:49 AM
beardedbruce 22 Mar 09 - 12:02 PM
Amos 22 Mar 09 - 12:06 PM
Amos 22 Mar 09 - 12:11 PM
Amos 22 Mar 09 - 02:37 PM
Gervase 22 Mar 09 - 03:42 PM
Teribus 22 Mar 09 - 04:04 PM
Amos 22 Mar 09 - 04:57 PM
Sawzaw 23 Mar 09 - 12:45 AM
Bobert 23 Mar 09 - 08:19 AM
Sawzaw 23 Mar 09 - 11:30 AM
Sawzaw 23 Mar 09 - 11:54 AM
Teribus 23 Mar 09 - 12:00 PM
Teribus 23 Mar 09 - 12:02 PM
Sawzaw 23 Mar 09 - 12:11 PM
Amos 23 Mar 09 - 01:39 PM
Sawzaw 23 Mar 09 - 01:42 PM
Bobert 23 Mar 09 - 05:31 PM
Teribus 23 Mar 09 - 07:09 PM
Bobert 23 Mar 09 - 07:30 PM
Sawzaw 23 Mar 09 - 10:23 PM
Amos 23 Mar 09 - 11:31 PM
Teribus 24 Mar 09 - 02:06 AM
Bobert 24 Mar 09 - 08:18 AM
beardedbruce 24 Mar 09 - 11:39 AM
Teribus 24 Mar 09 - 01:46 PM
Bobert 24 Mar 09 - 04:26 PM
Sawzaw 25 Mar 09 - 08:53 AM
Bobert 25 Mar 09 - 04:15 PM
michaelr 26 Mar 09 - 12:58 AM
Teribus 26 Mar 09 - 02:05 AM
Bobert 26 Mar 09 - 08:12 AM
Teribus 26 Mar 09 - 12:01 PM
Amos 26 Mar 09 - 03:41 PM
Bobert 26 Mar 09 - 05:26 PM
Sawzaw 26 Mar 09 - 10:53 PM
Bobert 27 Mar 09 - 08:06 AM
GUEST,*bumper sticker* 27 Mar 09 - 10:49 AM
Sawzaw 27 Mar 09 - 12:52 PM
Sawzaw 27 Mar 09 - 01:21 PM
Sawzaw 27 Mar 09 - 01:28 PM
Amos 27 Mar 09 - 02:20 PM
Sawzaw 27 Mar 09 - 03:12 PM
GUEST,TIA 27 Mar 09 - 05:49 PM
Bobert 27 Mar 09 - 06:39 PM
Teribus 27 Mar 09 - 06:49 PM
Bobert 27 Mar 09 - 07:34 PM
Bobert 27 Mar 09 - 07:42 PM
TIA 28 Mar 09 - 12:48 AM
Teribus 28 Mar 09 - 02:16 AM
TIA 28 Mar 09 - 08:49 AM
Bobert 28 Mar 09 - 09:17 AM
Sawzaw 30 Mar 09 - 02:00 PM
Sawzaw 12 Apr 09 - 09:52 PM
Sawzaw 12 Apr 09 - 10:00 PM
Bobert 13 Apr 09 - 07:47 AM
GUEST,TIA 13 Apr 09 - 11:25 PM
Bobert 14 Apr 09 - 07:34 PM
Barry Finn 14 Apr 09 - 07:59 PM
Sawzaw 14 Apr 09 - 08:49 PM
Sawzaw 14 Apr 09 - 09:01 PM
Bobert 14 Apr 09 - 10:20 PM
Sawzaw 14 Apr 09 - 10:54 PM
Barry Finn 15 Apr 09 - 01:48 AM
Bobert 15 Apr 09 - 07:21 AM
Sawzaw 16 Jun 09 - 07:16 AM
Bobert 16 Jun 09 - 07:40 AM
Amos 16 Jun 09 - 12:21 PM
Bobert 16 Jun 09 - 07:29 PM
Sawzaw 17 Jun 09 - 09:15 AM
Bobert 17 Jun 09 - 12:55 PM
Amos 17 Jun 09 - 01:33 PM
Sawzaw 17 Jun 09 - 04:34 PM
Amos 17 Jun 09 - 04:57 PM
Bobert 17 Jun 09 - 05:29 PM
Sawzaw 18 Jun 09 - 01:34 AM
Bobert 18 Jun 09 - 08:14 AM
Sawzaw 18 Jun 09 - 08:59 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 18 Jun 09 - 02:29 PM
Bobert 18 Jun 09 - 08:02 PM
mg 19 Jun 09 - 12:56 AM
TIA 19 Jun 09 - 01:12 AM
Bobert 19 Jun 09 - 07:57 AM
Teribus 19 Jun 09 - 01:13 PM
beardedbruce 19 Jun 09 - 01:18 PM
Amos 19 Jun 09 - 01:45 PM
Sawzaw 19 Jun 09 - 01:46 PM
beardedbruce 19 Jun 09 - 02:02 PM
Amos 19 Jun 09 - 03:09 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 19 Jun 09 - 03:37 PM
Bobert 19 Jun 09 - 05:46 PM
Sawzaw 20 Jun 09 - 09:15 AM
Bobert 20 Jun 09 - 09:25 AM
Amos 20 Jun 09 - 11:38 AM
Sawzaw 26 Jun 09 - 12:05 AM
GUEST,TIA 26 Jun 09 - 12:24 AM
Sawzaw 26 Jun 09 - 08:54 AM
Stringsinger 26 Jun 09 - 02:37 PM
ard mhacha 26 Jun 09 - 03:01 PM
ard mhacha 26 Jun 09 - 03:06 PM
Amos 26 Jun 09 - 03:34 PM
Amos 29 Jun 09 - 01:41 PM
Amos 02 Jul 09 - 11:10 AM
Amos 02 Jul 09 - 11:56 AM
Sawzaw 14 Oct 09 - 11:10 PM
Stringsinger 18 Oct 09 - 01:23 PM
Bobert 18 Oct 09 - 04:48 PM
CarolC 18 Oct 09 - 05:56 PM
Stringsinger 18 Oct 09 - 06:15 PM
Sawzaw 19 Oct 09 - 12:11 AM
Bobert 19 Oct 09 - 07:47 PM
GUEST,Ben Franklin 19 Oct 09 - 11:23 PM
Sawzaw 20 Oct 09 - 09:08 AM
Sawzaw 21 Oct 09 - 12:46 AM
Bobert 21 Oct 09 - 08:29 AM
Sawzaw 06 Mar 10 - 12:01 PM
Bobert 06 Mar 10 - 12:26 PM
Royston 06 Mar 10 - 12:45 PM
Bobert 06 Mar 10 - 05:43 PM
Sawzaw 07 Mar 10 - 01:37 AM
Sawzaw 08 Mar 10 - 12:31 AM
Sawzaw 11 Mar 10 - 11:29 PM
Teribus 12 Mar 10 - 11:17 AM
Amos 12 Mar 10 - 11:35 AM
Teribus 12 Mar 10 - 05:13 PM
Amos 12 Mar 10 - 07:51 PM
Teribus 13 Mar 10 - 04:51 AM
Sawzaw 16 Mar 10 - 01:11 AM
Sawzaw 17 Apr 10 - 02:05 AM
Bobert 17 Apr 10 - 08:32 AM
Teribus 17 Apr 10 - 09:18 AM
Sawzaw 17 Apr 10 - 01:54 PM
The Fooles Troupe 18 Apr 10 - 02:45 AM
Bobert 18 Apr 10 - 08:34 AM
Amos 18 Apr 10 - 10:10 AM
Teribus 18 Apr 10 - 11:00 AM
The Fooles Troupe 18 Apr 10 - 07:12 PM
Bobert 18 Apr 10 - 11:04 PM
Sawzaw 18 Apr 10 - 11:48 PM
The Fooles Troupe 19 Apr 10 - 12:11 AM
Teribus 19 Apr 10 - 01:01 AM
Sawzaw 19 Apr 10 - 01:45 AM
The Fooles Troupe 19 Apr 10 - 03:59 AM
Bobert 19 Apr 10 - 08:00 AM
Sawzaw 19 Apr 10 - 10:23 AM
Sawzaw 19 Apr 10 - 10:29 AM
Teribus 19 Apr 10 - 04:26 PM
Bobert 19 Apr 10 - 08:40 PM
Sawzaw 20 Apr 10 - 01:47 AM
Teribus 20 Apr 10 - 02:06 AM
Teribus 20 Apr 10 - 06:31 AM
Bobert 20 Apr 10 - 07:20 AM
Teribus 20 Apr 10 - 09:16 AM
Bobert 20 Apr 10 - 01:18 PM
Sawzaw 20 Apr 10 - 01:36 PM
Teribus 20 Apr 10 - 03:37 PM
Teribus 21 Apr 10 - 10:44 AM
Bobert 21 Apr 10 - 12:40 PM
Sawzaw 21 Apr 10 - 01:22 PM
Teribus 21 Apr 10 - 01:41 PM
Bobert 21 Apr 10 - 10:31 PM
Teribus 22 Apr 10 - 12:25 AM
The Fooles Troupe 24 Apr 10 - 08:30 PM
The Fooles Troupe 24 Apr 10 - 08:33 PM
Bobert 24 Apr 10 - 09:07 PM
The Fooles Troupe 24 Apr 10 - 09:08 PM
The Fooles Troupe 24 Apr 10 - 09:11 PM
The Fooles Troupe 24 Apr 10 - 09:17 PM
The Fooles Troupe 24 Apr 10 - 09:21 PM
Sawzaw 02 Oct 10 - 12:59 PM
Greg F. 02 Oct 10 - 02:49 PM
Little Hawk 02 Oct 10 - 03:24 PM
Sawzaw 02 Oct 10 - 06:06 PM
Sawzaw 02 Oct 10 - 06:14 PM
GUEST,mg 02 Oct 10 - 07:23 PM
The Fooles Troupe 03 Oct 10 - 12:03 AM
Teribus 03 Oct 10 - 04:54 AM
Teribus 03 Oct 10 - 06:02 AM
The Fooles Troupe 03 Oct 10 - 09:59 AM
Greg F. 03 Oct 10 - 10:14 AM
Bobert 03 Oct 10 - 08:21 PM
Sawzaw 05 Oct 10 - 02:52 PM
Bobert 05 Oct 10 - 08:04 PM
Sawzaw 05 Oct 10 - 09:49 PM
Bobert 05 Oct 10 - 10:02 PM
Teribus 12 Oct 10 - 10:48 AM
Sawzaw 12 Oct 10 - 10:51 AM
Little Hawk 12 Oct 10 - 10:58 AM
Sawzaw 13 Oct 10 - 02:02 AM
Bobert 13 Oct 10 - 08:02 AM
andrew e 13 Oct 10 - 05:46 PM
Amos 13 Oct 10 - 08:25 PM
Bobert 13 Oct 10 - 09:26 PM
Sawzaw 13 Oct 10 - 10:41 PM
Bobert 13 Oct 10 - 11:01 PM
Sawzaw 13 Oct 10 - 11:07 PM
Sawzaw 14 Oct 10 - 02:54 PM
Bobert 14 Oct 10 - 08:14 PM
Sawzaw 28 Oct 11 - 09:57 AM
Sawzaw 28 Oct 11 - 10:22 AM
GUEST,Teribus 29 Oct 11 - 03:06 AM
akenaton 29 Oct 11 - 03:40 AM
Stringsinger 29 Oct 11 - 11:26 AM
Bobert 29 Oct 11 - 09:27 PM
GUEST,Teribus 30 Oct 11 - 04:54 AM
Donuel 30 Oct 11 - 05:33 AM
Bobert 30 Oct 11 - 11:56 AM
GUEST,Teribus 30 Oct 11 - 12:05 PM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Oct 11 - 02:17 PM
Bobert 30 Oct 11 - 03:27 PM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Oct 11 - 03:37 PM
akenaton 30 Oct 11 - 05:01 PM
Bobert 30 Oct 11 - 05:08 PM
GUEST,Teribus 31 Oct 11 - 02:18 AM
Bobert 31 Oct 11 - 09:55 AM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Oct 11 - 10:36 AM
GUEST,Teribus 31 Oct 11 - 05:41 PM
Bobert 31 Oct 11 - 05:44 PM
GUEST,Teribus 31 Oct 11 - 07:47 PM
Bobert 31 Oct 11 - 07:55 PM
GUEST,Teribus 01 Nov 11 - 01:34 AM
Bobert 01 Nov 11 - 08:48 AM
Stringsinger 01 Nov 11 - 03:20 PM
GUEST,Teribus 01 Nov 11 - 04:30 PM
GUEST 02 Nov 11 - 01:06 PM
Bobert 02 Nov 11 - 01:24 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 02 Nov 11 - 02:30 PM
Bobert 02 Nov 11 - 05:08 PM
Bobert 02 Nov 11 - 05:19 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 02 Nov 11 - 06:40 PM
Bobert 02 Nov 11 - 06:59 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 03 Nov 11 - 07:26 AM
Bobert 03 Nov 11 - 08:57 PM

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













Subject: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Dec 08 - 06:59 PM

Well as a side-bar on the "Shoe Throwers" thread, the Iraq War has raised it's ugly head yet again with my ol' bud, Teribus, conviently dodging the realites surrounding the day leading up to George "The Decider" Bush making the worst decision of his presidency...

Here are the facts that T-zer won't acknowledge...

1. After the weapons inspectors were pushed out of Iraq in 1998, they we back shortly after UN Resolution 1441 of November 8, 2002 was adopted.

2. By January 27th, 2003, Hans Bliz gave a progress report to the UN in which he 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 gelp in building up the infastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosui. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable."

Then in Bliz's summation he says:

"We have now an inspection appartus 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 has been built-up ina short time and which is now operating, is at the disposal of the Security Council."

These were the facts on the ground, T... We were told that the reason for invading Iraq was because it possessed WMDs yet Bush refused to accepth the fact that inspectors were there and the Iraqi's were coopertaing... You can blow and blow about 1441 but these were the facts...

Why Bush felt he had to invade will be up to armchair historians and psycologists but the fact did not warrent this war...

You and others refuse to accept the facts... You once challenged me to provide Hans Blix's actual words in the report and then right on back to your laundry list of irrelevent stuff that really has nothing to do with the facts on the ground on January 27, 2003...

I know that you won't eccept them now either becuase if you did then you would have to admit that you were wrong... You haver accused me of lieing in one of your recent posts but it isn't me who has trouble accepting the truth...

The above is the truth....

Now I hope that you and the other war-apologists will just accept the fact that you were wrong...

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 19 Dec 08 - 07:11 PM

Why not let people read the ENTIRE Blix Report, Bobert? It makes clear that Saddam was no complying with UNR1441.



http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix/index.html

"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.

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 9994 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 the Resolution 1284, we find the issues listed in the two reports I mentioned as unresolved professionally justified.

These reports do not contend that weapons of mass destruction remain in Iraq, but nor do they exclude that possibility. They point to a 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 [the] 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 during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.
"


Do you need more direct quotes from Blix?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 19 Dec 08 - 07:14 PM

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 Iraq minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. I'm 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 rocket 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 few years at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. The 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 four chemical rockets at a storage depot in al-Haji. I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of ... a mustard [gas] precursor.

While 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 supervision and had installed it 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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 19 Dec 08 - 07:15 PM

I turn to biological weapons. I mention the issue of anthrax to the council on previous occasions, 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 over 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 submission to the Amorim panel in February 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 the letter of 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." This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 liters of concentrated anthrax.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 19 Dec 08 - 07:16 PM

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 an 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-Samud II and a solid propellant missile called Al-Fatah. Both missiles have been tested to arrange in excess of the permitted range of 150 kilometers, with the Al-Samud 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're still undergoing development.

The Al-Samud's diameter was increased from an earlier version to the president 760 mm. 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 mm. 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 tests 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 2002. Foremost among these is import of 300 rockets engines which may be used for the Al-Samud II.

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 19 Dec 08 - 07:17 PM

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 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 mm 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 and how they have been used. They should also have letters of credit and bills of lading, reports and production and losses of material.

In response to a recent UNMOVIC request for a number of specific documents, the only new documents Iraq provided was a ledger of 1,093 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 programs. 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 lacing 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 papers from their work places.

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.

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 no sanctuaries for proscribed items, activities or documents. A denial of prompt access to any site will be 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 ask 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 Iraqis have committed themselves to supplementing the list, and some 80 additional names have been provided.

In the past, much valuable information came from interviews. There are also cases in which the interviewee was clearly intimidated by the presence of an interruption by Iraq officials.

This was the background to Resolution 1441's provision for a right for UNMOVIC and the IAEA to hold private interviews "in the mode or the location" of our choice in Baghdad or even abroad.

Today, 11 individuals were asked for interviews in Baghdad by us. The replies have 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. At our recent talks in Baghdad, the Iraqi side committed itself to encourage persons to accept interviews in private, that is to say alone with us. Despite this, the pattern has not changed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Dec 08 - 07:30 PM

Fine, bb... Just which part of the entire report superceeds what the portions that I quoted and justified pulling the plug on the inspections???

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: SINSULL
Date: 19 Dec 08 - 07:35 PM

How much of this was actually found in Iraq? Seems to me, I remember, none.

And how many other despots have been allowed to maim and murder their citizens while we trade with them? Send money?

Teribus claims that mudcatters are against this war IN HINDSIGHT. I opposed it from the beginning and wept the day it started. 4000 Americans dead, thousands of Iraquis dead, thousands of Iraqis orphaned and widowed, many thousands of new terrorists created. Well done!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 Dec 08 - 07:52 PM

Hindsight my arse. Put Iraq in the thread title search and read some of the pre-war threads. There's plenty there to show many, many of us opposed the shrub's world abomination.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: kendall
Date: 19 Dec 08 - 08:18 PM

Rumsfeldt recently said in an interview that Bush did not consult any of his advisers before going into Iraq. It was illegal from day one.

So, let's suppose for a minute that he did have WMDs. Who would he threaten? Us? Hardly. Israel? Possibly, but Israel knows a thing or two about neutralizing threats to its existence.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Dec 08 - 08:22 PM

Exactly, Kat... I remember well the things you were not only saying here but doing in yer community... I remember eacha nd every one of you and what you said and what you did... I even remember those of you who were strugglin' to oppose the war... You know who you are... All of you...

T would have us think that we didn't all come thru this together but we did and we all know what happened... We are not part of a generation that will buy the "revised version"...

I didn't ven want to start this thread but T has been pushin' for a revisionist fight with me on another thread... Even stooped to saying that I was lieing... I feel sorry for T and the Bush/War apologists here because they will have to carry this burden for the rest of their lives but...

...it's never too late to look at the old arguments and admit that they were wrong... There is a lot of "truth" in "the truth will set you free"... I know that T is probably paid to come here and sing the company fight song... I would hope the others aren't and have the option of sayin', "Hey, I messed up"...

This ain't about win/lose... It's about setting history right and about, once again, bringing an awareness that, in the words of Voltaire, "Those who don't know history tend to repeat it."....

Peace,

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Dec 08 - 08:24 PM

Cross posted, Kendall, but good point... Even if Isreal was threatened, Isreal had enough fire power to wipe any adversary off the globe if Isreal so wanted...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: artbrooks
Date: 19 Dec 08 - 08:45 PM

Why don't you people all give it a rest? At this point, whether we care or not how it began, it did and there's little or nothing to do about it now. Anyone who thinks that anyone in the current administration will ever be held accountable for anything in connection with it all, whether they deserve to be or not, is fooling themselves. Let's put our minds and efforts toward getting the troops and "contractors" out of Iraq and allowing the Iraqis the opportunity to run their own lives and nation, for better or for worse.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 19 Dec 08 - 08:48 PM

Bobert,

Which part of the entire report justifies the continuing violation of UNR by Saddam? I quoted a part: Shall I post the rest? The conclusions reported are that Saddam was NOT in complience, nor making a true effort to comply.

As has been stated here before, IMHO it is the words and demonstrations of the Left against any action about Saddam that are the cause of the war- Had he not been encouraged to resist the UN by those saying that no effort should be made to force him to comply with the ceasefire terms, Saddam would have taken the earlier offer to go off ( with his money) into "retirement" ( see the Saudi efforts just after UNR1441). Those who protested the war the most ( while NOT even asking that Saddam comply with the UN) are more top blame for that war than Bush.

To demand that the UN NOT take action, and then NOT demand that Saddam comply is direct encouragement of Saddam and his efforts to remain in violation of the ceasefire terms.

Just my opinion, as supported by the UN reports and Saddam's subsequent actions.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Dec 08 - 09:02 PM

Well, bb, what you apparently are unwilling to accept it the facts as I pointed them out at the beginning of this thread... Regardless of what Saddam was doing, wanted to do, hoped to do, thought he might be able to do is not relevant to my arguments...

My argument then, as it is today, is that with inspectors in place for about 2 months and a cooperating Iraqi governemnt that time was on our side... There was no hurry... There were people, Scott Ritter, a former inspector who were begging Bush to step back... Ten upon millions of people around the world were doing the same thing...

If ever a president was given every opportunity to not scrww up it was then and Bush was too stubborn to listen...

I don't give rat's ass about poeple who now ****proclaim**** that Iraq, Saddam or Donald Duck was this or that... Who cares, bb??? The facts on the ground as of Jan. 27, 2003 were not the basis for the war...

Your opinion, bb, will be shot up like Swiss Cheeze by historians... It was wrong then and given what has transpired it is 100 times wronger now...

Give it up, bb... Give it up...

Yo, art,

Hey, I didn't want this thread... I didn't seak it out... Teribus pushed and pushed on another thread and this thread had to happen...

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: kendall
Date: 19 Dec 08 - 09:51 PM

What would have happened if George H.W. Bush's Ambassador had not told Saddam that we didn't care what he did over there?Would he have invaded Kuwait?

I wonder what would have happened if Truman's sec. state, Dean Acheson, hadn't said that there was nothing in Southeast Asia of interest to us? Would North Korea have invaded South Korea?

Voltaire was right.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 01:17 AM

Bobert:

How do your "facts" prove anybody was wrong about anything? Only with your special spin do they indicate anything other than the fact that the majority of the Democratic party was in agreement with Bush.

How many of them said there are no WMD's????????????????

Now with red faces and their asses hanging out they need to explain away their call to war. I was duped means I am a dupe. The victim defense.

S. 205, the "Iraqi Scientists Immigration Act of 2003," introduced by Senator Joe the Fumbler Biden on January 23, 2003. S. 205 passed the Senate by unanimous consent on March 20 and was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary on March 24. This bill would provide up to 500 visas for workers in WMD programs and their families that are willing to and capable of providing information to the United States or the UN. Originally conceived of before the war, Senator Biden has suggested that the bill's authority could offer positive inducements to scientists, if they are needed, to locate Iraqi WMD and to "keep Iraqi weapons experts from selling their materials or knowledge to rogue states or terrorist groups."

Uranium shipped to Montreal from Iraq in top secret mission

July 5, 2008 Associated Press

The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program, a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium, reached Montreal on Saturday to complete a top-secret U.S. operation. The removal of 550 metric tonnes of "yellowcake," the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment, included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a voyage across two oceans. The Iraqi government sold the yellowcake to a Canadian uranium producer, Cameco Corp., in a transaction the official described as worth "tens of millions of dollars."

A Cameco spokesman, Lyle Krahn, said the yellowcake will be processed at facilities in Ontario for use in energy-producing reactors. "We are pleased … that we have taken [the yellowcake] from a volatile region into a stable area to produce clean electricity," Krahn said. U.S. and Iraqi forces have guarded the 9,300-hectare yellowcake site since its discovery.

The deal culminated more than a year of intense diplomatic and military initiatives — kept hushed in fear of ambushes or attacks once the convoys were under way. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid their nuclear ambitions.

Diplomats and military leaders first weighed the idea of shipping the yellowcake overland to Kuwait's port on the Persian Gulf. Such a route, however, would pass through Iraq's Shiite heartland and be within easy range of extremists. The ship also would need to clear the narrow Strait of Hormuz at the mouth of the Gulf, where U.S. and Iranian ships often come in close contact.

Kuwaiti authorities, too, were reluctant to open their borders to the shipment despite top-level lobbying from Washington.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Barry Finn
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 01:51 AM

In hindsight there are plenty of us who were against the Iraq war from the start. Here's a Thread that takes you to a thread that links a bunch of the early thread about the Grand Iraq Mistake

I can't believe that there's anyone left in American or in the world except for the Village Idiot that got US into the War that still believes it's not a mistake.

"When will they ever learn?"

Barry


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: kendall
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 08:09 AM

It was all based on lies from Bush. He had intelligence that the congress didn't have, and he twisted it to show what he wanted them to believe. How were they to know he was lying?

How many people would still be alive if the USA would just stay out of other countries business? We have started every war that we have ever been a part of and this latest is the most transparent of them all.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 08:40 AM

The USA stayed out of Rwanda's business. How did that work out?

Who started the Korean war? Who started WW I and II? And you talk about twisting the facts.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 08:52 AM

Yeah, Kendall... Ever since WWII all of our wars have been motivated by either our greed for other folkls resources or geopolitics...

I'm not saying there is ever a good war but there are wars where there is not other choice... Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, The Gulf War, Iraq (to some extent Afganistan) are all wars of choice... Now we have genocide in Zimbabwe and Darfur but I there are no resources in either of them to interest US so we just wringe our hands and say, "How terrible" and then go off to the mall...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 10:20 AM

Ahhhh, just clicked on the threads and began reading "PART EIGHT" and...

...it's deja vu all over again...

I found it interesting that the arguemnts by the anti-war folks were making are the same arguments that we are making today and the arguments by T & Co., inspite of what we now know, inspite of them changing their justification almost daily there for a while and inspite of upwards of a million Iraqi deaths, that these folks still don't have enough grace and humility to say, "We messed up."...

One of those arguments that I have agin put forward is that "time is (was) on our side" 02Oct02 03:35pm...

That is the part that Bush and T and bb got so very wrong... Had the inspectors been given a chance, rather than the "bum's rush" in Bush, T and bb's "mad-dash-to-attack-Iraq" then this war most certainly never would have occured... They wanted that war so bad that they could taste it...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: kendall
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 12:45 PM

Who started WW 1? as far as we were concerned, we got into it because the Germans torpedoed the Lusitania killing American civilians. They were warned not to enter a war zone and they went anyway. The ship was carrying munitions for England, and Germany took out ads in New York papers warning us that any ship entering British waters with munitions for England would be fair game.

"If you know the dog bites"

WW 2. Roosevelt ordered the Japanese out of China and Indochina. Then he stopped all exports to Japan. Finally, he froze all of Japans assets in American banks. From their point of view, we asked for it.

Korea. Where the hell did we get the right to split Korea? What
tore the gag off the bush" was when Dean Acheson, Truman's sec. of state said that there was nothing in that area of any interest to us. The North Koreans took that as a green light.
The bombing of the towers was not an act of war, it was a criminal act that Iraq had NOTHING to do with.

We haven't always fired the first shot as we did at Lexington and Concord, 1812, the Mexican war, the Spanish American war, etc. but we sure as hell made sure we were involved in every war we have ever been in.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 12:58 PM

"Who started WW I and II?"

Well...that's a bit complicated. Let's start with WWI.

It's a bit tricky saying who "started" that one, because it was triggered off by two sets of entangling alliances and what we would today term a terrorist assassination.

The Serbs were attempting to separate from Austria-Hungary. (that's the sort of ethnically-driven argument that has been going on in the Balkans since time immemorial) The Austro-Hungarian government did not approve of Serbian secession from the empire (SURPRISE!)...when does a large empire or government EVER approve of some part of its territory seceding? Americans killed 500,000 of each other over such a dispute in the Civil War.

A fanatical Serbian nationalist assassinated the Austrian Archduke, who I believe was the heir to the Austrian throne. This infuriated the Austrians and war became inevitable at that point...war between Serbia and Austria-Hungary, that is.

One little problem! Russia had an alliance with the Serbs, that if anyone attacked them then Russia would declare war on that power. So....

1. Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia
2. Russia declared war on Austria-Hungary

A further little problem! Germany had a similar alliance with Austria-Hungary, so Germany declared war on Russia.

And yet a further little problem! France and the UK had an alliance with Russia, so France and the UK declared war on Germany.

Now....who is to blame for all that? They were all to blame as far as I can see. They all stupidly stumbled into a hideous world conflict and none of them could possibly have imagined how long it would last and how much suffering it would cause.

You cannot blame any one country for starting that war, though it is always fashionable for the winners to blame the losers once it's over, right? (So I would assume you were somehow blaming Germany for the whole thing? Or was it someone else?)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: artbrooks
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 01:31 PM

LH, Serbia was an independent nation in 1914, having fought its own war of succession against the Turks a few years earlier. Historically, it was never part of the Austo-Hungarian Empire. I recommend Barbara Tuchman's book "The Guns of August" for a readable account of the beginnings of WW-1.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 02:12 PM

There's a program coming up on History International that might explain why Joe Lieberman and his friends in congress thought it was so important to invade Iraq. See Attached:


Few people realize that the Baath party was actually formed upon the principles and organizational structure of the Nazi party. Iraq, because of its oil and hatred of Jews, was an important battleground between the Axis and Allied powers in World War II. Nazi propaganda was broadcast throughout Baghdad, and Iraqis often went on rampages against Jews throughout the war. One of the most ardent Nazi supporters during WWII was named Khairallah Talfah. Talfah was Saddam's uncle. After the war, many of the key Iraqi Nazi supporters, all of whom evaded prosecution, wound up involved in Saddam's rise to power. This special examines the key individuals of the Iraqi-Nazi connection, the little-known battle for Iraq in WWII, and the strange link to Saddam Hussein.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: kendall
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 03:38 PM

LH, I was concentrating only on the USA. We could have stayed out of it simply by not shipping munitions to England in a passenger ship and denying that we were doing it. History has proved that the Germans were right in sinking the Lusitania.(From their point of view)

The fact that we wanted to get into it to support England is another matter.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: michaelr
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 03:43 PM

Quote from bb: "it is the words and demonstrations of the Left against any action about Saddam that are the cause of the war"

That has to be one of the most egregious lies I've yet seen on the subject. You war apologists have blood on your hands same as Bush and his henchmen.

And Bobert -- the war was NOT a mistake, but a crime.

Artbrooks -- those of us who care about justice will not "give it a rest", as you advocate. Would you have said the same to Simon Wiesenthal?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: DougR
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 05:11 PM

Uh, Bobert, what country's resources have been gained by the United States as a result of any wars since WW2?

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 05:35 PM

None, Dougie, because we have lost them all...

Unless, of course you consider that little sham of a police action called Gulf I in which the US probably gained seom geopolitical advantage, got to shoot up a bunch of stuff that would necessite havinf to buy more of it from defenese contractors...

The others, including, all went into the lost column...

Maybe there's a coorelation...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: kendall
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 07:26 PM

We are addicted to war.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 07:44 PM

That's about right, Capt'n...

I mean, if we do the math we've been warin' with someone more years since WW II than we ain't... It's almost become a perpetual and endless war...

And what is real scarey is that from Korea to Nam we had almost a decade of no war but in Ike's farwell address he warned US of the new boogie man: The Military Industrial Complex!!!

Ike knew of what he spoke...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: kendall
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 08:31 PM

We dont listen to anyone; including Osama Bin Laden who has told us why they hate us, but we still choose to believe the moron and his crap about freedom.

Bin Laden told his followers that the best way to beat America is to bankrupt us. The moron is helping him do that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: artbrooks
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 08:36 PM

Please feel free to tilt at all of the windmills you want, MichaelR. There is about the same chance of anyone in the Bush administration being indicted for anything, ever, as there is of any of them being extradited to the World Court anytime this millennium.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 08:45 PM

Well, Art... Four years ago what were the chances of a black man becoming president... There is always hope... Yeah, I understand that Bush can pardon everyone else but the only person after Jan. 20 who can pardon Bush will be President Obama... Will that happen??? I donno... I hope not...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 09:09 PM

I thought Bush could pardon himself. I read that someplace.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 09:16 PM

Don't think so, Rigs... I think that is waht impeachment is all about... But I could be wrong...

No matter, if there was ever a guy in neded of a pardon, it's Bush...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 09:54 PM

Yeah, I guess that's right. A president certainly couldn't pardon himself around an impeachment. But all an impreachment does is remove him from office, doesn't it?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 10:15 PM

Thanks for the correction about Serbia, Art. You are correct. In any case, it was an argument between the Serbs and the Austro-Hungarians that started the misadventure called WWI.

kendall - Yes, the USA could have stayed out of WWI. I suspect they went in for a variety of reasons (realpolitik being what it is), but there was no single reason pressing enough, in my opinion, that they had to go in. It was an option, but it was certainly not a necessity, from the American point of view. Perhaps the US government was concerned about the influence it could bring to bear after the war by using its power to help bring about an Allied victory...and the influence it might lose in the postwar scene by not taking part in that victory. I don't know what was in their minds.

All powers in time of war sink ships like the Lusitania by submarine attack whenever they get the chance to. That's what war is like. The British knew the risk that the liner was running, the passengers knew it too, and they decided to take that risk. They gambled and lost. If it had been a German or Austrian liner that was sunk by a British submarine, you wouldn't have heard nearly as much about it, then or now...because the winners always get a monopoly on moral outrage, don't they? (at least for a few decades immediately after a war)

*** Everybody ends up killing many innocent people during a war. Why? Well, in order to do significant material damage to the opposing side, that's why. It always looks like a good idea at the time. No submarine captain in any navy will let a giant enemy ship pass by during wartime and not attempt to sink it. ***


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 10:53 PM

Bush is passing the torch to Obama, who approves of the additional troops for Afganistan now being talked about. Obama estimates 10,000 more.
Gates will place 7000 more early in 2009, and Gen. McKiernan in Afganistan is asking for 20,000 more. NATO has 34,000 troops there and Obama is asking for more. How soon will depend on the drawdown in Iraq. The UK also has promised more troops. Probably be 2011 before all (nearly all) troops leave Iraq, and much later for Afganistan.

Gates says, "This is a long fight and I think we're in it until we are successful. ...... How many years that is and how many troops that is I think nobody knows at this point."

I agree that Iraq was a mistake, but now salvage operations will have to continue. Afganistan was probably a worse mistake, but too late to cry over it. Millions of Pushtun support the biblical age culture that the Taliban is fighting for. Obama will continue the policies, so no peace in that area for a long time.

Impeachment? What rubbish! -to quote the late Benazir Bhutto. A waste of time to talk about it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: artbrooks
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 10:55 PM

Unfortunately, Bobert, while he has made many really stupid decisions, and done much that many people, including me, consider to be far beyond the realm of reasonableness, it is unlikely that Bush has actually broken any laws. I'm sure that there are those who will disagree, at length, but breaking a law means the willful violation of a specific section of the United States Code, and he (and his cohorts) have a large number of very talented attorneys who have, I'm certain, ensured that they have not done so. The International Criminal Court has no jurisdiction.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: michaelr
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 11:25 PM

Art, you did not answer my question: Would you have said "give it a rest" to Simon Wiesenthal?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 11:27 PM

I would have!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: artbrooks
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 11:52 PM

MichaelR, my comment was addressed to those who feel it necessary to engage in fruitless discussions. There is no similarity with the activities of Mr. Wiesenthal. Please feel free to read my response to Bobert. Wiesenthal was after people who had committed crimes in their own nations, and anyone he captured or located was extradited to that nation or to some other nation who had legal jurisdiction. Bush has committed no crime punishable under any legal framework, whether you, or I, or anyone else likes it or not.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 01:24 AM

I think that is a very problematic proposition, Art. He has falsified his reports to Congress and the people, violated his oath, and violated the Constitution and the Geneva Convention on spurious grounds. And there may well be other crimes behind the scenes, given his intimacy with both the oil industry and the Saudis.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 01:45 AM

"We have started every war that we have ever been a part of"

The above statement is (check one)

_____________ true

_____________ false

_____________ a twisting of the facts to suit one's agenda.

In WW I Austria was the first country to declare war, on Yugoslavia. On August 4, 1914, German troops invaded Luxembourg and Belgium.

WW II started September 1 1939 when Hitler declared war on Poland.
December 11, 1941 Germany Declared War on America.December 11, 1941.

North Korea invaded South Korea June 25 1950.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 02:07 AM

michaelr said Artbrooks -- those of us who care about justice will not "give it a rest", as you advocate. Would you have said the same to Simon Wiesenthal?

Wiesenthal did important work in the time relevant to WWII. But yes, "give it a rest" definitely needs to be the message to the government of Israel that has, ironically and tragically, duplicated the ghettos in which Jews were situated during that war. Look at Gaza, look at the Palestinian refugee camps. The Jews did that to the Palestinians. "A child learns what it lives" is more than the first line of a poem on baby formula cans.

SRS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: michaelr
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 02:34 AM

"Bush has committed no crime punishable under any legal framework"

That is wishful thinking, not fact. Vincent Bugliosi has laid out the applicable framework quite convincingly. Whether any US attorneys will have the guts to pursue it is another question.

My point is that justice and ethics do not cater to political convenience. If something is wrong, it is wrong, mo matter what 21st century America thinks people can get away with.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 05:35 AM

We've not always seen eye to eye in the past SRS, but your last post was spot on in my book.....Ake


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: kendall
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 08:21 AM

Sawzaw, re read my post. We did not start WW 1 in Europe. We DID start our involvement in it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: artbrooks
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 09:02 AM

As I said earlier, feel free to tilt at windmills. I have no particular interest in continuing to discuss an issue that has no possible endpoint. I'm out of here.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 12:40 PM

After reading several times "We have started every war that we have ever been a part of" I still come up with the same conclusion. The USA did not start ww I, II or the Korean war.

Some wars were started on false pretenses like the Spanish American war and the war in Vietnam but not "every war" as claimed.

On December 11 1941, Hitler and Mussolini, the respective dictators of Germany and Italy, declared war on the United States. The United States responded on the same day by declaring war on Germany and Italy. On June 5, 1942, the United states declared war with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania. The US declared war against Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania in response to the declarations of war by those nations against the United States.

North Korean invaded South Kores on June 25, 1950 and the United States responded by going to its assistance, pursuant to United Nations Security Council resolutions. Over 36,600 US military were killed in action.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 01:31 PM

I did some reading up on the U-boat war in WWI. The primary issue that brought the USA into war with Germany (and Austria-Hungary) was the German submarine campaign. The Germans twice instituted "unrestricted" submarine warfare in WWI, since it was their best chance to defeat the UK. The UK could not survive without a steady flow of imports brought in by ships. So the Germans instituted unrestricted submarine warfare (meaning they released their U-boats to attack without warning and sink any merchant ship bringing supplies into the UK). This naturally endangered a certain number of American lives, and the USA was naturally not pleased about that. However, the Germans felt that it was worth the risk of provoking the USA, because it was the one and only practicable way they could decisively defeat the UK...and win the war.

They pursued this policy up until the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915. That sinking caused such a storm of anti-German feeling in the USA and such a propaganda windfall for the British that the Germans were compelled to stop their used of unrestricted submarine warfare for fear of bringing the USA into the war. They didn't stop the U-boat war entirely, of course, but they had to considerably restrict which ships they were targeting from that point on....and the damage to the UK economy was greatly reduced as a consequence, which defeated the purpose of the U-boat war from the German point of view.........so the overall effect was that the sinking of the Lusitania gave the British a lengthy respite from the worst effects of the German submarine campaign.

That situation endured until 1917, when the Germans decided to resume unrestricted submarine warfare in a last ditch attempt to starve out the UK and win the war. Even neutral ships were targeted if they were bringing supplies into the UK. Now, the Germans knew that this would inevitably bring the USA into the war, but they hoped to defeat England and France before the USA could bring its strength to bear (figure about 6 months for the Americans to effectively bring powerful forces into the western front). It was the last throw of the dice for the Germans, and it almost succeeded as their final offensive in the West nearly broke through to Paris...

...but the French and British managed to hold the line. And the USA was now in the war, having declared war on Germany. And that was that. The Germans had made their last great effort, nearly won out, but not quite good enough....and from that point on their defeat by attrition was inevitable.

It is perfectly understandable, under the circumstances, that the USA would have gone to war against Germany in 1917. It doesn't indicate that the Germans were any more to blame overall for WWI than anyone else was, but their submarine campaign was what brought the USA into that war. It's also perfectly understandable in a military sense why the Germans fought that submarine campaign. Like any nation, they were doing whatever they thought could secure them a victory, and using the practical means at hand.

Submarine warfare was a shocking new development at that time, because in previous wars blockades had always been accomplished by surface ships which were not usually required to sink foreign merchant ships...just to force their surrender, put a prize crew aboard, and take over that ship. Submarines had no room for either prize crews or prisoners, had to strike by stealth and sink merchant ships outright, often causing the death of much or most of the crew. This was shocking to people of the time, it was seen as a war crime by those affected, but it WAS the only effective way to use a submarine, so naturally that was what the Germans did (and so did everyone else who had submarines from that point on).

When a new technology re-writes the rules of war, people are usually pretty horrified about it. Some examples....

submarine warfare
aerial bombing of metropolitan areas
poison gas warfare
machine guns
tanks
atomic weapons

In WWI a number of new weapons were introduced and war became far more terrible than it had ever been before. People stumble inevitably and tragically into such developments, because our technological expertise is usually charging along way ahead of our grasp of morals, ethics, and our (leaders') willingness to forgo competition in favor of peace and accomodation.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 01:31 PM

The Shiny new VP elect on April 29, 2007:

Well, the point is, it turned out they didn't (have WMDs), but everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them. He catalogued—they catalogued them. This was not some, some Cheney, you know, pipe dream. This was, in fact, catalogued. They looked at them and catalogued. What he did with them, who knows? The real mystery is, if he, if he didn't have any of them left, why didn't he say so? Well, a lot of people say if he had said that, he would've, you know, emboldened Iran and so on and so forth.
But the point was, we were talking then about whether or not we could keep the pressure of the international community on Iraq to stay in the box we had them in. And remember, you had the French and others say the reason all those children were dying in Iraq, the reason why hospitals didn't have equipment is because of what we, the United States, were doing, imposing on Iraq these sanctions. And that was the battle. The battle was do we lift these sanctions or do we in fact increase the sanctions? And everyone at the time was talking about—from the secretary of state to even the president—that this was to demonstrate to the world the president of the United States had the full faith and credit of the United States Congress behind him to put pressure on the rest of the world to say, "Hey, look, you lift the sanctions, you're—we're going to be on our own here. Don't lift the sanctions. Get the inspectors back in." That was the context of the debate, to be fair about it...
...The threat he presented was that, if Saddam was left unfettered, which I said during that period, for the next five years with sanctions lifted and billions of dollars into his coffers, then I believed he had the ability to acquire a tactical nuclear weapon—not by building it, by purchasing it. I also believed he was a threat in that he was—every single solitary U.N. resolution which he agreed to abide by, which was the equivalent of a peace agreement at the United Nations, after he got out of—after we kicked him out of Kuwait, he was violating.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 01:49 PM

Not everyone in the world thought that Iraq had WMDs... That is a falst statement... Scott Ritter, who had been a weapons inspector, was blackballed by Big Media for trying to debunk the Bush/Cheney/Wolfowitz/Perle/Rice PR ***War Machine***... He spoke at rallies all over the country and was interviewed many times at Democracy Now radio...

So the ***everyone thought statement*** was blatently false...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: kendall
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 02:30 PM

You can not reason a man out of a position that he did not reason himself into.

Let me put it into simpler terms. We have gotten ourselves into every war that we have been a part of.One way or another, we have done it.

WW2 Germany had a pact with Japan, and even though Hitler did not want war with us, he had to support his ally. If Japan hadn't bombed Pearl Harbor, Hitler never would have declared war on us. He was crazy, but he wasn't foolish.

I stand by what I said, and an in depth study of history proves what I say.Needing to believe that we are always right is silly, and far from the truth.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 03:00 PM

Keep on changing your statement and saying it was true does not make it the truth.

It would be a bit more manly and morally responsible to retract your statement and sate the facts. Otherwise it is the practice of twisting the facts to achieve a goal.

Now as to the staying out of other nations business, How did that work out in Rwanda?

Should the USA stay out of Sudan's business?

So the ***everyone thought statement*** (by Joe the Fumbler) was blatently false. Now I am seeing some backbone.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: pdq
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 03:09 PM

Will someone from the Politically Correct crowd please explain what WMD means to them.

It seems to have taken on a meaning of it's own, as with "WMDs = the stuff that Bush didn't find".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 04:43 PM

It's interesting to look at those old threads from 2002, and see how some of the most enthusiastic advocates for the war and the pre-war stuff while Bush and Co were threading water have failed to show up in this one.

.....................
WW2 Germany had a pact with Japan, and even though Hitler did not want war with us, he had to support his ally.

I'm not sure that is too conclusive a consideration, Amos. After all, they had a non-aggression pact with the USSR too and that didn't mean too much when it became convenient for Hitler to junk it. Hitler could easily have stayed on the fence after Pearl Harbour for long enough to seriously embarrass Roosevelt. I'm sure there would have been a lot of Americans who would have felt that with a war on against Japan it was no time to declare another one against Germany.

But maybe that's a drift that would better be put aside, perhaps for its own thread.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 05:56 PM

Um, Kevin, perhaps you have me confused with some other pretentious loudmouthed know-it-all wannabe pundit? Such as, mayhap, Little Hawk? I don't think I made the remark about Hitler's pact with Japan.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 06:10 PM

No - it was kendall. Sorry about that. But I don't think getting you pair confused would count as an insult. Either way.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 06:17 PM

Oh, well....that's different. I am flattered. :D



A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 06:42 PM

Geez, Amos....go easy on me, willya? Since our last go-round of promised duels, selecting seconds, and listing each other's numerous egregious character faults, I was under the impression that we had negotiated a nonagression pact that would hold for, well, at least 6 months, hopefully. ;-) I am disappointed sir, deeply disappointed, and not a little bit hurt as well. You will realize how much so in about five minutes from now when my aerial squadrons sink most of your pathetic fleet at their moorings. Banzai!!! Yes, and then you will say to yourself, "I should have been kinder to Little Hawk when I had the chance."

Now, let me pontificate a little bit more about world history. Ahem!

The way I see it, Hitler did have a treaty of (economic) alliance with Japan, yes...but that alliance in no way compelled the Germans to declare war on the USA after FDR's declaration of war on Japan. Hell no! Had the Japanese declared war on France and England in 1939 after their declarations of war on Germany? No. Had the Japanese joined the Germans in an attack on Russia in 1941? No. The Japanese proved capable of easily resisting the foolish temptation to honor their "Pact of Steel" with Italy and Germany, and had entirely stayed out of WWII until December '41 when they launched what was, in fact, a new and separate war. They entered into conflict with the USA, the UK, and Holland in December '41...NOT to support their economic alliance with Germany and Italy, but on account of their own vital strategic interests in the Pacific which had been cut off by FDR's trade embargo earlier in 1941.

Why on Earth should the Germans have declared war on the USA over Japan's problems in 1941 when Japan had declared war on no one whatsoever over Germany's problems in 1939, 1940 and 1941?????

It was an act of madness for Hitler to declare war on the USA when he did, and it astonished many, if not most of his own military staff that he did so. He did so out of sheer emotion, and he was not obliged to do so at all. He should not have, from the German point of view. He should have waited and delayed the outbreak of a war with the USA as long as possible.

FDR would have found it rather difficult to convince Congress and the American public to engage in a war against Germany if Germany had not given the USA any direct cause to. What would have been his justification for doing so when the USA had not been attacked by Germany?

My guess is that it would have taken FDR several months, maybe 6 months or more to maneuver his public and his Congress into declaring war on Germany and Italy if the Germans and Italians had stood aside. This would have been much to the advantage of the Axis.

In retrospect, it is simply incredible that Hitler would have immediately declared war on the USA in 1941 when the Japanese had never done such a thing on Germany's behalf all through the earlier phase of WWII. It indicates Hitler's lack of rationality about as clearly as anything else he ever did, in my opinion.

****

Now, wasn't that a marvelous bit of pontification, Amos? Ah yes...I delight in delivering these lofty sermons, shedding light on the dark confusion of history, clearing away the cobwebs of fossilized tradition, and bringing the blazing light of truth to the masses. ;-) If I were paid in a manner fully befitting my contributions, sir, I expect I could buy that wretched metropolis you live in outright and turn it into a theme park for dachshunds or a shrine to Winona Ryder. Ummm-hmmm. Yessiree. It would be a major improvement.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 07:37 PM

Sawz,

Are you speaking to anyone in particular or just raving???

I'm mean, really, you wer more sane when you were Old Guy but these days??? I donno...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 07:50 PM

Say, Hawk...I dunno what you're getting all bent out of shape about. At least I characterized you as an equal and a peer amongst loudmouthed pretentious pontificators...



A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 07:55 PM

Hey, listen, ya'll...Behave!!!

Two of most favorite Catters gotta get in these cat fights... Now shake hands and, ahhhh, like I said, behave...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Barry Finn
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 08:02 PM

WWI & WWII happened in a different world from where we are today. In todays's world we are suffering from the actions of a president that twisted the truth to such an extant that it's fair to call what was twisted a 'bold faced lie'. We never saw a WMD, we never found a 'mobile anything', we found nothing that substantiated any of the reasons used to go to war. Congress failed in their duty to either refuse to declare or to declare war & passed the buck.

Going over this is ridiculous. Most of the world as well as the US understands this now & is willing to change direction, the one thing that we need to learn is how to never let this happen again.

If anyone thinks the Iraqi people are better off, or for that matter if the people of the US or any other nation are better off today than they were before the invasion you are obiviously one of the very few who really made a profit & a killing from the war, otherwise you are fooling yourselves into a false out look of the world we are living in today & very much like Bush, completely out of touch with the rest of US. I suggest you put your finger on the pusle of the nation & see how slow it's heart rate has dropped.

Barry


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 08:33 PM

I gotta agree 100% with that, Barry.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: kendall
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 08:36 PM

What I said from the beginning is still there and in plain English. We did not fire the first shot in every war, as we did at Lexington and Concord etc. but we did see to it that we got into every war we have ever been in.

Rowanda has nothing to do with this, so drop the Red Herring.

As far as questioning my manhood and morality, you are skating on thin ice.

Is anyone else having trouble understanding what I said?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 08:48 PM

Another way you could put it...it's like trying to empty the sea with a bucket.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 09:11 PM

Like all nations and individuals, the United States is wholly responsible for its own involvements in peace and war. This is hardly earthshaking news, but I suppose there are some who are so in love with rationalization and justification that they cannot see the threads of personal responsibility.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 09:30 PM

Ans still no Teribus...

Hmmmmmm? Me thinks that he has either been laid off or transferred to another website where the folks is dumber than dirt...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 09:35 PM

I think he's ignoring you. Probably.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Dec 08 - 08:06 AM

A for just cause, LH, 'cause all those reems and reems of stuff he writes is just smoke as far as I can see... Hey, he was the one who challenged me to quote the Blix report to the UN... Now I have done that... You'd think with all the other insignifican stuff that he has founf that he could have found the Blix report as well???

But I ain't no psycholgist 'er nuthin'...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 22 Dec 08 - 09:20 AM

Bobert

I have pointed out thet the Blix report of Jan 27 states that Saddam had NOT cooperated, and that future efforts would be useless as long as he did not. Simple fact: He ended on a positive note ( as is cusomary in political speeches) that IF he had cooperation he could see some future achievements- but he stated throughout his talk that he did NOT have that cooperation that was required for him to do his job.




michaelr

"Quote from bb: "it is the words and demonstrations of the Left against any action about Saddam that are the cause of the war"

That has to be one of the most egregious lies I've yet seen on the subject. You war apologists have blood on your hands same as Bush and his henchmen."


As for my opinion being a lie, I can state the same about those here who do have the blood on their hands, by their encouragement of Saddam to continue not complying with the UN. Opinion is that: You may disagree with it, but if you tell me that is NOT my opinion, you are being a true SFB. Those who are Saddam apologists have the blood, not those who support the UN resolutions.

Statement of opinion: If we had NOT invaded, there would be far more dead, from every indication that I have seen.

Feel free to argue FACTS, but jusyt because you do not like my opinion is not sufficient reason for it to be invalid.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: kendall
Date: 22 Dec 08 - 12:50 PM

BB when you say there would be far more dead if we had not invaded, what do you mean? Iraqis or Americans?

As I understand it, Saddam got tired of 7 years of inspections and got his ass up. So, if there were WMDs why didn't they find them ? They had 7 years to do it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 22 Dec 08 - 01:04 PM

1. After the weapons inspectors were pushed out of Iraq in 1998, they we back shortly after UN Resolution 1441 of November 8, 2002 was adopted.

2. By January 27th, 2003, Hans Bliz gave a progress report to the UN in which he 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 Mosui. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable."

Then in Bliz's summation he says:

"We have now an inspection appartus 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 has been built-up in a short time and which is now operating, is at the disposal of the Security Council."
(FROM UPTHREAD.)

I have pointed out thet the Blix report of Jan 27 states that Saddam had NOT cooperated, and that future efforts would be useless as long as he did not. (From BB).

Is one or the other of these statements wholly false? Or is the apparent contradiction merely as matter of selected context or omissions?

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 22 Dec 08 - 02:06 PM

"BB when you say there would be far more dead if we had not invaded, what do you mean? Iraqis or Americans?"

Both, as well as other nationalities. A war involving WMD will have casualties in the millions, nothe the tens of thousands.




"As I understand it, Saddam got tired of 7 years of inspections and got his ass up. So, if there were WMDs why didn't they find them ? They had 7 years to do it."

He got tired as of 1998. He refused to comply with the 2002 resolution, since he believed ( from the support of bioth demonstrations and the direct actions of other nations to undermine the UN sanctions) that he would not be held accountable for his violations of the ceasefire terms.

The point was WMD PROGRAMS. They WERE found, but did not meet the newspaper standard of a mushroom cloud. There were chemical weapons programs found, with material, bilogocal programs ( see the Blix statement re anthrax) and nuclear ( unless he was stockpiling yellowcake 9 as shipped OUT of Iraq just recently) because he liked the yellow color. ) programs that he was prohibited from having, as well as weapons, material, and missile parts he was prohibited from having under the UNR- Yets he had gotten anyway, in spite of the "sanctions" that were supposed to prevent him form getting such.


"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 rocket 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 few years at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. The 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. " Blix


"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 over 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 submission to the Amorim panel in February 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 the letter of 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." This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 liters of concentrated anthrax. " Blix


"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 tests 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 2002. Foremost among these is import of 300 rockets engines which may be used for the Al-Samud II.

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. " Blix



"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 [the] 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 during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq." Blix


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Dec 08 - 02:39 PM

Sorry- back on machine with cookie-

Amos... How about keeping the statement in context?

"I shall deal first with cooperation on process. In this regard, it has regard to the procedures, mechanisms, infrastructure and practical arrangements to pursue inspections and seek verifiable disarmament. While the inspection is not built on the premise of confidence, but may lead to confidence if it is successful, there must nevertheless be a measure of mutual confidence from the very beginning in running the operation of inspection. Iraq has, on the whole, cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. "



http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix/index.html

It is better to read the entire report than to take ANYONE's cherrypicked comments. Why is it that I keep presenting the entire report ( and the other reports that result from UNR 1441), and those disagreeing with me keep selecting single lines out of context to quote???? What is there in the report that Amos and Bobert don't want you to read??????


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 22 Dec 08 - 02:51 PM

YEah, you're right, Bruce. So far, I have seen a lot of maybe-he-dids, but in general the facts seem to be that a huge number of chemical and biological weapons were dismantled or disposed of from 1998 on. Givent hat trend, it seems there were successful actions afoot in pressuring Iraq to complete the task, whether Saddam Hussein bloviated and beat his chest or not.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Dec 08 - 03:00 PM

Great powers always make ludicrous excuses for invading and occupying small powers, and there are always patriotic dupes like BB who believe those excuses and go on believing them, no matter how flimsy they are.

Iraq is the victim in this war, not the perpetrator and not the cause.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Dec 08 - 06:39 PM

Wxactly, LH...

I pointed out the same paragraphs that Amos pointed out where Blix gave any sane president an opportunity to back down form making a very wrong decision...

Bush didn't take that opportunity and thus...

...his legacy...

Hey, he's earned it fair and square and now if will be the historians job to figure the rest out but I don't think he'll end up ranking in the bottom 10% and may edge out the likes of Hoover and Grant for the bottom...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: michaelr
Date: 22 Dec 08 - 06:53 PM

Quote from bb: "it is the words and demonstrations of the Left against any action about Saddam that are the cause of the war"

OK, bb, my apologies. As a statement of fact, it would have been an egregious lie.

As an opinion, it is an outrageous idiocy.

That better?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: kendall
Date: 22 Dec 08 - 07:23 PM

Ok, let's say that Saddam did have WMDs. So what? So do we and many other countries. Does that give Iraq the right to invade us?
No matter how you spin it, we did to Iraq just what Japan did to us in 1941. So, how can we clam the high ground? What's to prevent some other country from invading another sovereign nation and using us as a precedent? Where does it end?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Dec 08 - 08:01 PM

It ends when people like bb and Teribus no longer have the microphone and I hope that those times are upon us (US)...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Dec 08 - 08:06 PM

The people who are most notable for having (and using) WMDs are the very people who complain loudest about others supposedly having them. Why? Well, they need to scare their own befuddled public into supporting unprovoked aggression on some minor country that is no real threat to them at all and never even could be, that's why.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Dec 08 - 08:29 PM

Yeah, only one country has nukes another in the last 60 some years, LH... But worse than that is that country wasn't content with one nukin' so it did it again...

We can talk about Hitler but he was no worse than the country that ordered up a second strike... on Nagasaki... That was barbaric and tho I wasn't yet born I was in my mamma's tummy and therefore I am ashamed...

Hiroshama was bad enough... Nagasaki was barbaric...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: kendall
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 05:57 AM

Maybe some day someone will invent a robot named "Gort" and it will solve our aggression problems.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 09:01 AM

"OK, bb, my apologies. As a statement of fact, it would have been an egregious lie.

As an opinion, it is an outrageous idiocy."


As much an idiocy as telling Saddam that he need not bother to obey the UNR, since he will not be held to account?

You can have as stupid an opinion as you like.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 05:10 PM

There are other ways to exert pressure on folks who don't obey UNRs. bb... You know that...

Starting wars is the idiocy part here... In Iraq those "pressures" were bringing results that made the invasion, to use your word, completely "stupid"...

You should give this denial up, bb... Bad for your karma...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: kendall
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 07:33 PM

"War is the ultimate failure"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 07:49 PM

Bobert,

You mean like sanctions that Blix said had not kept Saddam from getting illegal materials?

You mean like a "united front" of nations where several traded with Saddam ( and several UN officials and families got rich from "Oil for Food" deals that gave money to Saddam to build palaces?

Or do you mean like the "pressures" just before WW II giving "Peace in our Time", at the cost of 27 million people?

I have an opinion, and have seen no reasons presented with any factual support to give me any reason to change that opinion. Yours may be different: But I know that Saddam will NOT develop nor deploy any further WMD.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 07:49 PM

You are 100% right on that, Capt'n...

In the case of Iraq we were definately on a path to success with the inspectors in place and the Iraqi's cooperating...

That's the most difficult part about this war...

Bush could have had a win... Bush could have gone out as a hero... Now he will be remembered as a stubborn man who refused to accept victory and instead chose defeat???

Well, it barely gor him re-lected in '04 and if one looks at Ohio he might not have even won but he wanted his war and he got it... Guess he really showed his daddy up, didn't he???

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: michaelr
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 01:31 AM

"telling Saddam that he need not bother to obey the UNR, since he will not be held to account"

Who, exactly, told Saddam that? I know I didn't.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 06:57 AM

michaelr,

There were numerous demonstrations against the US or UN taking any action against Saddam after he failed to meet the deadline of UNR1441. In fact, I posted ( at the time) and article about an Iraqi group asking to march ( London, I think) with signs saying that Saddam should comply- they were prohibited by the march organizers, since they were not "appropriate".


If millions go out and say "NO ACTION", that gives the person being told that what he did was not going to be held accountable- or are you saying that the demonstrators really were in favor of enforcing the UNR????


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 07:53 AM

You are still in denial, bruce...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: kendall
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 07:54 AM

What exactly did Saddam do besides try to take back that part of Iraq (Kuwait) that the allies took away and created a new country?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 08:05 AM

Kuwait.
1710 CE: The traditionally counted foundation of Kuwait, when the city of Kuwait was established by immigrants (Aniza) from the Arabian peninsula.
1756: The Sabah dynasty is established with a shaykh as the leader. The shaykhdom is nominally under Ottoman rule, but has de facto independence.
1899: When the Ottoman empire tries to take control over the shaykhdom with German aid, the shaykh asks for British assistance and protection, which he gets.
1914: Britain recognize the independence of Kuwait. Wahhabis of Najd in Arabia attack Kuwait after this.

A few other things he did were invading Iran resulting in a million killed and millions of refugees, used poison gas as part of a campaign of genocide against Kurds, ...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 08:15 AM

What exactly did Hitler do besides try to take back that part of Czekoslovakia that the allies took away and created a new country of after WW I?


So we were wrong to fight WW II as well?



Hey, it's not like Kurds are real people we should care about, anyway.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 08:17 AM

Bobert,

You are in denial, that your support of the protesters helped to cause the war you wanted to prevent.

Learn the law of unintended consequences. Just because you want something does not make it so.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 08:21 AM

Like I said during Bush's mad-dash-to-attack-Iraq, if he was such a bad man then why didn't the Bush adminustration just assasinate him???

(But, Bobert... That would have been illegal...)

Oh, killing upwards of a million Iraqis, many of them kids and moms and old people was okay but, horrors, don't kill Saddam???

(But, Bobert... The US had no way of getting to him to kill him...)

Oh, but Dan Rather had no problems getting himself and a camera crew into his office...

I don't buy line of Bush/Cheney/Wolfowitz/Perle/Rice Defense anymore than I'd buy a bridge to nowhere... It's got more holes in it than swiss cheeeze...

The reality on the ground on January 27, 2003 was that this war was not called for... Period!!!

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 08:44 AM

I disagree with your opinion.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: kendall
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 08:50 AM

I was speaking from his point of view. According to him, the Kurds had tried to overthrow him, so he hit them...hard.
When did he cease being our pal? Was it shortly after he used the gas on the Kurds? the gas that the Reagan gang supplied him with?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 09:39 AM

Kendall,

And Hitler felt it was all the Jews fault, so he was ok to (legally) kill them, and the gypsies, homosexuals, and handicapped. As long as he felt it was ok, why should we have bothered him???

But FDR wanted to steal ( something) from him, and revitilize the economy, so... 27 million dead.   Bush was a piker, compared to FDR.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 10:01 AM

"But FDR wanted to steal ( something) from him, and revitilize the economy, so... 27 million dead..."


                      Okay, I'll bite. What was it that FDR wanted to steal from Hitler?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 10:05 AM

Don't know, but why else would he back the British? We don't care about other people, you know.

After all, we went into Iraq only to steal the oil ( that we did not take) Bobert said so, so it must be true.



And check when the Great Depression ended- it only got worse under FDR, until we got into war- THAT was what brought us out of it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: kendall
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 10:30 AM

It got worse because the republicans fought him tooth and nail, and he lacked the balls to really bear down and take control.
Of course, when he slapped a tax on undistributed profits in 1936, that diidn't help.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: kendall
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 11:39 AM

FDR has been called the greatest president of the 20th century, but, he lost a lot of my respect when I learned that he refused to allow a shipload of Jews who were fleeing the Nazis to land here. He was getting reports from Europe on what Hitler was doing and he didn't want to hear it so he finally told his reporters to stop giving him the reports.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 01:08 PM

Of course you "disagree with mu opinion", bruce... You did then as well...

You were looking for justifications for war and I was looking for ways to avoid it and now that this much blood has been spent you have not other choice to go to your grave defending this stupid war... If you allowed yourself to admit that it was wrong then you'd have to face the guilt of having been such a strong supporter...

You are in a real pickle of your own making, bruce... So is Bush and everyone else who will also take their stubborness to the grave...

Historians will get this right...

I feel for all of you...

BTW, I don't have a clue about blaming the invasion of those of us who demostrated against the war... That is the most twisted illogic that U have heard to date regarding this stupid war... I mean, one would have to have given one's mind over, much like the brownshirts did for Hitler, to believe such utter and rediculous crap...

B!~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Barry Finn
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 01:42 PM

Look, Bush was wrong no matter who you compare him to. He lied to the people, he lied to Congress, he lied to the world, he wanted his war & he got it, a real disaster. As the Grand Uniter he split the country, he force fed US a fear mongering policy, he took away loads of our civil & human rights, he trashed the Bill of Rights, a good percentage of the Amendments & pissed on our Constitution. He led a policy of torture & established a new form of prisoner treatment call "Extreme Rendition" in defience of the Geneva Conventions, he restarted the centuries old crusades of the West against the East to regain the "Oily Land" & his quest for "Oily Grail" has not only killed mass amounts of people, he's prevented peace from coming to the Mid East & therefore the world. His war has cost US in part the economic disater we're in now. Oh, I thought it was the Banks & mortgages that caused that? Ya, but if we had back the billions he's thrown into the desert sands would we be in as bad a shape as we are now?

Bush's war wasn't a mistake, a mistake is when you add up figures & you did it wrong, a mistake is when you forget & call someone by a wrong name, a mistake is when you forget to pay a bill on time. This was a tragedy, a once in a century disaster, a life time seditious act, a international calamity & a national catasrophe & worst it was on purpose & he only needed the help of a few traitors to pull it off. Obama, when he gets into office, should line him & his henchmen in front of a firing squad after they've been made to confess by the use of waterboarding, a sport that they condoned.
A 'MISTAKE', you have to be kidding!!!!

Barry


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 02:01 PM

Hear, hear, Barry...

Couldn't have said it better myself...

But then again, bb can sgrug off what you say as just your "opinion"... Ans seems that the newest twist is blaming the anti0war folks for the war... Yeah, that takes a major leap from reality into the abyss but that is apparently the garbafe that has been cooked up by the war-mongersto protect them from having to accept "personal responsibilty" for their support...

Tell ya' what, Barry... This stupid war has buried the phrase "personal responsibilty" from their collective vocabularies... They dare not utter it now...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 02:05 PM

Bobert,

We disagree. Shall I state that

now that this much blood has been spent you have not other choice to go to your grave defending your actions aginst Bush that caused this war? If you allowed yourself to admit that it was wrong then you'd have to face the guilt of having been such a strong supporter of Saddam, encouraging him to refuse to comply with the UNR....

?

In my opinion, MY statement is true: I have seen no reason to think otherwise in all your stated opinions.

As long as you refuse to consider that others may hold different opinions and have reason to do so, you will never be able to persuade other to even consider that YOUR opinion has any basis in reality. Stating you are right and others are wrong is not indicative of a reasoning person.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 02:07 PM

"newest twist "?????

Further evidence that you do not bother to even read what anyone you disagree with has said- I have stated this for quite a while.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 03:37 PM

Oh, you can take it to the bank that I'm readin' it, bruce...

Posted by: beardedbruce
24 Dec 08 08:17am

"Bobert

You are in denial that your support of the protesters helped cause the war you wanted to prevent."

These are your words, bb, and I'm sure everyone of us protesters and supporters of protesters would consider this to be a "new twist" by the pro-war folks here as to why Bush went against all logic on the ground and ordered the invasion anyway... I mean, until today I had never had that lame excuse for the war added to the the long list of other lame excuses...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Barry Finn
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 03:41 PM

Believe what ever you want but Bush pushed for ths war, he lied about our reasons for starting it (We did start it, when you're in a fight it the guy who throws the first punch who started it, no matter what he said about your mother), he pushed in every way possible to get it going & he did it without any consent form anyone or any BODY, as he said he'll go it alone if need be.

When someone has a gun on you, you don't goad them by saying "go ahead & shoot", it doesn't matter we shot even if we were goaded.

Barry


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 04:20 PM

Kendall:

In plain English you stated "How many people would still be alive if the USA would just stay out of other countries business? We have started every war that we have ever been a part of and this latest is the most transparent of them all.

I have stated that America did NOT start every war we have ever been in but you keep changing your statement to hide it incorrectness.

Also I have asked how that courese of action worked for Rwanda. And I have asked if America should stay out of Sudan's business.

It is realtive to your statement. Do you have an answer?

To answer your question about how many people would be alive, I think more people are alive because we acted than would be alive if we had not acted. That is a difficult if not impossible thing to prove except by examples on individual actions.

I ask your opinion on Rwanda and Sudan as examples.

Are there more people alive in Kosovo because America got involved or do you think we should have butted out and let the chips fall?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 04:28 PM

Iraq shows torture tools used by Saddam's son


Associated Press

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Torture equipment used by Saddam Hussein's slain son, Odai, to punish under performing Iraqi athletes was displayed Saturday at a Baghdad sports stadium in advance of the opening of the Olympics next month in Athens.

Journalists were shown medieval-style torture equipment, including an "iron maiden-like" casket with metal spikes fixed to the inside that athletes had been forced into and chain whips with steel barbs the size of tennis balls attached to the end.

"During the old regime, Odai was looking for results and he wanted winners. He didn't like second place," Talib Mutan, an Iraqi Olympics Committee official, told Associated Press Television News.

"If the athletes didn't come in first, they were punished. And he would punish the people around the athletes, their managers and coaches included," Mutan said.

Odai, who ran the Olympic committee while his father ruled Iraq, and his younger brother Qusai were killed in a fierce gunbattle with U.S. forces a year ago in the northern city of Mosul.

Mutan said athletes who earned Odai's wrath were tortured in various ways, through beatings, sleep deprivation and being forced to walk barefoot over hot asphalt during Iraq's searing summer.

The official said suggestions had been made to display the torture equipment in a museum, but there had been no final decision.

The International Olympic Committee reinstated Iraq's national Olympic committee in February after it was suspended following the fall of Saddam's regime in 2003, enabling Iraqi athletes to compete at this year's Summer Games.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1090765982807_13?hub=World


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 07:26 PM

No one on our side is sayin' that Saddam was saint, Sawz, so please don't beat that drum... The "Saddam is a bad man" excu7se holds no more validity than the rest of the boneheaded excuses, including the new one that my friend, bb, has added to the list of boneheaded excuses...

There is no excuse that you guys can come up with that will stand the test of time with the historians...

This war was wrong... It was evil... It was imperalistic... It was colonialistic... It was un-American... It was illegeal... It was based on lies, lies and more lies...

Your side will not turn this back on the folks who tried to stop it... It's your war... Not Barry Finn's... Not Amos's... Nor CarolC's... Not Jack the Sailor's... Not Kendall's... Not katlaughin's... Not LarryOBU's... Not Little Hawk's... Not Big Mick's... Not Frank's... Not mine... Not, not and not... It is not on our consciences....

But it very much on those who not only lacked the courage to stand up to Bush but who even now continue to try to spin their way out...

Jesus sais that there is nothing hidden that one day won't be found and no secrets that one day won't be common knowledge and Jesus hit the nail on the head with you and yer buddies... There is no place you can hide...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: kendall
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 07:57 PM

Sawzaw, I majored in American history at the U of M. I answered your questions and you simply refuse to understand.
I think you owe me an apology for questioning my manhood and morality, and until I get it, I have nothing more to say to you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 08:08 PM

Welcome to Sawz world, Capt'n...This is his MO... Hw was the same when he was Old Guy... Didn't change when he bacame Dickey and hasn'r changed this time either... The onlt thing that changes is his handle other than that, he doesn't change, he just gets more so...

He won't apologize... He won't admit that he is wrong... This is his nature...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: kendall
Date: 25 Dec 08 - 03:54 AM

No one else seems to be having trouble understanding what I said; can he really be that thick?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 25 Dec 08 - 10:52 AM

Bobert,

"Oh, you can take it to the bank that I'm readin' it, bruce..."

"I mean, until today I had never had that lame excuse for the war "

But the point is that I made THIS POINT a number of times in the PAST, starting in 2003. You obviously have NOT been reading whta has been written, if you think this is a new idea, or that had not posted it before.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: GUEST,beardedbtruce
Date: 25 Dec 08 - 12:04 PM

Bobert,

I am glad you know what Jesus said- perhaps you recall "Judge not,..."?


But it very much on those who not only lacked the courage to stand up for Bush and what was right but who even now continue to try to spin the facts...

Jesus said that there is nothing hidden that one day won't be found and no secrets that one day won't be common knowledge and Jesus hit the nail on the head with you and yer buddies... There is no place you can hide...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Dec 08 - 12:31 PM

Old Testamnet thinking... Jesus overturned the tables of the moneychangers in the temple because He "judged" them to be disrespecting the temple...

It is my "belief" that Jesus wants us to stand up when we see things are wrong and this war was wrong... Jesus, if He were of the flesh during the mad-dash days would have been in those demonstrations and would have been on the internet trying to bring His voice of reason to bear on those who were supportive of this senseless, immoral and unChristain war...

So I stand behind the two quotes, bb... I'm not judging you, or Sawz or Teribus to be bad people... But I am judging your support for this killing spree... And I very much feel that, yeah, if there is a Heaven and it reserves for folks who tried to be righteous that folks who supported this war are going to have a very difficult time with St. Peter if in this life these folks haven't asked for forgivenss for this support...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 25 Dec 08 - 12:45 PM

Bobert,

It is my "belief" that Jesus wants us to stand up when we see things are wrong and to allow Saddam to contuinue to violate the UNR was wrong.

"But I am judging your support for this killing spree... "

You ARE judgeing: In my honet opinion, what I support is the right thing, and what you support had the result of causing the war and more deaths than needed. Should * I * have acted in a way that I consider wrong? Yet you claim I will not go to heavan- Much as many claim that those who do not follow their narrow, limited views are condemend


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 25 Dec 08 - 12:49 PM

And I very much feel that, yeah, if there is a Heaven and it reserves for folks who tried to be righteous that folks who supported Saddam in not complying with the UNR are going to have a very difficult time with St. Peter if in this life these folks haven't asked for forgivenss for this support...



So I guess I will see you all in Hell.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Dec 08 - 01:01 PM

Bull, bb... Bull!!!

Had you and Bush listened to us you two wouldn't have all this blood on your hands...

Blaming folks who tried to stp this war is nothing but a defense mechanism on your part... It makes no more sense than blaming victims of crimes for the crimes...

But if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy to continue down this road of denial, projection and transference then have it...

The folks on our side know who stood up for humanity and it wasn't your side... Period...

You can parrot your mythology about how the anti-war folks are the ones responsible for the war as long as you like... It just such 100% unalter bull that it doesn't deserve any further comment from me...

So, deny away...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 25 Dec 08 - 01:03 PM


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 25 Dec 08 - 01:06 PM

Jawohl, Herr Ubermench!


You seem to be missing the point- YOU are the one in denial.





Had you and your anti-Bush friends listened to us you wouldn't have all this blood on your hands...

Blaming folks who tried to have Saddam comply with the UNR instead of forcing a war is nothing but a defense mechanism on your part... It makes no more sense than blaming victims of crimes for the crimes...

But if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy to continue down this road of denial, projection and transference then have it...

The folks on our side know who stood up for humanity and it wasn't your side... Period...

You can parrot your mythology about how the Bush folks are the ones responsible for the war as long as you like... It just such 100% unalter bull that it doesn't deserve any further comment from me...

So, deny away...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: michaelr
Date: 25 Dec 08 - 02:31 PM

Give it up, Bobert. There's no point in arguing with an idiot.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: GUEST,Amos
Date: 25 Dec 08 - 03:18 PM

Bruce:

I think you really need to rethink your perspective on this issue.

Hundreds of thousands of wrongful deaths is no matter to be stuck in rightness about. It is a glaring, colossal offense, no matter how rationalized it is made.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 25 Dec 08 - 03:51 PM

Amos,


You are correct. Those wrongful deaths are a horrible thing, and if the "popular" view ( as presented by demonstrations and news reports)had not been that Saddam did not need to comply, he probably would have left ( or complied) and those deaths would not have occurred.


The support I see here for Saddam not complying is a glaring, colossal offense, no matter how rationalized it is made. The stated purpose of those who caused this war, by that support (peace), does not match the actual effect of their actions.

Others may disagree, but I have to support what I believe is the moral, correct path- as I see it. I have been shown nothing here to alter that opinion.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Dec 08 - 04:14 PM

Like michael said, Amos... There is no way to break thru... bb has his head in the sand and has concocked the most unbelievable rationalization that anyone could and he's going to ride that rationalization to the grave...

He couldn't care less about the inspectors of that Iraq was letting them inspect anywhere they wanted and was cooperating with the inspectors...

To hell with inspectors is purdy much his opionion...

No, it isn't rational thinking... Nor is his mythology that anti-war folks caused the war... It is flat earth thinking... Or not thinking... Or, danged if I know what it is, other than mythology...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 25 Dec 08 - 04:37 PM

"He couldn't care less about the inspectors of that Iraq was letting them inspect anywhere they wanted and was cooperating with the inspectors..."

Except they were not, according to Blix. He was still not getting the active cooperation, according to the Jan 27 report YOU quoted: Too bad you never read the rest of it.

My concience is clear- but I do not know how you live with all the dead that Saddam caused, because you supported not enforcing the sanctions.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: kendall
Date: 25 Dec 08 - 04:53 PM

BB if you want to go back to the VERY beginning, we had no right to invade Iraq the FIRST time! We have made the Middle East filthy rich by buying their oil. Why can't they settle their own disputes?
You are using our anti war stand after Saddam refused to comply with the UN orders. We invaded him, ordered him to not fly over his own country, continued inspections of his country, including his palaces, for 7 years for what? OIL.
Let's start at the beginning. Our Ambassador appointed by George H.W. Bush told Saddam that we didn't care what he did over there, so he invaded Kuwait. While our military were fighting the Iraqi invaders, their own young men were cruising the streets of Cairo trying to pick up chicks!
We got sucked into another damned war. Those reports of Iraqui soldiers stealing incubation units from Kuwait, and dumping babies out of them in the process was just more propaganda. The woman who reported that admitted later that it was not true.
Personally, I don't give a rats ass who invaded who over there as long as they leave Israel alone.

I'm sick to death of my leaders spending us into the poor house bombing women and children while our own children go without medical care. That is MY idea of barbaric!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 25 Dec 08 - 04:56 PM

Well, Sawzaw, I tried to explain but they seem unwilling to even consider reality.

There is no way to break thru... Bobert has his head in the sand and has concocked the most unbelievable rationalization that anyone could and he's going to ride that rationalization to the grave... A pity.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Dec 08 - 05:29 PM

...bb has his head in the sand...

I take exception to this- not true.


He has his head up his arse!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Dec 08 - 05:40 PM

No, bb... You missed the the part where Blix said "the *****most***** important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect..."

Exactly what superceeds the word "most"???

That ain't cherry pickin'... If the man said "most" then he most likely meant, ahhhh, "most"....

I have read and reread Blix's report and found no reason why Blix didn't mean "most" or where Blix reported conflicting information about his team being able to conduct it's work...

That, quite simply, is why Bush was wrong in his "The Decider" decsion to pull the plug on Blix's team...

The only "pity" here is for bb and the other 2/3rds of the Axis of Evil, T and Sawz...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Dec 08 - 05:51 PM

". . . but they seem unwilling to even consider reality."

Am I right in that BB is blaming anti-war demonstrators for the war in Iraq?

[Cue theme from The Twilight Zone. . . .]

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 25 Dec 08 - 06:09 PM

So, "most" is "all" ??


If I owed you $10 dollars, you woyuld obviously settle for $6 repid- that is "most" anyway.



"anywhere they wanted " Is not most, it is all. And they would have to know where- which was NOT the intent of the inspectors.

Greg F: I take exception to assholes who do not know how to discuss differences, but attack the person they disagree with.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Dec 08 - 06:40 PM

I'm with you, Don... Me thinks that bb has a screw loose... He is beginning to sound like one of those guys who stands on the corner with a sign that reads, "Repent, the End is Near"...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Barry Finn
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 01:04 AM

You don't put a bullet in the head of the schoolyard bully, no matter what the reason, unless you can prove he's put a gun to your hear. We pulled the gun, pulled the trigger & killed the bastard, even though he was the bully we are guilty of murder, mass murder! We refused to find other soul-tions, we refused to take trhe time to work out other alteratives, (sorry, the whole inspection/resolution stuff was all a play by the powers that dictated their own will), we didn't bother to even clear the dishes off the table, we stormed in & raised hell. We (those in the rest of the world) begged for some more time for other ways, we begged for more input, we begged formore intellegence on the situation but we were told to "fuck off"! We went in & killed civilians, bombed hospitals & places of religious practices, all this illegal aggression was against the Geneva Conventions,. We are the quilty party, Sadam was guilty of plenty but we are by far worst for the shooting of the schoolyard bully. You can condon all of our actions you want by saying that Sadam was bad & he was but you cannot condon our reaction for him not abiding by our will for the mass murder we commited against the people of his nation. They did not attack US, they did not threaten US, they did not pose a threat to US, they did nopt posses WMD's, they were not capable of hurting US but we didn't even bother to find out we rain hell on those that were only trying to survive & we killed them instead & did nothing but become the schoolyard bully ourselves. We destroyed a nation & gave back nothing in comparison to what we took away, we caused the collapse of a culture & allowed it to be raped & ransacked (also against the Geneva Conventions), provided not respute nor aid to those we mained & uprooted, we put them out in the desert sand. We didn't even think of the casualities of war or battle , we didn't have the forethought or foresight to care for the missplaced or injured or to those that would knowingly perish with out the basic life necessessities like water, food, medicine, shelter, we went in like Qurantrel went into Lawrance, Kansas (he had his excuses too, except he was on the losing side) guns blazing, open fire on innocent civilians, we hit Bagdad like it was a piece of shit, saturation bombing like the Nazi's over England, "Shock & Awe". What was disquisting was many Americans were rooting for the death & destruction we rained down over a people that did nothing against US at all!!! We didn't save them, we brought them misrey, suffering & death & in the process we lost our souls & to say that those of US who tried to stop this & were against this is likening US to the one who stands in front of a gun only to stop an innocent from being killed & then blaming US for the deaths that you let this same killer loose on the public to shoot others. WE did not pull the trigger, we did not let loose a serial killer, we did not give him the gun, we were not in any danger. It's to late to say "I thought we were in danger", it's to late to say we killed in ignorance, it's to late to say this was a mistake. We did not do enough to before we took action, we failed ourselves & the world & most of all the Iraqi people. There is no excuse for what we did & we dragged others into it, our great shame, we will not live this down for a great long time & we will pay with more than our souls.

Barry


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: kendall
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 08:32 AM

Well said, Barry.

Fellas, let's watch the comments such as ..."Assholes" you are very close to a personal attack and you know they are not permitted here.

Remember "The first one who raises his voice has already lost the argument"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 04:55 PM

Barry,

I disagree with your assessment.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 05:09 PM

Yes, well said, Barry...

This entire episode has been sickening... And the worst part is that the people who pulled this evil war won't be "brought to justice"...

Bush deserves nothin' less than life imprisonment... But in a way, he's gotten that... I mean, other than a few die-hard fringers like bb, T and Sawz, Bush surely knows how bad he screwed up...

Now the fringers want to pin the war on the anti-war folks??? That is sick logic... They say that it was the anti-war folks fault that Saddam didn't comply with UNR1441... We tried to tell them during the mad-dash days that asking Saddam to prove he didn't have something was flawed thinking... Now history has shown that sein' as there were no creepy WMDs that Saddam could never have made the fringers happy because he would have had to prove he didn't have something...

I challenged the fringers then to show how one goes about proving one doesn't have something... They had no answers then and they have no answers today...

This is proff positive that the Iraq war was a mistake in judegment on Bush and his fringers here in Mudville... In other words, the grounds for the war were and are bogus...

You are entirely correct, Barry, that the US will never be exonerated for this war... It is a black eye that we will wear for a long time...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 05:13 PM

Bobert,

You missed most of the discussion. Saddam did NOT have to prove he did not have WMD.

He had to prove that the WMD programs that he previously had had been stopped and the prohibited materials disposed of. He did not prove that.

As long as you keep lying about it, and sayiong that the UN wanted hime to prove something other than the points in UNR1441, you will always be ignored, and whatever validity your arguements maight possibly have will be concealed by your obvious ignorance of the situation. Hardly the way to convince anyone you have a valid point.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 05:45 PM

Again, bb, you ask the impossible... Prove you have stopped... Prove you don't have... Prove you are not thinking... Prove all kinds of negatives... This was a puzzle with no solution...

Like I sdaid then and say now, you can't prove that you ain't doing something short of folks "inspecting" (novel concept) to see if you actually are doing or not soing something... You and yer guys presented the Rubix Cube from Hell, the one with no solution, and excpeted Saddam to find a solution??? Give me a break...

Prove to me, bb, without me inspecting that the socks you have on right now at blue... This is the exactly analogy of what you and the right wing fringe radicals expected of Saddam...

And for the record, it isn't me who is "lieing" about anything here... History has allready shown who the lairs were and it wasn't our side... Might of fact, just about everything I predicted would occur in Iraq in the mad-dash days was proved to be correct and just about everything that you and yer right winged war mongers prdeicted has been shown to be wrong...

So, I'd be real carefull about going down "Lairs Lane" again... We had a very bad round of that last time you got frustrated and thought that by screaming and insinuating that I was a lair that your side would be vindicated... It didn't happen then and I won't let you pull stunt on me/us again...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: freda underhill
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 06:31 PM

It's amazing how hard people try to polish a pile of shit. Here's a reality check for any retrospectively wise neocon looking for debate on a wet afternoon..

Ten myths about Iraq 2008


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 07:13 PM

Bobert- read my lips:

He had to prove that the WMD programs that he previously had had been stopped and the prohibited materials disposed of. He did not prove that.



If he had dismantled the programs, there would have been evidence- please read Blix of Jan 27th. You keep ignoring what Blix states, unless it agrees with what you want to believe.


"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 rocket 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 few years at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. The 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. " Blix


"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 over 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 submission to the Amorim panel in February 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 the letter of 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." This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 liters of concentrated anthrax. " Blix


"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 tests 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 2002. Foremost among these is import of 300 rockets engines which may be used for the Al-Samud II.

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. " Blix


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 07:23 PM

How many times are going to pull out that Rubix Cube from Hell...

Tell ya' what, bb... Lets just get dwon to brass tacks here and I'll put you in the exact trick bag that you and yer war-hungry righties put Saddam and the rest of the world...

Tell me what color socks you owned in 1998...

And when you do, I'm going to shoot yer argument into a million pieces...

So what color socks did you own in 1998???

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: kendall
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 07:39 PM

As I understand it, Saddam wanted the world to believe he still had WMDs to keep Iran from invading Iraq.It was a huge bluff that didn't work. Bush wanted war and Bush got war. period.

The solution is so simple. We should simply stay the hell out of other people's business! We gave them reason to hate us, so now we hate them for not knuckling under to us.

They have been killing each other for hundreds of years and what we did was try to break up a dog fight. No one with brains does that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 07:44 PM

Brains, Capt'n???

Herein lies the rub...

Yo, bb... What color socks do you own in 1998???

Oh, this is gonna be fun...

Put the world in trick bag will ya'... Get ready to be right where Saddam was in 2002 and early 2003 and then maybe you'll understand what the heck we're talkin' about here...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 07:49 PM

Bobert,

In 1998 I had black sox and blue sox. I still have them. If they were inventoried then ( as Saddam's material was, except for what he illegally added ( which you claim he did not) they would still be accountable, and I would show them to you.

Since I have shown that I still have the same sox as I did then, I meet the Bobert Nations Regulation. But so what?

Saddam HAD material and programs.
Saddam was given the chance to show that he had stopped those programs, and destroyed the material, OR that he had not done so and would turn it over to the UN. He failed to do either of those things. THAT is the violation.

He failed to comply witrh UNR 1441, his last chance to show complience with the ceasefire agreement.

He had 12 years to comply, and chose not to, with the encouragement of people like youi.


Shame. shame, shame on you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 08:24 PM

Great, bruce...

First of all, fu*k yer little shame game 'cause now were are gonna put you in the trick bag that you and Bush put Saddam inin order to justify killing a million people

Welcome to the Rubix Cube from Hell...

Please kindly answer the following:

1. You *say* that in 1998 you had both black and blue socks and you say that you still have them... Can you offer any proff that these socks are the same socks that you owned in 1998???

2. Did you have any other black or blue socks that have since been disposed of and if so, can you offer any proff of where they were went??? I fyou threw them in the trash, where would they ahve been taken and can you prove that they were taken there???

3. We think you may have also had a pair of white socks in 1998... Did you??? If you didn't can you prove that you didn't have any white socks in 1998???

4. We also have learned that yer neighbor gace y6ou a pair of brown socks in 1998... Do you still have them??? If not, where are they??? Can you prove where they are or how you disposed of these brown socks???

5. How many pairs of black socks did you have in 1998??? And of that number do you still have them all??? If so, please provide evidence that you did not dispose of any of them since 1998... If, however, you still have all the black socks that you had in 1998 then can you prove that all of these socks are the very same socks that owned in 1998 and can you prove that some have been replaced...

I mean, let's get real here, bruce... I could ask a thousand more questions like these... Bottom line is that you can't even prove that you even owned any socks in 1998... I mean, like ***prove***...

Oh yeah, you stated that you had these socks but you can't prove that you had them...

Fair enough???

I mean, lets gets real here... You wanted Saddam to answer questions that you can't answer here... The Iraqis went thru the Rubix Cube from Hell questions and did what you have done here... They swnt back over a thousand pages of documents in trying to prove the impossible...

But, if you think this is fun, bb, just answer the 5 sample Rubix Cube from Hell questions I have asked and then we can take it to the next level and then the next and sooner or later, reagrdless of your responses in trying to answer impossible questions, I'm just gonna say, "I don't believe you" and bomb you and yer neighbors....

But, hey, answer away...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 08:37 PM

Wrong again, Bobert.


The UN inventoried what he had previously- he was KNOWN to have it at that time.

The items are ones that are accounted for- Do you lose a house or building?

And as for the shame game, it seems that you have no problem sitting in judgement on others that they should meet your expectations and not thier own- yet you seem upset that others would dare treat you as you do them.

Ubermench, indeed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 09:09 PM

(This will be my final post to bb on this thread...)

You won't answer the socks question becasue you are smart enough to know a check-mate coming when you see one...

You are in the exact situation as Saddam found himself in late 2002 and early 2003...

At least he was man enough to send over a thousand pages of answers...

You??? Just what I expected... Zip, Nada, Zero... Just more huff 'n puff... No proof... No answers... Just proclamations...

Jesus tells us it's okay to stand up to evil... He taught us in the case of the prostite to turn away sinners who would stone a woman to death... He turned over the tables of the money changers in the tmeple...

Judge ye' not, is not the words of Jesus... They are Old Testament where stuff like the Iraq War could easily be justified... It is unChristain... You are unChristain... Is that a judegement??? Well, yeah, it is... A million people cannot be slaughtered and Christains not speak up and do what they can to debunk the rationalizations of those who perpertrated these acts...

I do not speak from pride... I speak from humanity, bruce... Your mythology has absolutely consumed the better side of your soul and you are lost... So very lost... You need to take some time and allow God to speak to you... He is trying to break thru all that interference that you broadcast... This isn't a war here... You owe it to yourself because carrying this much blood is not good on any level...

Yeah, I know that you have done what you can to try to hold your position because of pride... The Bible talks about pride...I would hate to be you right now... I think that if I had to live with the mythology that you have surrounded yourself with that it would be intolerable...

Hey, it's okay, bruce, to just take a day off from reacting here on this thread... It won't go away... It isn't like a tennis match... I am so very sorry to have to go to these lenghts to give you every opportunity to rethink your position... I feel like this has become a chess match and I am saddened to know that I have you in check-mate and so I just try to play it out as if I didn't know that...

I am sorry, my friend, but you have taken a very wrong turn along the way and you are so very lost... Maybe yer goal is to just die before the historians come forth with the "final judegement" on this war and it's human costs...

So here is my advice... Leave this thread alone... You have nothin' to gain here... Take a couple days off... Think about God...

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 09:19 PM

Sorry, Bobert.

I disagree with your view.

IMHO, to have not forced Saddam to comply would have been the greater evil, and caused far more death of innocents in the long run.

I make no claim to know your soul, and why you disagree with me: How can you judge me when you refuse to even try to understand what I have been saying?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: freda underhill
Date: 27 Dec 08 - 03:19 AM

bb, why my Jewish friends seem to support the invasion of Iraq is that Saddam had been sabre-rattling against Israel. Some months before the invasion, retired four-star US Army General and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark acknowledged in an interview: "Those who favor this attack [by the US against Iraq] now will tell you candidly, and privately, that it is probably true that Saddam Hussein is no threat to the United States. But they are afraid at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel." Bush and Condoleeza Rice have also acknowledged the importance of protecting Israel from an Iraqi strike.

The US invasion of Iraq has cost many tens of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. Around the world, it has generated unmatched distrust and hostility toward the US. In Arab and Muslim countries, it has fueled intense hatred of the United States, and has brought many new recruits to the ranks of anti-Western terrorists.   Iraq is now a major training ground for extremists and is implicated in the major bombings in Madrid, London, and Glasgow.

Whether Israel has been made safer by this is highly unlikely.

freda


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Dec 08 - 03:54 AM

Hey Bob....All this soul searchin' on the Les thread must be bearin' fruit!
That was a lovely post, thought provoking and very "Christian" in the best sense of the word.....and that's not meant as a slight against Bruce either!...Ake


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Dec 08 - 03:57 AM

and bloody well written........full of passion!!

Try writin' one to P/vine....:0)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: kendall
Date: 27 Dec 08 - 06:56 AM

BB, I don't want to get into a pissing match with anyone, but what I don't understand is why do you insist on starting in the middle? I repeat, we had no business invading Iraq in the first place. All the crap flows from there, not from his supposed refusal to comply with the UN resolutions.
He was ordered to get rid of his WMDs. He did. He sent them to Syria, but he could not let Iran know that he was without them. Iraq was never a threat to us until we invaded them. Were they a threat to Israel? Doubtful. Israel has proved in the past that they are not to be messed with, and they don't need no "steenking" permission to take out a threat to their existence.

If you cross the Bush mafia you are branded a traitor or a homo, even if you are a loyal republican.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Dec 08 - 06:20 AM

Kendall,

"He was ordered to get rid of his WMDs. He did. He sent them to Syria,"

So you are even willing to admit he had them? THAT will get you in more trouble with the anti-bushites than "cross(ing) the Bush mafia".

"but what I don't understand is why do you insist on starting in the middle?"

I started with the invasion by Iraq of Kuwait, and the ceasefire terms of that conflict- which Saddam did not comply with for at least 12 years- and when given a "LAST AND FINAL" chance to do so, did not- according to the Blix reports from Novemeber 2002 through January 2003. If you call that the middle, let me know where I should start- the 1921 treaty that created Iraq ( breaking up the Ottoman Empire after WW I), perhaps?

"Iraq was never a threat to us until we invaded them. "

I disagree. IGNORING the threat to our allies ( NOT just Israel, but all of those we have treaty obligations with) Saddam had already threatened the US, and had both the means (IRBMs with WMD warheads(chemical) that could have been launched from ships outside of US waters) and had continued combat operations against US forces that were trying to enforce the ceasefire ( check how many fights the "No-fly zone patrol craft were in).




I object strongly to the idea that Bobert can pass moral judgement upon me, for my support for what I think to be the correct action, yet complains when I give him back the same. I know he believes himself to be correct- but if that is sufficent, Hitler thought the same. So who is he to decide FOR OTHERS what they should think, especially when he makes no attempt to understand the basis for those decisions that others make as to what to support?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: kendall
Date: 29 Dec 08 - 09:18 AM

Of course he had WMDs. He used them on the Kurds just because they were plotting to take him out.
Ok, we have to start somewhere, how about when the Actor supplied him with the gas he used to kill Kurds? He was our fair haired boy until Bush 1 and his Ambassador told Saddam that we didn't care what he did over there. He saw Kuwait as a part of Iraq that he wanted back, and he had the green light to take it.
Just like when Dean Acheson told the North Koreans that there was nothing in SE Asia that we cared about, they took that as a green light to reunite Korea by invading the south.
Voltaire was right.

I'm not going to stick my nose into your difference of opinion with Bobert, but I do need to say that personal attacks will end the discussion.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: GUEST,Beardedbruce
Date: 29 Dec 08 - 09:26 AM

"but I do need to say that personal attacks will end the discussion. "

And who started them????

I can be safely told how evil and bloody I am, but cannot reply???


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: kendall
Date: 29 Dec 08 - 11:09 AM

I didn't name any names.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Dec 08 - 12:48 PM

And who started them????

Waaaah!!! But MOMMY! He hit me First!!!!

Or maybe this was intended as an allegory for the Israeli-Palestinian situation?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 07 Jan 09 - 09:00 PM

Kendall: I appologize for questioning your manhood and morality.

Now please reinforce your morality and manhood by giving direct answers to a few questions namely:

Should America have intervened in Rwanda or was staying out of their business the right thing to do?

Should America stay out of Sudan's business or should we but out?

"How many people would still be alive if the USA would just stay out of other countries business?"

And also how "We have started every war that we have ever been a part of and this latest is the most transparent of them all"

How did America start WWI WWII and the Korean war?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 07 Jan 09 - 09:32 PM

Mr Bobert:

Do you believe that the WMDS that your revered Democrat heroes swore existed was the only reason for the Iraq war?

If Wmds were the only reason to go to war and it turned out that there were no WMDs you might have a leg to stand on but even that leg would be so wobbly and weak that you need prop it up with unsubstantiated claims that intelligence was cooked up LBJ style.

He said She said in a book they are pedaling don't feed the bulldog.

Even your own shiny new VP, Joe the Fumbler, who, as chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, knew more about the intelligence than anybody in congress voted for bill and he even appropiated money to pay off snitches to rat Saddam's WMDs. A rather elaborate hoax wouldn't you say?

Was this Congressperson duped by GWB's cooked up intelligence when he made this statement?:

"Mr. President, we should all hope for a genuine diplomatic solution to this stand-off, but no one should doubt our resolve to use force if it becomes necessary. We have little choice in this matter. Important principles and vital national interests are at stake.

First and foremost, an Iraq left free to develop weapons of mass destruction would pose a grave threat to our national security.

The current regime in Iraq has repeatedly demonstrated its aggressive tendencies toward its neighbors. It has also displayed a callous
willingness to use chemical weapons to achieve its aims."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: kendall
Date: 07 Jan 09 - 09:46 PM

You are still not listening!

When you took to nit picking I was forced to clarify my statements. Forget my original post and listen to this:
America did not start WW 1, WW2 or Korea.
This is what we DID do.
WW1 we shipped munitions to England aboard the Lusitania after stern warnings from Germany that any ships doing so would be sunk. We set ourselves up to get into it with Germany.

WW2. Roosevelt stopped all shipments to Japan. He ordered them out of Indo China, then, the final straw, he froze their assets in this country. That they could not tolerate. They would rather die than lose face. We did not fire the first shot, but we sure as hell asked for it!

Korea. We had troops in South Korea after WW2. Why?
When Dean Acheson stated that there was nothing in that area that we cared about, the North Koreans decided to reunify Korea by force and they invaded on the 25th of June, 1950.
We didn't have to be in harm's way, but, we were, by our own will.

I did not address Rowanda , Darfur or Sudan. All I can say about that is, there is no way that we can be the world's Policeman, nor should we. President Washington warned us about foreign entanglements, and President Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex. Did we listen?

Even if we had the means to stop the killing around the world by imposing our will on everyone, where would we get the right?

Now, Sawzaw, if this is still not enough for you, that's just too bad. I'm out of here.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 07 Jan 09 - 10:27 PM

Ok you have revised your war statement.

Was it wrong to ship munitions to England? Should we have been afraid to do so and intimidated by a dictator?

Keep in mind that the beloved FDR was lying his ass of to the American public about being involved.

Why did "Roosevelt stopped all shipments to Japan. He ordered them out of Indo China, then, the final straw, he froze their assets in this country."? Does it have anything to do with standing up to dictators? Weren't we telling Japan to stay out of China's business?

What happens when tyrants and dictators are ignored and left to conquer weaker countries? Do they get sated after a while and quit? Or do we eventually become the weaker country and a target for conquest?

We had troops in South Korea after WW2. Why? Because of a UN commitment and obligation to defend South Korea. Is that not in your history books?

As for Darfur and Rwanda which are fully on topic even if you did not mention them, all you need to do is answer yes or no.

Was not getting involved in Rwanda was the right thing to do?

Is staying out of Sudan's business the right thing to do?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 01:43 AM

Iraq a mistake Bobert?? If it was then the only person who made a mistake with regard to Iraq was Saddam Hussein.

From the perspective of the United States of America their decisions and actions taken between September 2002 and March 2003 were fully justifiable and correct.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 06:39 PM

How about the mi8llion Iraqis that went down with Saddam, T??? Seems they didn't do too well either...

Yo, Saws... Any post to me that begins with insinuating that I revere Democrats is bogus and I don't read any further... If you want to attack me start out with something that isn't pure unaltered mythoogy and I might read on... But beginning yer post with a lie ani't gonna interest me one bit...

BTW, go back and read what I was sayin' during the mad-dash-to-Iraq and you'll see I had no more love for Dems then than do I now...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: kendall
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 08:05 PM

Let's just stop feeding the trolls, Bobert.They just want a row.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 08:22 PM

Well, Capt'n... Lets you and me meet up with T and Sawz behind the barn fir a little good ol' fashioned fist fight... You can pick which one you want... Don't much matter to me which one I get but I'd like to start with Sawz and then maybe do a switch-a-roo...

B;~)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 08:47 PM

Dese guys dey got haids like Coco-nut, Capting!! Det all green and hard!!


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 09:15 PM

Yeah, Amos is right... Go low...

B;~)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 11:35 PM

This whole thread is a Bobert troll for Tbus.

Now Mr Kendall the history teacher wants to claim someone else is trolling so he does not have to answer the "tough" questions about what he said. Hey, I like history, teach me and fill in the missing information. Or maybe you can write some that supports your statements.

Maybe you can answer this easy question: Should dictators be stood up to or should they be left alone to gain power?

Bobert: You must revere Democrats they way you try to cover for them and shift all the blame to Bush. Were they stupid or something?

Were there any other reasons for the war?

Would you prefer that Hussein was still there, running the country?

And why stop at mi8llion Iraqis? Why not mi16llion Iraqis? Just keep blowing the number up until you prove your point?

You are the first person I have seen that is so touchy and defensive that he wants to beat up someone for asking him questions about what he himself stated. Agree with Bobert or suffer. Are questions really that threatening?

You put on your ballerina slippers and tutu and try to dance around questions about your "facts" and when that don't work, you want to do some violence on the guy that asks the questions. Truth never hurt anybody, it just deflates their ego.

You can point out my mythoogy any time you want. But back up the guy that says America should not get involved countries business. Yeah, leave him alone and threaten the guy that questions him about it.

As for Amos, he does not have the intestinal fortitude to state whether America has been cut off from it's suppliers or not but he knows all about coconuts, the area he has real expertise in.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 02:09 AM

Just to put your 1 million dead Iraqis into context Bobert. The Second World War saw the first ever use of strategic air power. The allies predominantly the US and the UK built up vast fleets of heavy strategic bombers. RAF Bomber Command flew sorties against Germany from 1939 until May 1945, the US 8th & 15th Air Forces from about 1943 until May 1945. According to German figures all this bombing resulted in the deaths of just under 600,000 Germans.

Now are you trying to tell me the US in Iraq killed almost double that figure in less than 2 months??? Sorry I don't buy it.

Bobert, you have no arguements, facts or figures to back up your ridiculous contentions. When confronted with substantive fact you resort first to personal attack and now as evidenced on this thread threats of physical attack. What a sorry piece of work you are.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Gervase
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 02:47 AM

So, how many Iraqis have died. And is that an acceptable figure?
If regime change is a legitimate use of power (and where is the international law that says it is?), then why not North Korea, Zimbabwe, Venezuela or any other country to which the USA takes a dislike? Given the lack of hard evidence even at the time, what was so special about Iraq - other than the fact that the PNAC and other neo-cons had already marked Saddam's dance card before 9/11 and saw it as a heaven-sent opportunity to try out a shiny new policy that would bring an end to the world's problems and see the USA emerge as the once and future hyperpower?
I'm sorry chaps, but your arguments are not persuasive, and your 'facts' are as subjective and selective as those of any flat-earther, creationist or holocaust denier, or indeed anyone clinging to an untenable position.
Still, it's nice to know that the world is now a safer place!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 07:07 AM

"any other country to which the USA takes a dislike?"

How about violation of the "last and final " UNR to comply with the cease-fire terms that IRAQ signed up to?


Hardly "any other country"


That is like saying that it is wrong to put someone in jail ( or execute them) after they are found guilty because it means you might jail or kill "any other" person, regardless of their actions.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Gervase
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 08:10 AM

How naughty.
The USA has refused to accept the current verification protocol for the Biological Weapons Convention beacause it "does not suit US interests". Israel has so far declined to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention. Israel is also in breach of numerous UN resolutions (including this week's 1860, which the US did not veto).
So, your point is?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 08:13 AM

No other "Last and final" chance UNR is involved, nor have those nations BEEN IN VIOLATION of a signed agreement for 12 years.

Refusal to SIGN a treaty is a lot different than signing and then refusing to comply.

Capiche?


So, what the hell is YOUR point?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Gervase
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 09:01 AM

My point is that you're making a lot of noise, flinging posts around like a mad woman's piss, but not really advancing your cause.
In the opinion of most, the war was an illegal and costly mistake which has made the world less safe and cost too high a price.
Your point, from what I can ascertain, is that all of that is irrelevant because you can Google enough material to suit your minority viewpoint.
Well congratulations.
I remember the first time I learned how to use a search engine. Fun, isn't it?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 09:05 AM

Sawz:

AMerica has not been cut off from its oil suppliers.

As for intestinal fortitude, do you have enough to state that starting wars and causing the deaths of thousands of people is wrong?

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 09:13 AM

"Your point, from what I can ascertain, is that all of that is irrelevant because you can Google enough material to suit your minority viewpoint."


You ascertain incorrectly.

IMO, the world is now a safer place, we had reasonable justification for our actions, and the war was as legal as any war can be.

Yes, it was costly- but a single WMD in the wrong hands would be orders of magnitude more costly.


Amos:

We did not start the war ( Saddam invaded Kuwait) but we did finish it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Gervase
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 10:18 AM

Legal?
The use of force by a state is prohibited by Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter. The only exceptions are with Security Council authorisation or in self-defence against an armed attack by another state under Article 51. The was no authorisation, and self-defence is not an issue.
Kofi Annan has said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."
Lord Goldsmith, the UK's Attorney General, advised that the war would probably be illegal for several reasons including the lack of a Security Council resolution, although he appears to have hurriedly changed his mind when it became clear that the invasion would go ahead regardless of the legal situation.
Richard Perle, no dove, has stated that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone."

In your opinion the world is a safer place. I think you'll find yourself in rather a minority there.
To quote from an MoD-commissioned briefing paper, "The war in Iraq ... has acted as a recruiting sergeant for extremists across the Muslim world ... Iraq has served to radicalise an already disillusioned youth and al-Qaeda has given them the will, intent, purpose and ideology to act."
The US National Intelligence Estimates concluded, "The Iraq conflict has become the cause celebre for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement."
The Institute for Strategic Studies calls the war, "a potent global recruitment pretext" for jihadists and says that the invasion "galvanised" al-Qaeda and "perversely inspired insurgent violence" there.
David Low, the US national intelligence officer for transnational threats, said the war in Iraq provided terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills... There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries."
In the House of Commons in October 2003, before the invasion, Tony Blair himself said, "The assessment I received was that the greatest terrorist threat to Western interests came from al-Qaeda and related groups, and that this threat would be heightened by military action against Iraq...When I took the decision that military action would be required to ensure that Iraq complied with United Nations Security Council Resolutions, I had to weigh all the factors, including the possible short term risk of increased terrorism, against the longer term risks of rogue states developing weapons of mass destruction."
And we know all about the WMDs now, don't we?
We won't talk about individual elements of the war and occupation, like Abu Ghraib. But suffice it to say that Bush's 'hearts and minds' doctrine is a little shaky.

I could go on, but I doubt you'd listen.

we did finish it A little premature aren't we? Mission not quite accomplished yet.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: pdq
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 10:29 AM

"Lets you and me meet up with T and Sawz behind the barn fir a little good ol' fashioned fist fight... You can pick which one you want... ~ Bobert

Way over the line.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 10:48 AM

legal.

The CEASEFIRE was being violated. UNR1441 was Saddam's last chance to comply- and the UN states that he did not.

( though there were numerous earlier violations, the failure to comply with the "LAST AND FINAL" chance to comply with the cease-fire was in and of itself sufficient to allow combat operations.)

Cease fire is now null and void.
WAR resumes, as authorised in 1992 by the UN.


Saddam is no longer attacking or threatening UN authorized forces.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Gervase
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 11:13 AM

Bruce, you can blather on about the war being legal until the cows come home, but it is only your opinion, and caries no more weight than your belief that the moon is made of green cheese.
Greater minds even than yours are firmly of the opinion that the war was illegal.
To refresh your memory on what happened...

1441 was only passed unanimously because members were assured that there would not automatically be military action if Iraq failed to heed it.

The US ambassador to the UN stated: "This resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12."
The Uk ambassador to the UN also told the Security Council, " If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities."

When it became clear that the US and UK would not get nine out of the 15 votes need to carry the day they abandoned their 'second resolution' plan. By which time, of course, the war was already in the later stages of planning.

The war may have been, for you, desirable (funny how some people get their jollies, isn't it?), but it is rash to claim that it was either legal nor prudent.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 11:22 AM

Gervase, you can blather on about the war being illegal until the cows come home, but it is only your opinion, and caries no more weight than YOUR belief that the moon is made of green cheese.

As Data Manager for Clementine, I know better. The moon is NOT green cheese.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Gervase
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 12:04 PM

Ah, so you are a man with privileged access to arcane knowledge. Was this how you were able confidently to predict a McCain landslide? I can see that I will have to bow to your greater knowledge on international law and on matters military as well. Tell me one thing, though - does it ever get lonely, being the only person in a column of troops who is in step?

But, gosh, to think that a post on the internet has changed someone's mind!
Is this a first?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 01:15 PM

"In the opinion of most, the war was an illegal and costly mistake which has made the world less safe and cost too high a price." – Gervase

Just to point out that just because that happens to be the opinion of most (It may, or may not be) does not necessarily make it true, or fact.

The threat posed by Iraq under Saddam Hussein to the United States of America, her allies in the middle-east and elsewhere and the interests of the United States of America and her allies, was not something invented and dreamt up by George W. Bush or any other member of his administration. The Head of State of any country does not require permission from anybody to act in the best interests of their nation's security, especially not such a weak and vacillating an organization as the United Nations.

"In your opinion the world is a safer place. I think you'll find yourself in rather a minority there." – Gervase.

Again only BB's opinion, but one shared after careful and independent studies by the University of Uppsala in Sweden and the University of British Columbia in Vancouver.

Now let's have a look at some of those quotations you saw fit to post:

""The war in Iraq ... has acted as a recruiting sergeant for extremists across the Muslim world ... Iraq has served to radicalise an already disillusioned youth and al-Qaeda has given them the will, intent, purpose and ideology to act."" – MOD Briefing Paper

"The Iraq conflict has become the cause celebre for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement." - US National Intelligence Estimates

"a potent global recruitment pretext" for jihadists and says that the invasion "galvanised" al-Qaeda and "perversely inspired insurgent violence" there." - Institute for Strategic Studies

"the war in Iraq provided terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills... There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries." - David Low, the US national intelligence officer for transnational threats.

"In the House of Commons in October 2003, before the invasion, Tony Blair himself said, "The assessment I received was that the greatest terrorist threat to Western interests came from al-Qaeda and related groups, and that this threat would be heightened by military action against Iraq...When I took the decision that military action would be required to ensure that Iraq complied with United Nations Security Council Resolutions, I had to weigh all the factors, including the possible short term risk of increased terrorism, against the longer term risks of rogue states developing weapons of mass destruction."
And we know all about the WMDs now, don't we?"

I note that you have only provided a date, albeit an incorrect one, for Blair (Well surely that must have been October 2002 as by the October 2003 the invasion was all done and dusted.) Now take a look at what came of those dire predictions Gervase:

•        Heard anything of Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq lately??
•        Heard anything of Al-Qaeda full stop lately??
•        In Iraq the Islamic Jihadists were drawn into fighting battles not of their choosing and they have died in their thousands
•        In Afghanistan the Taleban have died in their thousands and are viewing the prospect of annihilation if they continue to confront the forces ranged against them

The quote and prediction above from David Low was made on the premise that the Jihadists would be victorious – they weren't, they died in places like Fallujah and other places in Anbar and Diyalla Provinces.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: pdq
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 01:30 PM

In addition, both Iraq and Afghanistan had elections that were more fair and honest that several of our "united" states: New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Missouri and Louisiana. Also, the recent attempt to install Al Frankenfraud in the US Senate suggests that Minnesota is part of that club too.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 01:33 PM

"Was this how you were able confidently to predict a McCain landslide?"


Care to show any such prediction on my part?


Making up things does not prove your point- it proves you have no respect for the truth.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 04:21 PM

Gervase,

I find it interesting that the war-mongers her have steered this thread away from my original premise that the war was unnesessary because Hanz Bliz had inspectors on the fround in Iraq and that Hanz Blix stated on January 27th to the UN that the Iraqis were cooperating with those inspectors in letting them inspect where-ever the inspectors wanted...

That alone shreaded any justification for the invasion...

And you are right... Isreal is in violation of UN resolutions as we speak...

pdq,

Get a sense of humor...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 04:32 PM

Bobert,

I have already shown that Hans Blix DID NOT SAY that Saddam was acting in a way that would lead to a resolution of the problem.

Do I have to go over the whole thing again????


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 05:30 PM

BB looks like you better had - Bobert has a problem with reading in as much as he doesn't seem to be capable of it.

If memory serves me correctly Dr. Hans Blix reported something to the tune that the co-operation required was a two part process and that while Iraqi Authorities seemed to be co-operating fully on one part they were still not co-operating on the other. This led him on to complain that UNMOVIC's mission in Iraq was not one of hide and seek.

Bobert of course does not want to hear or read any of this because it does not tally with the phenomenon known as the "BOBERT FACT", which can be anything that Bobert choses to spout. Examples of Bobert Facts:

- The heads of Saddam's sons being displayed on sticks on the lawn of the White House.

- 3000 Patriot missiles per day raining down on Baghdad.

- 1 million Iraqi civilians have been killed, when ever the source he quotes clearly states that theirs is only an estimation of how many MAY HAVE DIED.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Gervase
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 05:31 PM

BB, 27th October:
Took a quick count of signs from Sterling Va to the Beltway ( at MD/VA border:

25 McCain
12 Obama


I counted "clusters of more than one sign obviously in the same yard as 1 sign each cluster- 2 clusters for McCain, one for Obama

As good as the polls, I guess- showing a landslide for McCain!

Tongue in cheek, maybe, but there you go!

And Teribus - had anyone any reliable linkage between Al Queda and Saddam before the war? No, thought not.
And since the war there have been plenty of incidents around which the name Al Queda has been muttered.
However, it would probably pay you (and most journalists) to look at Al Queda. It is not a constitutional body, with a defined 'head' and operational arm. The name in Arabic simply means 'the base'; by and large it operates on a disparate basis, inspiring rather than micromanaging incidents. The London and Madrid bombers, for example were not, of themselves 'Al Queda', yet they were inspired by Al Queda, and the figureheads of the movement were happy to claim credit for the attacks.
And Low's prediction is certainly true - there is a clear jihadist connection between Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq, with plenty of young hotheads packing the borders at the height of the war desperate to take up arms against the 'infidels'. Most of those were thankfully unsuccessful in getting a tour in Iraq, but do you really think they've now gone back home and taken up origami and macrame?
And, if if you want dates for Low, Perle, the MoD report and the others I could dig them out. You could, of course, Google them yourself if it makes such a difference. Do report back.
And Afghanistan is not proving to be a walk in the park. Annihilation may be some way off. As you're keen on Canadian punditry what of Richard Blanchette?
Or, closer to home, Mark Carleton-Smith.

Yet again the phrase 'lions led by donkeys' comes to mind.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 05:32 PM

You ain't shown jack, bb,...

All you have done is your usual blow-hard act thinking that if you posted enough stuff that you would blow the House-of-Truth down...

You are jsut a war mongin' word twister... I have quoted Blix... You have not addressed that but changed the topic to Blix did not say "that Saddam was acting in a way (blah, blah, blah...)"...

That is a Mckey Mouse argument...

You just pick ***un-"Quotes"*** out of thin air and expect everyone to dance at yer feet like you are some great knower of all that is true...

You are just a belligerant blowhard who is too friggin; proud and partisan to admit that you are wrong...

You have never addressed the fact the Blix said in his report that the cooperation was the """"most important"""" part of the report...

Why???

Because it doesn't support yout narrow little minority view so you just invent stuff that sounds fluffy and then say that Blix didn't say exactly that???

You must think that everyone here is a friggin' retard???

I see thru yer little junior high school tricks and so does everyone else...

Grow up...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Gervase
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 05:40 PM

And 200.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: kendall
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 08:45 PM

Sawzaw, old saying, "Never argue with someone whose opinion you don't respect."
Now, if I gave a rat's ass what you think I might stick around, But you obviously don't understand plain English and I've wasted enough of my time trying to explain to you what is historical fact. You have a computer, look it up.You won't get the argument you seem to enjoy, but you might learn something.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 09:05 PM

Welcome to the world of Sawz, Capt'n... This is the way the boy/girl is... But seein' as he/she used to be "Old Guy" here I'd bet he/she is a he...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 12:56 AM

Gervase: Now that Mr Kendall has flaked out on answering the tough question about Rwanda, maybe you can answer this one because it relates to what you and he said:

So, how many Rwandans have died because The USA stayed out of that nations business? And is that an acceptable figure?

Amos: I am glad you finally fessed up to the fact that the truth you "bring" is not always the truth. To be to fair, I don't think you would have presented it if you had read through the post but you seem to be in such a rush to post piles of negative bullshit as if volume makes up for accuracy.

Anyhoo, starting wars and causing the deaths of thousands of people is wrong in some instances such as Hitler and the Japs did. However in some circumstances it is not wrong such as in Kosovo and the Balkans.

Do you think Saddam Hussein should have been left alone when he invaded and occupied Kuwait? Do you think the US should have stayed out of that nations business?

Bobert: Still dancin' and not a single answer out of you. This thread is another one of your stink bombs and when the stink blows back on you, all ya got left is personal attacks to prop up your shaky arguments and strange ideas.

Got any input on Kuwait or Rwanda or are personal attacks your forté?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 04:53 AM

Why did there have to be a linkage between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein Gervase?? With regard to the security of the United States of America, both Al-Qaeda and Saddam's Iraq were two completely seperate issues.

Since the war Al-Qaeda has had many mentions and since 11th September, 2001 to date thay have got fewer and fewer. Because of their handling of their "Jihad" in Iraq, where in an "infidel rich" target environment, they were seen to baulk at attacking armed "infidel invaders" and instead killed thousands of fellow muslims in an attempt to foment a civil war in Iraq - That Gervase did not go down too well in the "muslim world". Even Al-Qaeda's No.2 admitted defeat in Iraq.

Ah yes all those Jihadists clustered on the borders - well Gervase, most of them died, figures stand at between 30 to 40 thousand of them so far.

Afghanistan Gervase, I think 2009 and 2010 and going to bring very torrid times for the Taleban. Remember that road transportation exercise that ISAF undertook a couple of months ago to transport the components of the third turbine to the Kajaki Dam. The Taleban lost 250 men attacking the decoy convoy, injuries to ISAF amounted to one man with a broken hand he got while freeing a vehicle that become bogged down.

Oh Carlton-Smith was perfectly correct in that there is no military victory to be had in Afghanistan - but that is as true for the Taleban as it is for ISAF and the Afghan Government forces. At the moment ISAF and the Afghan Security Forces stand a damn sight better chance of lasting the course until the Taleban realise that. The second round of free elections are coming up in both Iraq and in Afghanistan, let's see how they go.

As to how things would have been better if the US had stayed at home:

- Going on his average Saddam would have killed 617,580 Iraqi's possibly more (see below).

- Libya would now have a nuclear weapon.

- Syria would still be occupying Lebanon and be well on its way to acquiring a nuclear weapon capability.

- The Second Iran/Iraq war would now be in its third year. This would be the only way Saddam had of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, or a nuclear weapons capability.

- World oil prices would have gone through the roof at the start of the conflict between Iraq and Iran because of loss of supply from the the middle-east region.

- Terror attacks upon western european countries and the USA would have continued with growing intensity as the co-operation between intelligence and law enforcement agencies round the world would have remained at pre-911 levels.

- Dr.A.Q.Khan's network would have remained undetected and would still be in business.

- The opportunity for an international terrorist group to acquire, or be supplied with, WMD, or WMD technology would be five or six times what it is now.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 24 Jan 09 - 12:59 PM

Tough questions sure knock the wind out of the Liberal blowhards.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Jan 09 - 04:48 PM

The tough questions here are the ones I asked when I started this thread and to date none of you war-mongers have come close to answering...

Why???

Because it would reveal that you were (and still are), ahhhhh...

...wrong!!!

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 01:01 PM

Bobert:

In the opening of this stink bomb troll of a thread, the only thing that even resembles a question was:

"Why Bush felt he had to invade will be up to armchair historians and psycologists but the fact did not warrent this war..."

You answered your own question.

Suppose you answer this question:

What were the reasons for going to war?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 02:20 PM

Currently:

BAGDHAD – The Iraqi Oil Ministry says the country's oil exports in December reached 56.2 million barrels.

It says that's a 3.4 million barrel increase from previous month although revenues dropped due to the slide in global oil prices.

Sunday's statement shows revenues fell to about $1.943 billion from $2.299 billion in November.

Iraq's oil was sold at an average price of about $34.57 per barrel, down from the previous month price of $43.54 a barrel. It was purchased by 23 international oil companies.

The statement says 43.4 million barrels were exported through the Persian Gulf, while 12.8 million barrels were exported via Turkey's port of Ceyhan.

Iraq has the world's third largest oil reserves with 115 billion barrels.

Previously:

• Iraq is actually exporting food, even though it says its people are malnourished. Coalition ships enforcing the UN sanctions against Iraq recently diverted the ship M/V MINIMARE containing 2,000 metric tons of rice and other material being exported from Iraq for hard currency instead of being used to support the Iraqi people.

• Baby milk sold to Iraq through the oil-for-food program has been found in markets throughout the Gulf, demonstrating that the Iraqi regime is depriving its people of much-needed goods in order to make an illicit profit.

• Kuwaiti authorities recently seized a shipment coming out of Iraq carrying, among other items, baby powder, baby bottles, and other nursing materials for resale overseas.

Saddam Hussein's priorities are clear. If given control of Iraq's resources, Saddam Hussein would use them to rearm and threaten the region, not to improve the lot of the Iraqi people.

There is ample proof that lifting sanctions would offer the Iraqi people no relief from neglect at the hands of their government

• Sanctions prevent Saddam from spending money on rearmament, but do not stop him from spending money on food and medicine for Iraqis.

• Saddam's priorities are clear: palaces for himself, prisons for his people, and weapons to destroy Iraq's citizens and its neighbors. He has built 48 palaces for himself since the Gulf War. He would not use Iraq's resources to improve the lives of Iraqis. Saddam Hussein would use them to rearm and threaten the region.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 02:47 PM

That last assertion is not supported by the data you have presented, Sawz. That is obvious. But, the rest os good.

Obviously, the reason for the invasion was to curtail the threat of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, according to all the PR from the Bush Administration. That there were none, and that the CIA realized there were none, and half the country figured there were none, leads to the suspicion that the pretext was either fraudulent or intensely stupid.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Nickhere
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 09:29 PM

LH, my post here is coming in very late after yours about the Lusitania. I just thought you might be interested to know that I was reading an article some time last year (can't remember when right now, but i cut out the piece and kept it somewhere). There has always been some controversy over whether or not the Lusitania was merely a civilian liner. Some claimed it was being used to transport munitions and the Germans knew this somehow. In support of that claim was the fact it sank so rapidly after two large explosions tore open its hull (one might have been the torpedo, the other munitions exploding). It sank in about 20 minutes if I'm not mistaken. There was no real proof though until last year when a salvage team went down and among other things they found thousands upon thousands of rounds of ammunition, some of it still boxed up. They brought some samples to the surface. The ammunition turned out to be .303 calibre made by the Remington company. This is significant as Remington was (and is?) a US arms manufacturer, but the .303 round was not popular in the USA (I don't think it was used there at all, actually. There was a 30-30 but that was a totally different round and not interchangeable with the .303). On the other hand the .303 was the standard round of the British army from about 1890 (Lee Metford rifles and later Lee Enfield) up to the 50s or 60s when the NATO 7.62mm took over.

Since a lot of the ammunition would have blown up in the explosions that sank the liner, the recent find is probably only the tip of the original iceberg, so to speak.

This would suggest that the Lusitania was carrying ammunition from the USA to Britain. The US and British authorities must have been aware of the risk to the civilian passengers involved in placing munitions on a civilian liner. They deliberately placed munitions among civilians on a civilian liner as a kind of camouflage - knowing the Germans would definitely have torpedoed any merchant ships thought to be carrying munitions.

The fact it's taken 80 years or more for this story to be known in its entirety is a good reminder of why we should bear in mind "the first casualty in any war is the truth"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 11:07 PM

Exactly what assertion was that Amos? And who was responsible for that assertion?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 11:08 PM

LH, I was concentrating only on the USA. We could have stayed out of it simply by not shipping munitions to England in a passenger ship and denying that we were doing it. History has proved that the Germans were right in sinking the Lusitania.(From their point of view)

The fact that we wanted to get into it to support England is another matter." – Kendall

"There has always been some controversy over whether or not the Lusitania was merely a civilian liner. Some claimed it was being used to transport munitions and the Germans knew this somehow. In support of that claim was the fact it sank so rapidly after two large explosions tore open its hull (one might have been the torpedo, the other munitions exploding). It sank in about 20 minutes if I'm not mistaken. There was no real proof though until last year when a salvage team went down and among other things they found thousands upon thousands of rounds of ammunition, some of it still boxed up. They brought some samples to the surface." – Nickhere

"Since a lot of the ammunition would have blown up in the explosions that sank the liner, the recent find is probably only the tip of the original iceberg, so to speak.

This would suggest that the Lusitania was carrying ammunition from the USA to Britain. The US and British authorities must have been aware of the risk to the civilian passengers involved in placing munitions on a civilian liner. They deliberately placed munitions among civilians on a civilian liner as a kind of camouflage - knowing the Germans would definitely have torpedoed any merchant ships thought to be carrying munitions.

The fact it's taken 80 years or more for this story to be known in its entirety is a good reminder of why we should bear in mind "the first casualty in any war is the truth" – Nickhere.

None of the above is "new" – Look up the article in Wikipedia relating to the loss of the Lusitania, the "discovery" last year by the members of Cork Sub-Aqua Club of the ammunition merely confirms what was made public in 1915 when the vessel's manifest became public knowledge – 4.2 million .303 rounds plus some 3" fragmentation shells. The article also goes into the causes of the second explosion:

-        Ammunition exploding (Highly unlikely)
-        Coal dust explosion (Possible but unlikely)
-        Catastrophic failure in the vessel's high pressure steam System (Highly probable and most likely)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 11:40 PM

Amos "facts":

"The unilateral invasion of a non-combatant sovereign nation is a fact."

Please explain the unilateral "fact" and the non combatant "fact" like a good fellow.

I recall there were several countries involved in this invasion and that there was frequent combat with Iraq stretching over several years leading up to this invasion.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 10:59 AM

Sawz:

Really? Frequent combat with Iraq? Are you making this up? Can you provide any substantiation? What specific combat?


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Stringsinger
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 02:29 PM

Bobert, Hans Blix, Scott Ritter and others warned us. The biggest mistake is the ideology that "might makes right". It had to go wrong.

Teribus as far as I can know is one of those ideologues that would not defend his position by going over to Iraq and fighting. He would prefer to be an armed-chair soldier.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 07:41 PM

Alot easier to call up a slaughter from 3000 or more miles away...

Lets see:

George Bush- 5300 miles away

Dick Cheney- 5300 miles away

Teribus- 2700 miles away

BB- 5300 miles away

Saws- +- 5300 miles away

Yup, seems like the chickhawks like their action at a safe distance...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 27 Jan 09 - 12:33 AM

"Really? Frequent combat with Iraq? Are you making this up? Can you provide any substantiation?"

"Operation Southern Watch was an operation conducted by Joint Task Force Southwest Asia (JTF-SWA) with the mission of monitoring and controlling airspace south of the 32nd Parallel (extended to the 33rd Parallel in 1996) in Iraq, following the 1991 Gulf War until the 2003 invasion of Iraq."

As of May 22, 2000 it was reported that since Operation Desert Fox there had been 470 separate incidents of AAA or surface-to-air missile fire at Coalition aircraft and Iraqi aircraft had violated the southern no-fly zone 150 times.[8] Over the same time period, American aircraft had attacked Iraqi targets on 73 occasions


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jan 09 - 12:55 AM

And in your jaded, bitter-minded worldview, Sawz, this makes Iraq an aggressor?

This sort of thickheadedness has cost us over 4,000 American lives, pal.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Jan 09 - 02:30 PM

"Bobert, Hans Blix and Scott Ritter" Eh?? They all told us did they?? Ignoring Bobert because he's a complete and utter muppet, let's look at the other two.

Exactly when did they tell us??

Did they tell us in 1998 when the Iraq of Saddam Hussein was identified by the Security and Intelligence Agencies of the United States of America as posing the greatest threat??

No they didn't Frank. In fact the very same Dr. Hans Blix and Scott Ritter contributed to UNSCOM's Final Report to The United Nations Security Council that was delivered in January 1999. It was the content of that report that itemised in great detail the proscribed WMD programmes and research and development being undertaken inside Iraq. Their report detailed the weaponised stocks of Chemical and Biological agents as well as the stockes of precursor chemicals and dual-use items present in Iraq. Their report detailed weapons and delivery systems.

Did the good Dr Blix tell us in 2003?

Ehm??? No he didn't, and I don't actually think that he has come out with a definite answer on this yet - I think he is verging on it, I think it goes to the tune of there might be but most likely there isn't anything and that Saddam Hussein did indeed destroy it all unilaterally - now that to me appears to be a man that is riding every horse in the race. The US search groups have only stated that they believe that it is highly unlikely that they will find anything - That is not the same thing as saying that there is nothing. One thing that is for certain now is that Iraq is no longer seeking WMD capability.

Scott Ritter - Good old unbiased, impartial, objective Scott Ritter.

Is that the Scott Ritter who was paid to produce a pro-Iraqi television programme??

Is that the Scott Ritter who had a book to sell??

As much as the chattering left puts their belief in the myth that there had to be one single issue that drove the situation, anyone who has actually done a bit of reading on the subject realises that there were a whole raft of reasons, all related to Iraqi non-compliance with the terms agreed and set down at Safwan.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jan 09 - 06:27 PM

There was no reason, and a whole raft of explanations, T.



A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Jan 09 - 06:38 PM

Fine, T... Why the Hell did the the UN send in inspectors??? Was that just a game???

I mean, lets get real here.... Thye world was told that Iraq had WMDs... It wasn't told of all these "other" reasons that you say existed... That's what they were told...Period!!!

So Blix takes inspectors backinto Iraq...

You following this, T???

Then Blix says that the Iraqis are letting the inspectors inspect where ever the inspectors want...

Any argument yet, T???

Then Bush says, "Screw it, invade anyway..."

That's the way it went down... No rerason to rewrite those facts on the ground 'cause we were all witnesses to them...

Tell ya what, T-bird... Next time ya'll wnat to kill a million people hows about telling the truth as to why those million people need to be killed... Don't come back afterwards and say, "Well, we had other reasons"... That don't cut it...

And that may land some of yer buds in war crimes courts...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Barry Finn
Date: 27 Jan 09 - 07:48 PM

We had plenty of reasons but we were only told one. WMD's!!!

Tacked on to that reason was 9/11 when the nation was questioning the 1st reason, then after the 9/11 association/reason came a host of other reasons. To late , we were already in the shithouse by then!

The other reasons weren't part of the picture until the WDM's conviently evaporated. Then came the other reasons

Of course we now now that the were other reasons we wanted to get into Iraq & that those reasons were prior to 9/11 ever happening but those reasons were private & kept private.

Barry


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 11:20 AM

Two posts, one from Barry Finn (27 Jan 09 - 07:48 PM) and one from Bobert (27 Jan 09 - 06:38 PM), that make me wonder exactly what planet they were on over the period of time in question. But there again, I believe that irrespective of what either reads, they only ever isolate and take away the bits they want to, the bits that pander to their own particular bias.

I'll respond to Barry's offering first:

That Iraq, under the leadership of Saddam Hussein, was evaluated as potentially posing the greatest threat to the United States of America is undeniable, it is a matter of record, as is the fact that this evaluation was made public on the 17th January, 1998. The nature of the threat was clearly detailed and described as follows:

1.      A regime that was hostile to the United States of America
2.      A regime that possessed WMD, WMD material, WMD technology
3.      A regime that had links to, sympathetic to and was a sponsor of an international terrorist organisation, or organisations that were hostile towards the United States of America
4.      A regime that would be capable of passing WMD, WMD material, WMD technology to an international terrorist group that was hostile towards the United States of America.

The template for this appraisal was formed on Iraq/Saddam's intransigence in complying with the terms of the Safwan Agreements and resulting UN Resolution requirements and his total lack of co-operation with the United Nations UNSCOM Inspectors. So here clearly was a nation governed by a regime that was hostile to the United States of America - that takes care of No. 1 above. It was known to have WMD, WMD material, WMD technology and had a proven track record of using them - that takes care of No. 2 above. Iraq under Saddam Hussein trained, financed and supported terrorist organisations based abroad to attack Israel - that takes care of No. 3 above. Would that regime then be willing and capable of passing on that technology, or capability to a terrorist group in order to attack the United States of America, harm its interests or its allies - You tell me, it is a judgement call, but fast forward to 11th September, 2001 and take note of the fact that Saddam Hussein was the only world leader who applauded the attacks carried out that day, then I don't think that Bill Clinton's security advisors had it wrong - That takes care of No. 4 above. Now add to all of that the 1993 attack on the World Trade Centre, which illustrated the vulnerability of the US to asymmetric attack.

The Clinton administration was extremely ineffective in their response to this threat, there was no great effort made to involve the UN in enforcing Iraqi compliance to the disarmament programmes required under the terms of UN Resolutions 678 or 687, both of which have been in the public domain since being passed by the Security Council of the United Nations, so I am rather puzzled that Barry Finn attempts to tell us that those requirements were "secret" or kept "private" - They weren't Barry they were there for all the world to read, as were the arguments for "Regime Change in Iraq" outlined in Clinton's Iraq Bill passed in the summer of 1998 which placed regime change in Iraq as a cornerstone of official US foreign policy in the middle-east - Now then Barry don't try and tell me that that was kept "private", because it wasn't, again, it was out there for all the world to read and remember and take note of this Barry all this was is in 1998.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 11:33 AM

OK, now for the other post, let's have a look at Bobert's cherry-picked and overly simplistic effort:

There were two inspection campaigns, the first UNSCOM set up in accordance with the Safwan Agreements and the second UNMOVIC which replaced UNSCOM. I mention this because it is important that Bobert should realise what these "teams" were supposed to do:

-       UNSCOM which stands for United Nations Special Commission (present in Iraq intermittently from 1991 to 1998)
-       UNMOVIC which stands for United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (present in Iraq from December 2002 to March 2003)

Bobert's first Question- first part: "Why the Hell did the UN send in inspectors?"

The answer that Bobert is not going to pay the slightest attention to:

The UNMOVIC Inspection teams were invited back into Iraq by Saddam Hussein to complete the work started by UNSCOM. As far as the United Nations were concerned, the Inspection teams went back into Iraq to monitor Iraqi disarmament and compliance with the terms of UNSC Resolution 1441, verify that that disarmament and compliance with the terms of UNSC resolution 1441 had been undertaken and to inspect sites associated with WMD programmes to verify that those programmes had in fact been shut down. Saddam's reasons for inviting those teams back into Iraq were completely different - If you doubt that, fast forward to Saddam's admission while in captivity that he did everything in his power to make the Iraqi people, the international community and his neighbouring states believe that Iraq still possessed chemical and biological weapons, was there any reason for him to say that to get the US off the hook? I can't see one, he'd already been tried, convicted an sentenced.

Bobert's first Question - second part: "Was that just a game?"

The answer that Bobert is not going to pay the slightest attention to:

As far as Saddam Hussein was concerned it was just a game, a game that he had successfully played and won before, and one that he thought, and had been advised, that he could play and win again. It most certainly was not a game to the United Nations Security Council, or to the United States of America.

And by all means "lets get real here.... The world was told that Iraq had WMDs" - Who by Bobert?? I'll give you the correct answer to that before you feel moved to start throwing "Bobert Facts" about. The world had been told by UNSCOM in January and in March 1999 that Iraq had WMD the status of which could not be confirmed.

The world "wasn't told of all these "other" reasons that you say existed". Now that hardly flies does it Bobert. It was the "world" organisation, specifically the United Nations that wrote Resolutions 678, 687 and 1441 (remember that final, last, last chance) detailing to Iraq what was required for compliance. In fact the verbiage of 1441 goes into the detail of Iraq's non-compliance to all previous resolutions. So take it from me Bobert the "world" was fully aware of all the reasons, it doesn't surprise me for one nano-second that you personally were not.

The good Doctor Hans Blix, Bobert, took the UNMOVIC Inspection Teams back into Iraq at Saddam Hussein's invitation purely and simply because the United States of America had made it pretty much understood that if he didn't the US were going to put boots on the ground and remove him - something that GWB's predecessor always fought shy off. Don't dress it up to anything different - the only reason the UN were invited back into Iraq was down entirely to the international pressure applied by George W. Bush. Period!!!!

You following this, Bobert???

Bobert's second Question: "Then Blix says that the Iraqis are letting the inspectors inspect where ever the inspectors want...Any argument yet, T???"

The answer that Bobert is not going to pay the slightest attention to:

Only that you present the part of the story that suits your view. You cherry-pick a couple of statements and remarks made by Blix, promote their significance way out of proportion and ignore the context in which they were stated and omit what Dr Hans Blix went on to say. Let's take a look at what Dr Hans Blix actually did say Bobert:

-       "Resolution 1441 (2002) was adopted on 8 November last year and emphatically reaffirmed the demand on Iraq to cooperate. It required this cooperation to be immediate, unconditional and active."

Remember those words Bobert - IMMEDIATE; UNCONDITIONAL; ACTIVE

-       "I turn now 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."

Remember IMMEDIATE, UNCONDITIONAL & ACTIVE Bobert? Date is now 27th January, 2003, UNMOVIC went into Iraq early December 2002 and Iraq is deciding "in principle" to co-operate on matters relating to process?? Not quite what was required was it Bobert. By the bye Bobert "in principle" does not equate to "in fact". And they haven't got round to deciding "in principle" to co-operating on substance - True?? That is what the good Doctor said wasn't it?? You don't have to answer that Bobert it's there in black and white, attempt to argue otherwise you only succeed in making yourself out to be a complete and utter prat.


-       "I shall deal first with cooperation on process……..Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field……. In this updating I am bound, however, to register some problems. Firstly, relating to two kinds of air operations…….While we now have the technical capability to send a U-2 plane placed at our disposal for aerial imagery and for surveillance during inspections and have informed Iraq that we planned to do so, Iraq has refused to guarantee its safety, unless a number of conditions are fulfilled. As these conditions went beyond what is stipulated in resolution 1441 (2002) and what was practiced by UNSCOM and Iraq in the past, we note that Iraq is not so far complying with our request.

Dr. Blix is registering problems in relation to the co-operation that Bobert states was flawless?? Go on Bobert have a read, that is what he is saying. Access, inspections, aerial reconnaissance, "Iraq has refused…..unless a number of conditions are fulfilled" - Hey Bobert what does the requirement "UNCONDITIONAL" mean to you? What part of it do you not understand?? Blix is quite clear on it though.

-       Cooperation on substance……..The substantive cooperation required relates above all to the obligation of Iraq to declare all programmes of weapons of mass destruction and either to present items and activities for elimination or else to provide evidence supporting the conclusion that nothing proscribed remains…………Paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002) 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.

So Dr. Blix is stating that there is not the level of co-operation on substance required. That UNMOVIC are not in Iraq to play games of "hide-and-seek". Not quite the picture that Bobert wants to hear about. Well he might not want to hear about it and he can deny it as much as he likes but it does not stop it from being truth, and the truth recorded in Dr Hans Blix's Report to the UN.

Did Bush say - "Screw it, invade anyway..."?? Got a reference for that Bobert, or is this just another "Bobert Fact". UNSC Resolution 1441 stipulated that there would be serious consequences for any material breach of the terms of that Resolution. I think I noted seven such material breaches on the part of Saddam's regime. President Chirac and his Foreign Minister Villeneuve completely stalled any further action on the part of the UN and the President of the United States of America acted on the best available advice from his Security Advisors and did his job - he looked to the security of the United States of America and the protection of her interests.

Oh and of course Bobert has to round it all up with the standard outburst of emotional crap:

"Tell ya what, T-bird... Next time ya'll wnat to kill a million people hows about telling the truth as to why those million people need to be killed... Don't come back afterwards and say, "Well, we had other reasons"... That don't cut it..."

But there haven't been one million people killed, and so far, Bobert, although asked to do so many, many times, hasn't been able to come up with any substantiation for this figure that he waves about like a flag. Since May 2003, the vast majority of Iraqi deaths have been the result of in-fighting between Iraqi groups and terrorist/insurgent attacks on the civilian population of Iraq. The number according to "Iraq Body Count" provides a maximum figure of 98,729 with deaths during the invasion of 10,079. Every single one of them documented, every incident recorded with details as to name of victim, cause of death and party responsible for those deaths. Bobert's million on the other hand was only ever a "Guestimate" of who might have died based on unverified batch sampling. Once again I will point out the obvious that "might have died" does not equate to "actually died".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 02:41 PM

You keep jamming 1998 and 2002-3 as if nothing changed.

What actually appears to have happened is that Iraq did disarm as far as WMD is concerned, and Saddam continued to put up a baloney pretense for the purposes of keeping Iran at bay, creating the impression without substance that they still existed. Those of too little wit were inclined to believe his baloney, especially when the Bush administration starting echoing the BS and magnifying it. But it was all BS.

Some people saw that, and some did not.

You clearly were among the latter, and have been erecting palisades of justification ever since.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 02:54 PM

Hi Teribus,

Re; Scott and Blix



"Did they tell us in 1998 when the Iraq of Saddam Hussein was identified by the Security and Intelligence Agencies of the United States of America as posing the greatest threat??"

This is errant propaganda. Security and intelligent agencies knew very little about Iraq at the time and even today they know not much more.

" It was the content of that report that itemised in great detail the proscribed WMD programmes and research and development being undertaken inside Iraq."

The report was obviously based on little-known information at the time and if it existed as you say it did, then it has obviously been proven false.


"Their report detailed the weaponised stocks of Chemical and Biological agents as well as the stockes of precursor chemicals and dual-use items present in Iraq. Their report detailed weapons and delivery systems."

To that, I say, "Yellowcake, anyone?"

"Did the good Dr Blix tell us in 2003?"

Not many knew what was going on in 03. He wouldn't have known. Saddam was a paper tiger. He was put in place by the US as a deterrent to Iran. He was all talk and no substance as has been shown recently. Blix and Ritter finally realized that their findings were about to be propagandized by the Bush Administration and in their public statements reacted accordingly.

"The US search groups have only stated that they believe that it is highly unlikely that they will find anything - That is not the same thing as saying that there is nothing."

What US search groups? There are a lot of self-styled groups in the US that claim some kind of information. Many of them are puppets for Bush.

"One thing that is for certain now is that Iraq is no longer seeking WMD capability."

And it has been shown that Iraq never had that capability. It was smoke and mirrors.

"Scott Ritter - Good old unbiased, impartial, objective Scott Ritter.
Is that the Scott Ritter who was paid to produce a pro-Iraqi television programme??"

What does pro-Iraqi mean? They don't even have an Iraq. He was never in favor of Saddam as your implication suggests.


"As much as the chattering left puts their belief in the myth that there had to be one single issue that drove the situation, anyone who has actually done a bit of reading on the subject realises that there were a whole raft of reasons, all related to Iraqi non-compliance with the terms agreed and set down at Safwan."

I disagree that the so-called left has any belief of the kind. Actually, reading right-wing propaganda does not constitute objective analysis of the situation. I think your description, "a bit of reading" is accurate. Certainly not a full report.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 06:40 PM

No, T, as pwer usaul it is ****you**** who has cherry-picked the Blix Report to the UN...

What exactly do you not undertsand about the term "The most important" as when Dr, Blix stated, and I quote, "The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect..."

In most English grammer books "most" means "most"... So "most important point" means "most important point"... Nothing else... Not yer usual balh,blah, blah about stuff totally irrelevent to the fact on the ground as of January 27, 2003...

Yer arguments, while long and teadious, don't add up to calling for the invasion... They deal with events other than what Dr. Blix actaully said was the "most impotant point" about his ionspection team... Not about "old business" but the reality as of the day of the report...

Face it, ol' buddy, you ain't got anything in yer poker hand yet you continue to bet holding off the inevitable of having to admit that you are (and still are) wrong...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 07:06 PM

Bobert your post of 28 Jan 09 - 06:40 PM was unnecessary after all I had said earlier- "The answer that Bobert is not going to pay the slightest attention to"

Your post referred to above proves I was correct.


Now Stringsingers post:

Point 1:
"Did they tell us in 1998 when the Iraq of Saddam Hussein was identified by the Security and Intelligence Agencies of the United States of America as posing the greatest threat??"

This is errant propaganda. Security and intelligent agencies knew very little about Iraq at the time and even today they know not much more." - Stringsinger

Well frank maybe your memory or your timeline has just slipped a bit. Now in 1998, and please excuse me and point it out if I have any of this wrong, the United Nations' UNSCOM Teams including Blix & Ritter had been working inside Iraq, albeit getting the run-around by Saddam and the lads for over six years. In 1998 Frank they knew a damn sight more about what was happening inside Iraq than they ever did in 2003, after UNSCOM left Iraq became an intelligence "Black-Hole", which is why all information relating to Iraq's WMD came from the final UNSCOM Reports of January and March 1999.

Point 2:
"" It was the content of that report that itemised in great detail the proscribed WMD programmes and research and development being undertaken inside Iraq."

The report was obviously based on little-known information at the time and if it existed as you say it did, then it has obviously been proven false."

Oh their reports were based on very good information Frank, very detailed information supplied by the Iraqi Government themselves, supplied by the manufacturing facilities within Iraq, supplied by foreign suppliers of equipment and materials. Only problem was Frank that there were discrepencies that the Iraqis could not explain away. Its all there in the UNSCOM Reports if you'd like to read them - or were the likes of Blix and Ritter and the rest of the UN Inspectors lying too??

Point 3:
"Their report detailed the weaponised stocks of Chemical and Biological agents as well as the stockes of precursor chemicals and dual-use items present in Iraq. Their report detailed weapons and delivery systems."

To that, I say, "Yellowcake, anyone?"

Wrong year Frank the supposed attempt to buy Yellow Cake from Niger was after 1998. Incidently Yellow Cake was found in Iraq in 2003, as were chemical munitions, 384 Rocket motors and there was a proscribed missile development programme under way - The latter having been identified by British Intelligence who tipped off UNMOVIC.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 09:11 PM

No, T... That's where you have it all wrong...

One million people have been murdered because you and yer buds dismised not only the Bobert's of the world but also the words of Hans Blix...

You, with the blood on your hands, will not minimalize this ****************************fact******************************!!!

Do not try this game with me... Do not try this game with history and do not try this game with those who you, yes ******you****** who's lives have been snuffed out becasue you and yer war monging buddies got it so very...

..........................wrong...........................!!!

And please spare me any more of yer crap... It is all lies and distortions... It is all about making be able to sleeep at night... You should never ever be able to sleep at night...

Blix told you that things were going fine... You ignored him and ordered up the slaughter of a million people...

You do not deserve to ever sleep again without the knowledge that you, yes you, are responsible...

Now, get off of my cloud...

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 09:16 PM

The reason there was a precise itemized report by Iraq in 1998 is that they were cooperating with the requirement that they disarm.

You continue to ignore the difference between that point in time and the 2002-3 time period, in order to make the invasion seem justified.

This is simply bone-headed warmongering, not to put too fine a point on it.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Barry Finn
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 09:55 PM

Teribus,
you say "That Iraq, under the leadership of Saddam Hussein was evaluated as potentially posing the greatest threat to the United States of America"

Look at what happened, look at what transpired. What is & was fact & what was false are now well known. "Evaluatated"! That evaluation proved to be false! Concocked! Fabricated! We were lied to! We were spooked by the spooks & even they knew it was creepy! We were had!

There's no need to go over this.

And you ask what planet I'm on? Check yourself out & where you've been for the last 7yrs?

Get your head out of the sand, get with the rest of the world, you'll keep the party line, long after the party drops it.

Barry


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 04:46 AM

"The reason there was a precise itemized report by Iraq in 1998 is that they were cooperating with the requirement that they disarm." - Amos

Now that statement of yours Amos beggars belief. It is complete and utter hogwash and you know it. Iraq was co-operating?? So what was it that UNSCOM was complaining about to the United Nations Security Council?? What was the reason for "Desert Fox"?? Remember the complaints about the status of the 17 "Presidential Palaces" built by Saddam - the ones UNSCOM could not inspect - were they an example of all this Iraqi co-operation??.

"You continue to ignore the difference between that point in time and the 2002-3 time period, in order to make the invasion seem justified." - Amos

Eh, No Amos, I don't think so, quite the reverse in fact, go back and read exactly what I have said about what was known in 1998 compared to what was known in 2003 - something to do with their being an "intelligence Black-hole" in the region as far as the US was concerned (That came about thanks to "Peanut" Carter by the bye).

By all means Barry let's - "Look at what happened, look at what transpired."

- Where before there was uncertainty regarding Iraqi WMD and WMD programmes there is now none. That is what has happened, now is that good or bad.

- Where before Iraq under Saddam Hussein acted as a state sponsor for international terrorism instigating trouble in the region, particularly in Israel. The terrorists in the region have now lost an important backer thereby increasing the prospects for peace in the region. That is what has happened, good or bad.

- Libya unilaterally renounced and disbanded it's WMD programme, that is what happened. What transpired was the discovery of a hither to unknown, and extremely advanced, nuclear weapons programme. Now was that a good thing or a bad thing.

- The secret, illegal and extremely dangerous activities of Dr.A.Q.Khan in the field of nuclear weapons proliferation were brought out into the open and shut down. That is what happened, that is what transpired, good or bad.

- According to NIE reports Iran at least temporarily suspended its uranium enrichment programme in 2003. That is what happened and what transpired was that the IAEA got a glimpse of the scale of the secret nuclear programme of Iran.

- North Korea was persuaded to resume six-party talks on nuclear abandonment. That is what transpired, what happened was that an agreement was reached and now all parties are working towards a mutually agreed solution.

- Syria was ordered to leave the Lebanon by the UN and complied after occupying the country for 27 years. Syrian attempts at acquiring nuclear technology and weapons were stopped dead in their tracks.

- "Al-Qaeda" as seen from the perspective of the "Muslim World" was exposed for condemnation by all for the way they conducted themselves in Iraq. Even Al-Qaeda's second in command admitted their total failure in Iraq.

Now then Barry all the above came about because the US acted as it did - by taking on and dealing with a "rogue state" it seriously discouraged four others and they are listed above. Throughout the period since the invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam Hussein oil supplies from the region have flowed uninterrrupted and have in fact increased. Now what would have happened and what might have transpired if the US had not acted:

- Iraq would have resumed its game of giving UNMOVIC the run-around until they were convinced to give Iraq the all clear.

- UN sanctions on Iraq would have been withdrawn or just simply ignored.

- Iraq would have them rearmed and Russian, China and France would be only too pleased to help them

- Nothing would be known about the activities of Dr.A.Q.Khan furthering the likelyhood of even wider nuclear weapons proliferation

- Libya would now have a nuclear weapon that nobody knew about, a weapon that was totally annonymous - sort of like a gun with all marks removed, a weapon that could not be traced.

- Syria would still be present in Lebanon and would be actively pursuing the acquisition of nuclear weapons aided and abetted by Dr.A.Q.Khan and the North Koreans.

- By now 2009 the second Iran/Iraq War would be in its third or fourth year. There is no way on earth that Saddam Hussein would have stood by and allowed the Iranian nuclear programme to advance as far as it has without doing something about it. The only course of action open to him would be to attack Iran, with the resulting closure or severe restrictions to oil supplies sailing through the Straits of Hormuz.

- Iraq would have resumed WMD production and would still be sponsoring terrorist organisations.

- Al-Qaeda would still be "dining-out" on the Kudos from 9/11, it would have got stronger and would now have numerous avenues to explore with regard to obtain a WMD for an attack or attacks on the US or Israel, especially from a source who had a weapon that nobody knew about.

- Which way Pakistan might have jumped doesn't really bear thinking about.

Don't know about you Barry but I know which picture looks better and is better for the entire planet - you may disagree.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 08:14 AM

Oh Barry, correction to my previous mail under the section of what would have happened and what would have transpired if the US had not acted, where I stated:

"- Iraq would have resumed its game of giving UNMOVIC the run-around until they were convinced to give Iraq the all clear."

That of course is incorrect because had the US not acted there would have been no UNMOVIC, there would have been no return of weapons inspectors to Iraq, the missile development programme would have proceeded unchallenged, serving as the thin end of the wedge as a tester which would then be followed by other proscribed activities.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 02:15 PM

Yes, Iraq was an agressor. What happened in Kuwait?

"This sort of thickheadedness has cost us over 4,000 American lives, pal."

During Clinton's "peace time" over 7000 American lives were lost in the military. What sort of thickheadedness caused that? Did you protest back then? No? Was it because you did not have a political axe to grind?

Hey mr Blowhard Bobert, What were the reasons for going to war with Iraq?

Here is one but it does not support your single minded accusation that WMDs were the reason:

Iraq is actually exporting food, even though it says its people are malnourished. Coalition ships enforcing the UN sanctions against Iraq recently diverted the ship M/V MINIMARE containing 2,000 metric tons of rice and other material being exported from Iraq for hard currency instead of being used to support the Iraqi people.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 02:36 PM

So, Sawzall, you support a policy of unilaterally invading nations guilty of mismanagement?



A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 07:53 PM

Yo, Sawz,

First of all, don't call me "Blowhard Bobert" again 'er I'll hunt you down and extract a few of yer teeth... Got it??? Good...

As to why we invaded Iraq??? Well, it had nuthin' to do with the reasons that were given, that much has been established...

We invaded Iraq because the neo-cons convinced a less-than-curious George W that we needed to... He bought their story lock-stock-'n-barrel... The neo-cons look at the world as a big Monopoly board and they thought that if they could gain a real foothold somewhere in the Middle East that the US would have access to the oil there... Some folks would use the term "geo-political" for purdy much the same thing...

The neo-cons were convinced that Iraq was ripe for a MCDonalds on every corner and would be the easiest of the Middle Eastern countries to have half a chance of of selling an invasion to the rest of the world... It didn't have to be Iraq for them... Iran would have made them happy, too, but the story wasn't there... Too many transitions and here they had Saddam, who had been in power for decades... And they had the Kuwait history... So Iraq was to them the perfect storm...

Well, they got that part right... Iraq has been the perfect storm and bogged down out nation for at least a decade...

So, that is why Bush ordered up a senseless war and a war that should get him the title of "Worst President Ever"...

Okay, some folks would argue that Vietnam was as bad or worse and in terms of out losses it was worse... What makes Iraq worse than Vietnam is that Vietnam was a model of what not to do yet Bush, not known for his intellectual curiousity, didn't heed the lessons of Vietnam...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 08:21 PM

"Well, it had nuthin' to do with the reasons that were given, that much has been established." By whom, when and where?

They were enumerated long before GWB showed up on the scene.

Bobert shifts his claim the "the war is lost" to "it was wrong".

Bobert 20 Jul 07

    Anyone else notice that every day the Bushites push back the date that ***The Surge*** will work???

    Seems like it's been moved back twice this week from Septmeber to next summer??? At that rate, give the Bushites another week an' it will be sometime in the next century...

    Face it folks... The surge ain't gonna work... This is a civil war we are now in the middle of... We ain't gonna win this one... Might of fact, this is alike rootin' for the home team late in the 4th quarter and down by 4 touchdowns... Yeah, I think we can all relate... Yeah, we hope that we just get one more touchdown but understand that the game is lost...

    Iraq is lost...

    The folks sayin', "Oh geeze, we just can't afford to loose" won't change this very simple truth...

    Iraq is lost...

    Better just dig in, bite the bullet and make the most of it...

    So I would think the question at hand isn't about whether or not the war can be won but what to do now...

    That involves a major paradyme switch...

    There are things that a militarially defeated US can do... Lot's of them... BUt they can't do them until they give up this false hope that **the surge*** will bring victory, or stability... That won't happen...

    Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 08:43 PM

Sawz:

The surge coincided with the awakening of the local tribes to the fact that Al Qeda was not their friend, and Bush's surge got a lot of credit for pacification that actually should be laid at the door of the locals. But even if Bobert's assessment was mistaken, it seems to me--since you have given your man so much endless slack for so many boneheaded misunderestimations and mistakes--that Bobert deserves a bit of slack as well.

You're in Obama country, pal. That means re-unification and reaching across the grat Divide.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 04:33 PM

Yeah, Obama country where Obama says we won and we are going to do as we please. All the while esposing bipartisanship and unification.

Bobert likes to blurt out these absolute statements based on his own strange ideas of how things really are and when it starts looking like the statement was wrong, he gets all huffy and puffy and tries to dredfine his statement.

I could be wrong on this but I believe anybody who thinks they are always right is arrogant.

I merely point out the incorrectness in people's statements and I get stereotyped as some sort of monster that is always wrong. Ad hominem. Argument against the person instead of the factuality of what they have presented.

Yes, I have been wrong on several occasions. I usually try to admit that I was wrong rather than bluster along and get hostile defending my mistaken ideas.

Nobody is right all of the time and nobody is wrong all of the time.

Things need to be considered on an individual basis.

This is what I believe to be open minded thinking.

And I always try to avoid telling people that they are stupid, just mistaken, unknowledgeable or unwilling to admit to truth.

Did the surge work or was it the awakening that worked?

I think the real heart if the matter is "Would the awakening have worked without the surge?

If could be that the awakening would have worked on it's own but I don't think it would have. Nor would the surge have worked without the awakening.

The Sunnis saw the light and finally got the determination but could they have defeated Al Quaeda alone? Was not arming them part of the surge?

I think the chances are that if not for the surge, Iraq would still be a war zone.

All in all I believe the surge was a positive thing but it has to be derided by those who made closed minded assertions that it will not work, It cannot work, it is all a lie etc.

Likewise, those that were against the war and made absolute statements that the war is lost, we can't win etc, must now focus only on WMDs to assert that the war was wrong when in fact there was a plurality of reasons for the war that go back way before GWB.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 05:05 PM

I haven't shifted anything since 2002, Sawz... The war was both wrong and lost... No shift... Both are true...

The Surge itself didn't work... It wasn't more boots on the ground but an entire shift in strategy... It also didn't hurt that the "Anwar Awakening" was occuring at the same time as the Surge... But a couple things, other than the Anwar Awakeining cornerstone occured.... The US began making cash payments to Sunnis not to shoot at US and the US, under David Patreas, put our military in neigborgoods 24/7... Both were smart... But it was the Sunni's realizing that they didn't want al qeada in their country that was the biggie...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Stringsinger
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 05:33 PM

"Well frank maybe your memory or your timeline has just slipped a bit."

Teribus, perhaps my memory is not as clear as you state but I'm not making things up like you are.

"Now in 1998, and please excuse me and point it out if I have any of this wrong, the United Nations' UNSCOM Teams including Blix & Ritter had been working inside Iraq, albeit getting the run-around by Saddam and the lads for over six years."

This is not true. The fact is that Saddam was put in place by the US. They overcame any
"running around" that might have taken place and offered an objective appraisal of the situation.



" In 1998 Frank they knew a damn sight more about what was happening inside Iraq than they ever did in 2003, after UNSCOM left Iraq became an intelligence "Black-Hole", which is why all information relating to Iraq's WMD came from the final UNSCOM Reports of January and March 1999."

Yes and they determined that WMD's were not there. Plans for them may have been instituted by Saddam but the reality of achieving these goals were impossible.


Point 2:
"" It was the content of that report that itemised in great detail the proscribed WMD programmes and research and development being undertaken inside Iraq."

Which proved to be nonsense. These were distorted beyond comprehension for political purposes by both Bush and his British lackey.


The report was obviously based on little-known information at the time and if it existed as you say it did, then it has obviously been proven false."



The reports said nothing about WMD's except that it was assumed that Saddam would like to have acquired them which he was unable to do.


The UNSCOM Reports are open to interpretation. And we did know that Bush was lying.

The Reports change from time to time anyway.



Point 3:
"Their report detailed the weaponised stocks of Chemical and Biological agents as well as the stockes of precursor chemicals and dual-use items present in Iraq. Their report detailed weapons and delivery systems."

And these were determined to be false.


"Wrong year Frank the supposed attempt to buy Yellow Cake from Niger was after 1998. Incidently Yellow Cake was found in Iraq in 2003, as were chemical munitions, 384 Rocket motors and there was a proscribed missile development programme under way - The latter having been identified by British Intelligence who tipped off UNMOVIC.

This is a pointless argument. They were not officially found except by those who attempted to capitalize politically on this misinformation. The reports you suggest were manufactured for political consideration by those who favored the invasion of Iraq. The proscribed missile development program was not tenable. Yellow Cake was not found in Iraq. This is a lie that instituted an embarrassment for the Bush Administration. It was a forged claim by Italian operatives and used as a pretext for the invasion.

Actually, the Bush Administration pulled out the UNSCOM inspectors because they wanted to invade Iraq in spite of the fact that Blix and Ritter stated that the Iraqis cooperating.
That fact is not hogwash.

Frank


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 05:49 PM

"The fact is that Saddam was put in place by the US."
- Complete and utter MYTH

"They (UNSCOM??) overcame any "running around" that might have taken place and offered an objective appraisal of the situation." - Yes they did Frank and delivered the Reports based upon that objective appraisal of the situation to the Security Council of the United Nations in January and in March 1999. From those reports based upon that objective appraisal came verbatum the detail contained in the dossier present to Parliament in September 2002, the UNSCOM Reports by the bye Frank are quoted as a reference. So UNSCOM were lying?? Why??


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 08:54 PM

"The US began making cash payments to Sunnis" Paying them $10 a day to fight al-Qaida was part of the surge.

Bobert: It's been a while since you told one of those funny stories. Tell us again how wrong this is:

The sudden burst of violence failed to dampen Iraq's election spirits, however, with mobile phones up and down the country beeping long into the night as various parties sent out mass text messages trying to win votes.

The sectarian slaughter that consumed the country from 2004 to early 2007 has given way to poster wars. Interest in the polls has also broadened. Many Iraqis were too scared to participate in the last provincial election because of the violence. In any case, most Sunni Arabs boycotted them in protest at the US-led occupation.

This time round the mood is more up-beat. Standing on a street corner in the market town of Baladruz in Diyala, Kisma Mohammed studied a patchwork of posters on a shop wall emblazoned with the faces of election hopefuls and party leaders

"I will go and vote provided I am in good health," the 48-year-old housewife said. Like many fellow Sunni Arabs, she will be casting a ballot for the first time in her life.

Two years ago Mrs Mohammed and her family moved to Baladruz from a nearby village because of the level of killings. Now, thanks to the transformed security situation and the participation of the Sunnis, turnout is expected to be as high as 70 per cent.

"I ask you to go to the elections, men and women, to really take part in building Iraq," Mr al-Maliki told a rally last week of 2,000 supporters inside a football stadium, in the southern Iraqi city of Basra.

The past Sunni boycott deprived Iraq's second-largest group of a balanced representation in the country's provincial councils. Instead, the majority Shia Arabs and Kurds, who were discriminated against under Saddam Hussein's regime, enjoyed a greater share of power, even in provinces with a relatively strong Sunni presence such as Diyala.

Now the struggle is for space on shop fronts and blast walls, although Iraqi democracy is not without its dirty tricks. On one road into Baquba, Diyala's capital, a candidate's picture has been decapitated; graffiti has ruined another, while a third is in shreds. Parties are also wooing voters with phone cards and cash concealed in election paraphernalia. In an attempt to win favourable media coverage, the Government has even proposed offering free land to Iraqi journalists.

One great fear is that Diyala, with its rich blend of Shia and Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmen - and once the hub of al-Qaeda activity in Iraq - will be hit by renewed violence, along with other flashpoints such as Mosul.

To pre-empt the threat, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi police and soldiers voted earlier this week so that they can be on duty tomorrow.

With US and British troops taking a backseat, it will mark a big test of Iraq's security capability. If they succeed in policing a peaceful election it could strengthen President Obama's resolve to pull all American combat forces out within 16 months.

In Diyala the main election issues are typical of the country as a whole: the fight against corruption and a perceived failure by incumbent politicians to invest in projects to improve services.

The Diyala council denies corruption allegations, but locals say running water and power are scarce, sewage is a problem and unemployment is high.

At present the provincial council is headed by a Shia governor. Of its 41 seats, 14 belong to the Iraqi Islamic Party (IIP) - the only Sunni party to take part in the last election - while 20 are held by a coalition of Shia groups and 7 by Kurds.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 09:11 PM

New York Times:

"The surge, clearly, has worked, at least for now: violence, measured in the number of attacks against Americans and Iraqis each week, has dropped by 80 percent in the country since early 2007, according to figures the general provided. Civilian deaths, which peaked at more than 100 a day in late 2006, have also plunged. Car and suicide bombings, which stoked sectarian violence, have fallen from a total of 130 in March 2007 to fewer than 40 last month. In July, fewer Americans were killed in Iraq -- 13 -- than in any month since the war began.

The result, now visible in the streets, is a calm unlike any the country has seen since the American invasion toppled Saddam Hussein in April 2003. The signs -- Iraqi families flooding into parks at sundown, merchants throwing open long-shuttered shops -- are stunning to anyone who witnessed the country's implosion in 2005 and 2006. "


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 09:32 PM

On February 16, 2008, Iraqi Defense Minister Abdel Qader Jassim Mohammed told reporters that the surge was "working very well" and that Iraq has a "pressing" need for troops to stay to secure Iraqi borders. He stated that "Results for 2007 prove that – Baghdad is good now".

As the surge forces proceeded to clear entire towns and neighborhoods of terrorist groups, the Sunni Arab civilians were offered a deal. If they would establish a local security force, and stop future terrorist operations, the U.S. would provide weapons, training and cash. If the local guard force could not do the job, the U.S. and Iraqi troops would be back, and that could be very bad for the neighborhoods. This had been tried before in Sunni Arab areas, but not with complete success. This time around, there was a widespread attitude change among the Sunni Arabs. The feeling was that the whole terror campaign had been a failure, and the only way out now was to turn on the terrorists. It was always obvious that the Americans could go anywhere and kill terrorists. But now the Iraqi army and police, made up largely of Kurds and Shia Arabs, was also able to fight. This was something new, and the Sunni Arabs didn't want to be on the receiving end of more counter-terrorist operations carried out by Kurdish and Shia Arab troops.

So far, the Sunni Arabs have 60,000 paid local guards, and another 12,000 volunteers. Many of these guys had previously worked for terrorist organizations. That's where the cash payments came in. U.S. intel knew that a lot of terrorism was carried out by men doing it for the cash, as much as because they wanted get the Americans out, and Sunni Arabs get back into power.

The surge attacks began last April. By August, the Sunni Arab and al Qaeda terrorist organizations were broken and on the run. Their situation only got worse going into the Fall. The number of attacks plummeted, as did U.S. and Iraqi (military and civilian) casualties. Earlier in the year, 3,000 Iraqis (uniformed and civilian) were dying a month. Now it's about 500 a month.


Another important, but less reported, aspect of the surge campaign, was the attention paid to Shia Arab militias. Several of these were supported by Iranian Shia radicals, who were encouraging, and sometimes paying, Iraqi Shia to kill Americans and Iraqi security forces. By late Summer, these Shia militias were getting a lot of attention. Leaders were being arrested, and terrorism supplies (bombs, weapons in general) were being confiscated. Names and biometric data was collected on members of the militias. These guys knew what they meant. They were no longer anonymous. Now the Americans knew who they were, and where they lived. That made many Shia Arab militiamen less enthusiastic about attacking anyone


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 09:50 PM

Sep 6, 2008
Barack Obama said Thursday that the escalation of U.S. troops in Iraq, which he had opposed, has succeeded in reducing violence "beyond our wildest dreams."

Maybe Bobert's dreams are wilder than Obama's wildest dreams


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 10:23 PM

Bobert: This is just a sidebar. It is on the aljazeera.net website'a         
FOCUS: IRAQI ELECTIONS
Timeline: Iraqi Elections

For the first time since 2005, Iraqis are heading back to the polls to vote in new provincial elections that are likely to reshape the political landscape.

Sunni Arabs, who boycotted the 2005 elections, are expected to make a strong showing.

Here is a timeline of key political events that have shaped the Iraqi political process since US-led forces invaded Iraq in 2003...........

Excerpt:
May 20: Ahmed Chalabi, the one-time Pentagon favourite and a prime instigator of the Iraq invasion, has his Baghdad offices raided by US forces. This marks a turning point in relations.

http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/iraq/2009/01/200912981139534809.html


HMMMM I don't see Al Jazz beating up on GWB. Could it be that they don't know what is going on in their own part of the world?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 10:37 PM

January 18, 2009

PETER BEINART IN THE WASHINGTON POST: Admit it: The Surge Worked.

Okay, I admit it! Oh, wait, he's not talking about me: "It's time for Democrats to say so. During the campaign they rarely did for fear of jeopardizing Barack Obama's chances of winning the presidency. But today, the hesitation is less tactical than emotional."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Jan 09 - 09:00 AM

The only part aboout the surge that worked was the PR...

"The Surge" was elevtaed to 9/11 status in terms of the PR that was put into it... To most folks who really are clueless abotu the complexities of the Iraq war "The Surge" was strictly about more "boots on the ground"... This is not the real story and it has been simplified for Bubba consumption...

The real story doesn't fit on a bumper sticker so with the average Joe's attention span it's really a story that he can't or won't follow...

The real story is about a shift in strategy away from our troops hiding in the Green Zone at night to setting up base camps in neighborhoods where they could get to know the people and have a presence at night... That could have been done without more boots on the ground... The rst of the story is the Anwar Awakeing which, of course, doesn't fit neatly into you "Surgers" bumper stricker length view of real events... And paying folks not to shoot at us was the 3rd leg of the stool...

This is the real story but, like I said, by the time you tell it, most of America has gone back to watching sports or off to the mall...

That's why the Dems just left it alone... Biden did try to tell the real story in his debate with Ms. Sarah but it was too long to hold the audience... So the Dems just did the expedient thing and recognized that the truth wouldn't fit on a bumper sticker and just relinquished the point...

That's more a commentary on Joe Public than the realities opf the Surge...

Historians will trump the PR people and one day there will be books expalining what happened but right now the PR folks are still riding in 1st place... But that doesn't make them right... Certain lies just have longer shelg lifes... The Surge is one of them...

And in the words of Walter Cronkite, "That's the way it is..."

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 31 Jan 09 - 10:27 AM

Washington post August 12, 2008
Peter Mansour: How The Surge Worked

Given the divisive debate over the Iraq war, perhaps it was inevitable that the accomplishments of the recently concluded "surge" would become shrouded in the fog of 30-second sound bites. Too often we hear that the dramatic security improvement in Iraq is due not to the surge but to other, unrelated factors and that the positive developments of the past 18 months have been merely a coincidence.

To realize how misleading these assertions are, one must understand that the "surge" was more than an infusion of reinforcements into Iraq.
Of greater importance was the change in the way U.S. forces were employed starting in February 2007, when Gen. David Petraeus ordered them to position themselves with Iraqi forces out in neighborhoods. This repositioning was based on newly published counterinsurgency doctrine that emphasized the protection of the population and recognized that the only way to secure people is to live among them.

To be sure, some units conducted effective counterinsurgency operations before the surge, including Col. H.R. McMaster's 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment in Tall Afar in 2005 and Col. Sean MacFarland's 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division, in Ramadi in 2006. More generally, however, the coalition approach before 2007 was focused on rapidly shifting security responsibilities to Iraqi forces. As sectarian violence spiraled out of control, it became increasingly evident that Iraqi forces were unable to prevent its spread. By the fall of 2006, it was clear that our strategy was failing, an assessment courageously stated by Gen. George Casey and U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad in their year-end review of the Joint Campaign Plan.

The arrival of additional U.S. forces signaled renewed resolve. Sunni tribal leaders, having glimpsed the dismal future in store for their people under a regime controlled by al-Qaeda in Iraq and fearful of abandonment, were ready to throw in their lot with the coalition. The surge did not create the first of the tribal "awakenings," but it was the catalyst for their expansion and eventual success. The tribal revolt took off after the arrival of reinforcements and as U.S. and Iraqi units fought to make the Iraqi people secure.

Over time, in areas where there were insufficient forces to provide security, U.S. commanders extended contracts to Sunni (and some Shiite) tribes that volunteered to stand up against al-Qaeda in Iraq. These payments ensured that tribesmen could feed their families until the economy recovered and services improved. Payments generally followed the commencement of tribal rebellions and were not, as some claim, their cause.

As U.S. units established smaller outposts and destroyed al-Qaeda havens, the area under Iraqi and coalition control expanded. Security improved dramatically after the last surge units arrived and the Multi-National Corps-Iraq, under Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, commenced a relentless series of operations to drive insurgents out of their long-held sanctuaries.

Improved security led to greater Iraqi confidence and lessened the need for, and acceptance of, Shiite militias that for too long held sway in many neighborhoods. When the Mahdi Army instigated a gun battle in Karbala last August that forced the cancellation of a major Shiite religious observance, the resulting public pressure compelled Moqtada al-Sadr to declare a unilateral cease-fire. Without the improved security conditions created by the surge, this cease-fire would not have been declared; nor could it have been observed, because the militia would still have been needed to protect Shiite communities from terrorist attacks.

The increase in U.S. forces, moreover, was dwarfed by the concurrent expansion of Iraqi forces by more than 140,000 troops. Over time, Iraqi units grew more capable and increasingly took the lead in providing security, backed by coalition advisers, ground forces, intelligence and air power. Operations this spring in Basra, Baghdad, Mosul and elsewhere -- though not always smooth -- have demonstrated the growing effectiveness of the Iraqi army. Without the change in strategy and additional forces provided by the surge, the effort to improve the capabilities of Iraqi forces would have died stillborn, swallowed by the sectarian violence that was ripping Iraq apart by the end of 2006.

The Iraq war is not over, but our war effort is on a firmer foundation. In the end, the Iraqis, appropriately, will determine their future. The surge has created the space and time for the competition for power and resources in Iraq to play out in the political realm, with words instead of bombs. Success is not guaranteed, but such an outcome would be a fitting tribute to the sacrifices of the men and women of Multi-National Force-Iraq and their ongoing efforts, along with their Iraqi partners, to turn around a war that was nearly lost less than two years ago.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 31 Jan 09 - 10:29 AM

Mishawaka surgeon discusses his view of Iraq
What he saw there changed his life, he says.
January 26. 2009
Oral surgeon Russell Linman has no qualms about being blunt during his lectures about the war in Iraq.

He shows people pictures of amputees and of soldiers' faces before he did his best to reconstruct them.

"It gives people a better idea of what is going on over there," Linman said.

Linman, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel, served in a military hospital in Balad, north of Baghdad, from May to September 2005.

Linman, 47, was with other surgeons in the 332nd Expeditionary Medical Group. His job was to perform major reconstructive surgery, specializing in serious facial injuries.

What he saw changed his life forever, he said.

Linman, who works in Mishawaka, has lectured almost a dozen times on his experiences in Iraq.

His next lecture will be at 8 p.m. Tuesday at the VFW at 1750 W. Plymouth St. in Bremen. The speech is open to the public.

Linman recently sat down with Tribune staff writer Tom Moor and talked about what it was like to serve in Iraq........................

Q: What do you try and teach people during your lecture?

A: I try and show people war has changed, because it's a terror-based war. There's not two combatant armies going against each other. I don't know what it was like in Vietnam, but I think what's going on over there is quite a bit different. Soldiers have better armor now, so there's not as many casualties.

I never felt like I was going to die, although mortars were coming in. I felt I had good support in the U.S. compared to other wars. ... I feel like people are somewhat misled about what's going on over there. The surge, I was in support for it to begin with, and it worked.

http://www.southbendtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090126/News01/901260305


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 31 Jan 09 - 10:55 AM

USA Today January 22, 2009:

......At the time, sectarian violence was raging. American troops were dying at a rate of about 100 a month. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., declared the war lost. Obama and other Democrats favored a timetable for withdrawal as a way, they said, to force warring Sunnis and Shiites to make peace.

President Bush rejected that approach and went in the other direction, surging more troops in Iraq and deploying them in neighborhoods. The surge, along with the turning of many Sunni groups against the insurgency, produced a dramatic reduction in casualties and violence.

After refusing at first to state the obvious — that the surge worked — Obama acknowledged that it had succeeded beyond expectations. By the first presidential debate, his promise to "remove" troops had become to "reduce" them.

Now that he's president, Obama has to do what's best for the nation. In the case of Iraq, that means disengaging in a way that preserves hard-won gains and vital U.S. interests. If the cost of a stable Iraq involves narrowing the definition of "combat" troops and leaving thousands as "trainers" or "advisers," it is a price worth paying.

Ironically, Bush's surge made it far more likely that Obama's drawdown will be able to proceed on the new president's 16-month timeline. So, too, will an agreement already made between Iraq and the U.S. for a pullout of troops on a longer schedule, by the end of 2011. Iraq is on an apparent path to greater stability. Provincial elections are scheduled for the end of this month, national elections for later in the year..........

First withdrawal. Then reduce the number of troops. Then withdrawal in 16 months. Then withdrawal in 3 years. Then?????????


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 31 Jan 09 - 11:14 AM

David Quinn Friday January 23 2009

The surge worked, and he was one of the very few who supported it. Barack Obama opposed it. John McCain, to his credit, also supported it


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Stringsinger
Date: 31 Jan 09 - 01:03 PM

It's amazing how the military mindset has controlled the debate on Iraq by distorting the facts, promulgating their ideologies and beating their chests.

The truth is that Bush lied us into Iraq, murdered our troops, inculcated torture and belongs in the dock of the World Court for treason.

Sometimes the bagpipe becomes a windbag.

Frank


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jan 09 - 02:28 PM

Sawz:

The assertion that the surge was successful is like a doctor bragging that amputating the leg stopped the gangrene, not mentioning that it was the doctor who had caused the gangrene infection in the first place.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Jan 09 - 06:44 PM

Amos, when the details of the election come in remember this:

- Highest ever voter turn out in the USA was 64%

- No MNF Troops were used in the patroling or policing of voting stations

- This is the third free democratic election that the Iraqi People have been able to participate in thanks entirely to GWB.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jan 09 - 06:57 PM

Teribus:

I concur; it is the one bright spot in the whole mess of Bush's foreign policy.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: robomatic
Date: 31 Jan 09 - 07:03 PM

Wow, I want to mark this occasion of agreement. Now, let's see how long it lasts after our troops are out of there and the issue of Kursish sovereignty comes to the fore.

I can't wait to see how folks here line up on it. I predict it will depend on whether folks identify the Kurds with Israelis, a dispossed people taking what once was theirs for their own no matter what the world thinks, or whether they will identify the Kurds as palestinians, a folk uprooted from their homes and villages by interlopers.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Jan 09 - 07:54 PM

Oh, fir sure, roboz... Like I said, historians will sort out the Surge-Lie and the future will sort out a bunch of the other Bush-Lies...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Stringsinger
Date: 01 Feb 09 - 04:06 PM

The voter turnout in Iraq was a quagmire with hundreds of candidates. It afforded no legitimate consensus and was manipulated by the Bush Administration in the same was
as was done in the Ukraine.

True democracy has a hands-off policy by foreign powers.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Feb 09 - 04:51 PM

True democracy is also dependent on an informed electorate...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Feb 09 - 06:00 PM

I suppose Stringsinger you preferred it as it was before when the electorate turned up and received their pre-arked voting forms.

So there was confusion. Not surprising its only the third time that they have ever done this, thanks to GWB. 51% turn out for "local" elections. That's not too bad compared to most countries.

Tell us Stringsinger and Bobert what was the percentage poll turn out for your last elections??

Most important of all was the increase in the Sunni vote.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Feb 09 - 03:00 AM

True democracy is also dependent on an informed electorate...

If only those ignorant Arabs knew as much about their own country as you do.

They do have a free press now, and access to all the international news agencies via satellite.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Feb 09 - 08:00 AM

Define free...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Feb 09 - 09:19 AM

As in they can print what they like without politicians interfering.
A bit like our press.
Do you want me to define international news agencies, satellites and the internet?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Feb 09 - 11:37 AM

"Define free.." - Bobert

The freedom to throw shoes at visiting heads of State without being immediately executed


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Stringsinger
Date: 02 Feb 09 - 12:44 PM

Teribus, you have ignored that the man in question was practically beaten to death for his "infraction". This is not freedom.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Feb 09 - 04:23 PM

We don't have a fee press right here in the good 'ol US of A... What we have is a press perfectly willing to the the master's bidding...

It no surprise that Governor Blagovitch tried to get some editiorial writers fired for sayin' bad stuff about him... That what politicans think they can get away with... Why would he think that???

(Geeze, Bobert... He might have been the only politican who ever tried to use his power to influnece the press??? Ya' ever think about that???)

Well, yeah, right after I bought that "bridge to nowhere"...

I mean, lets get real... The governemnt does influence the press.... What story wazs it that the Bush administration pushed the New York Times around over??? IT will come to me...

But closer to home... Right after 9/11 the Bush administration scared the heck outta the Washington Post so bad that Post just went ahead an reported what the Bushite's wanted... I mean, day after day, week after week... Then a year and half later (on page A-17) the Washington Post printed a story which admitted to having not doen the hard work on questioning the Bush run-up-to-war... The Post said that it had fallen into a "culture"...

What the Hell does "culture" mean???

So I wrote the Post and asked them what they had done to correct a situation where they could be swept into a "culture" again... That was 4 years ago and I'm still waiting for their answer...

Then we read that part of the money for the Iraq war goes into paying writers in Iraq to write and publish propaganda???

Like what's that all about???

LIke I said, there ain't no free press... That is a mirage... A complete fairy tale...

Don't Bogart that joint, my friend... Pass it over to me...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Feb 09 - 04:51 PM

Does that make you too ill-informed to vote?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Feb 09 - 05:40 PM

Now now Frank don't exaggerate.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Feb 09 - 07:43 AM

Typical Bobert response...



"First of all, don't call me "Blowhard Bobert" again 'er I'll hunt you down and extract a few of yer teeth... Got it??? Good..."





I guess failure to accept Bobert's opinions, unproven and un-substantiated, is reason enough to warrent physical threats.

I would think that threats of physical attack over mere words would definitely prove that Bobert does not have the right to exist.


Or does he only apply such to others, and not to the Ubermensch, himslf?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Feb 09 - 08:24 AM

Ain't no place fir name-callin', bb...

If I can argue a point without resorting to it then others can, as well... Okay, I teasingly will refer to groups of people as knotheads but I don't go personalizing... Like if I called you "Blowhard Bruce" that would be out-of-bounds... Sawz knew that when he personalized his attack...

Even you know the difference, bb, as you have quit that "liar" phase you were going thru...

Far as can see that personalizing with the "Blowhard Bobert" is a form of cyber-bullying... I don't take kindly to folks trying to bully me here any more than I do in the real world and as I have done with you when you were going thru yer "liar" phase I stood up[ to Sawz little attempt to cyber bully me here...

Ya' see, if I didn't call him on it then he would have thought it was perfectly okay to just persoanliz the discussion from here out so rather that try to get the toothpaste back in the tube I nipped it in the bud before it gained traction...

See the various "bullying" threads...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Feb 09 - 10:04 AM

And I only call people who are lying "liars" When they stop being liars, I stop calling them that.


So physical threats are ok, whenever you go over the line towards others???? Just want to be sure I understand what YOU are saying here.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Feb 09 - 11:52 AM

As reported in the Guardian no less:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/03/comment-iraq-elections


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Feb 09 - 06:37 PM

Yeah, bb, physical threats are okay when you have a cyber-bully thinking that jus' because when they write what they write they are doing it from the satety of their own home... Bullying and name calling are forms of violence and, hey, in martial arts you don't go looking for fights but you are allowed to defend yourself...

You wouldn't like it if I persoanlized the discussion here and started calling you "Blowhard Bruce"... That would be disrespectfull... There are lines here in cyber world, especially here in a site devoted to folk music, that should never be crossed...

You croosed it the first time you called me a "liar" and Sawx crossed it when he thought he could just get by callin' me Blowhard Bobert"...

I won't allow either of those rude behaviors to go un-challenged...

If you can't argue/debate an issue without resorting to cyber bullying/violence then you have a problem... Especially here...

There are plenty of other places in cyber world where that's all folks do but...

... not here... It disrespects Mudcat...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 03 Feb 09 - 10:31 PM

I never called you a liar Bobert but how many times have you called someone else a liar?

The term was used because you refused to answer. And exactly what does blowhard mean?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Feb 09 - 07:19 AM

Bobert,

"You croosed it the first time you called me a "liar""


When you choose to make a statement that you cannot support with facts, repeating it after being informed it is not true ( and given sources for that assessment) and persist in telling us we must accept it because you say so, even when the "Bobert Fact" is physically impossible, YOU ARE TELLING A LIE. (Yelling intended, since you seem to think you are God, and have problems hearing what you do not agree with.


That makes you a liar in THAT circumstance: False statement pointed out, sources given as to it being false, and you continueing to insist that it must be so because you want it to be.




"hey, in martial arts you don't go looking for fights but you are allowed to defend yourself..."

Except that you do not allow others to defend themselves from your false statements and accusations, without making physical threats against them.


As for calling names, you seem quite happy doing so yourself. Better look at that 2x4 in your own eye, friend.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Feb 09 - 11:26 AM

Hey Bobert, here's the latest on your "source" for the one million dead Iraqi civilians -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7869317.stm


Even the guy who came out with the article never mentioned one million - "the Lancet medical journal in 2006 that 650,000 civilians had died since 2003."

BBC item also goes on:

"The AAPOR's executive council said in a statement carried by the Associated Press news agency: "When asked to provide several basic facts about this research, Burnham refused."

It said it wanted to know the wording of questions asked and instructions and explanations given to respondents.

"Dr Burnham provided only partial information and explicitly refused to provide complete information about the basic elements of his research," said Mary Losch, chair of the association's standards committee.

She added that Dr Burnham's refusal to co-operate "violates the fundamental standards of science, seriously undermines open public debate on critical issues and undermines the credibility of all survey and public opinion research."

Hey Bobert guess what?? One million Iraqi's HAVE NOT BEEN killed. Next time you trot out that complete and utter falsehood without substantive proof there will be someone else crossing that line and calling you a liar.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Feb 09 - 11:35 AM

Actually, T, I would cut Bobert slack on that- 650,000 does round up to 1 million...

But as fro 4 million Palestinian refugees in 1948 ( greater than the ENTIRE population (including Jews) of Palestine, including the West Bank) and the non-existant "nuclear bunker buster" being given to Israel, Bobert has a long way before I can accept anything he says as true without reliable source information.


Except when he talks about the Blues, of course.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Feb 09 - 05:43 PM

No, T, that is not my source... My source is

http;//www.justforiegnpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html

...which has the death count at well over a million now...

BTW, I don't recall mentioning "4 million Palestianian refugees in 1948"...

I do recalll the bunker buster bomb and am not convinced that the US didn't spike it with a little nuclear material... Yeah, I know the "official" version is that the plan was scrapped... But the Bush administration wasn't the most forcoming in telling the truth so...

...who knows... We do know that it was "officially" talked about...

What else...

Oh yeah... Thanks, bb, for them nice words about my knowledge of blues...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Feb 09 - 07:08 PM

Now we got this from Bobert:

"No, T, that is not my source... My source is

http;//www.justforiegnpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html

...which has the death count at well over a million now..."

Now the source that was mentioned in the link that I provided contained the following - "the Lancet medical journal in 2006 that 650,000 civilians had died since 2003."

This is what Bobert's source says in its opening lines:

"The number is shocking and sobering.

It is at least 10 times greater than most estimates cited in the US media, yet it is based on a scientific study of violent Iraqi deaths caused by the U.S.-led invasion of March 2003.

That study, published in prestigious medical journal The Lancet, estimated that over 600,000 Iraqis had been killed as a result of the invasion as of July 2006."

Yet Bobert states that the figures given in the Lancet article, figures that were taken from the John Hopkins Study are not his source. While Bobert's source clearly states that their figures are based on the same incorrect and incomplete study that lacks all credibility that John Hopkins had published in the Lancet.

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html

Same study Bobert, ONE MILLION IRAQIS HAVE NOT BEEN KILLED.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Feb 09 - 07:26 PM

First of all, I recognize that the Lancet study is probably a little high at 1.3 million but I also doubt very much the figures that the propagandists (governemnt) are putting out... Whereas it does really matter to every family memeber who has lost a loved one lets just for one minute take the propagandists numbers...

If we do that then the new story is 130,000 Iraqis have been killed for nothing...

Does that make you any happier, T???

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Feb 09 - 01:39 AM

You doing a bit of research and coming out with the truth for once and checking your facts would make me happy Bobert.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Feb 09 - 07:58 AM

This from the guy who bought every dnaged kie that Bush abd Blair told him???

LOL, T...

You are the one who has been proven to be on the wrong side of history and thr truth... You cannnot dodge that reality... Too many folk here *have* been paying attention... You must think that evryone here was born last night...

Denial, denial, denial...

Shame on you for continuing to rationalize supporting this war...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Feb 09 - 05:24 PM

Bobert I can assure you that I have never a single dnaged kie in my life let alone every dnaged kie. Not knowing what, or how big a dnaged kie is, I wouldn't know if I had enough space to keep them.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 01:35 AM

Now, don't gey me wrong. Some is purdy cool, ahhh,, like Amos, Little Hawk, Bee-Dubya, Kendall, Jerry Rassmussen, Nicole, CarolC and JtS, but most of collectively add up to a big ol, ahhhh, snore! Except the big jerks like Teribus, troll and DougR, who think that George Junior is God....

Enough, let me go on over there, light a stink bomb and skeee-adddle.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 07:49 AM

You go right ahead, Sawz...

Light one fir me, too, while yer at it...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: TIA
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 12:45 PM

From a March 2008 Guardian Article on exactly this controversy (meaning Lancet vs. IBC vs. ORB vs. WHOI et. al.):

"The controversy will clearly run and run, probably long after the Iraq war eventually ends. One thing is certain, and it provides no comfort for Bush, Blair and other occupation supporters. They continue to claim that, whatever errors may have been committed since the invasion, the judgment of history will be that the toppling of a brutal dictatorship was an unmitigated benefit. That alone means the invasion was a blessing for the people of Iraq.

Alas for Bush and Blair, most statisticians do not support their case. Nor can any journalist or other independent witness who has seen the pain of the bereaved still living in post-invasion Iraq or the millions who have escaped to Jordan and Syria. Estimates of the Iraqi deaths caused by Saddam's regime amount to a maximum of one million over a 35-year period (100,000 Kurds in the Anfal campaign in the 1980s; 400,000 in the war against Iran; 100,000 Shias in the suppressed uprising of 1991; and an unknown number executed in his prisons and torture chambers). Averaged over his time in power, the annual rate does not exceed 29,000.

Only the conservatively calculated Iraq Body Count death toll credits the occupation with an average annual rate that is less than that - some 18,000 deaths in the five years so far. Every other source, from the WHO to the surveys of Iraqi households, puts the average well above the Saddam-era figure. Those who claim Saddam's toppling made life safer for Iraqis have a lot of explaining to do."

full article with discussion of the merits and flaws of the various counts is here

a lot of 'splainin' to do.....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 01:03 PM

Now let's see using your figures TIA in 24 years Saddam killed 1 million.

In six years the strategic bombing of Germany resulted in just under 600,000 deaths. This involved the worlds first ever fleets of strategic bombers numbering hundreds in individual raids on Germany dropping thousands of tons of bombs.

We are now asked to believe that in three years the US killed 1,000,000 with far fewer aircraft and about 1/100th of the forces available to Eisenhower??

Somehow those sums just do not add up.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 01:30 PM

Bobert brags about lighting stink bombs like this thread, calls people jerks, and accuses others of being a troll.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Stringsinger
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 04:04 PM

There are no accurate figures available on the slaughter of Iraqis. This has been grossly bandied about for political reasons. Bushies were inconsistent in their reporting.

We just do not know.

We do know this, though. There have been too many losses. There is no democracy in Iraq or any other reason to justify this slaughter.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 04:13 PM

You must really be bored, Sawz...

Thanks fir the link, TIA...

And right you are, Stringz... There is no justification now that we know the real truth...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 10:22 PM

Acyually, there is a partial democracy in Iraq, a sort of tribal/cultist/thugee democracy. Better than what they had. But at the price?



A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 07 Feb 09 - 10:36 PM

1) Without question, Iraq was a nation that provided "safe haven" for terrorists with "global reach". Among them were terrormaster Abu Nidal, Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the conspirators in the 1993 WTC bombing, "Khala Khadr al-Salahat, the man who reputedly made the bomb for the Libyans that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over...Scotland,"Abu Abbas, mastermind of the October 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking and murder of Leon Klinghoffer," & "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, formerly the director of an al Qaeda training base in Afghanistan" who is now believed to be leading Al-Qaeda's forces in Iraq. Quite frankly, any war on terrorism that didn't tackle that nest of vipers would have been a war in name only.

2) As George Bush has said many times, the war on terrorism CANNOT BE WON without stopping rogue nations from supporting terrorist groups. Since we had more than a decade of experience that showed it was impossible to reason with Saddam, it was clear that war was the only way to stop him from supporting terrorists. In other words, as long as Saddam Hussein remained in power, the war on terrorism would have been unwinnable.

3) As Vladimir Putin revealed, Russian intelligence believed Saddam was planning terrorist attacks inside the US,

"I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received...information that official organs of Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations."

Because George Bush acted, we may have been spared Iraqi terrorist attacks here in the United States.

4) One of the likely reasons that we've seen such a decrease in Palestinian terrorist attacks in Israel is because Saddam is no longer around to pay the families of suicide bombers $25,000 per homicide bombing. How many buses and pizza parlors full of Israeli women and children would have been blown into chunks by now if John Kerry had his way and Saddam were left in power?

5) While Iraq has not been implicated in the 9/11 attacks, Iraq has had ties to Al-Qaeda for more than a decade. The evidence of this is irrefutable and the people who are denying it are doing so for political purposes. Here are just a couple of quotes that prove what I'm saying...

"(Abu Musab al) Zarqawi was said to have received medical treatment in Baghdad in May and June of 2002 after being wounded in Afghanistan during the war. His leg was amputated, U.S. officials say, by a surgeon in Iraq. Before the war, Secretary of State Colin Powell pointed to Zarqawi's al Qaeda-affiliated group that he said was operating inside Baghdad, as evidence of ties between al Qaeda and Iraq." -- Today, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who was in Iraq before the war began, is leading terrorist attacks against the Coalition and Iraqi people.

"Credible reporting states that al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs." -- CIA Director George Tenet in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee on October 7, 2002

6) Because we're fighting in the Middle-East, terrorists who might otherwise be coming to America to kill civilians are coming into Iraq to fight our troops. George Bush prefers it that way. He'd rather have the best trained soldiers ever to walk the planet fighting the terrorists in Iraq rather than here at home. If John Kerry had his way, we might have civilians being attacked by those same terrorists in the streets of New York, LA, or Chicago. Which makes more sense; soldiers fighting the terrorists in Iraq or civilians being attacked by them here in the US?

7) Even though the Deulfer report has revealed there were no stockpiles of WMD in Iraq, it also says that they were waiting for an opportunity to produce them,

"ISG has no evidence that IIS Directorate of Criminology (M16) scientists were producing CW or BW agents in these laboratories. However, sources indicate that M16 was planning to produce several CW agents including sulfur mustard, nitrogen mustard, and Sarin."

What the Deulfer report is saying echoes what the man Deulfer replaced, David Kay, said earlier,

"Even those senior officials we have interviewed who claim no direct knowledge of any on-going prohibited activities readily acknowledge that Saddam intended to resume these programs whenever the external restrictions were removed."

Weren't we better off taking Saddam out when he didn't have WMDs than waiting until he did have them in stock?

8) Iraq was not completely free of WMDs. "10 or 12 sarin and mustard gas shells" have been found. Furthermore, it's of course possible that there are more we haven't found yet. There was also plenty of radioactive material Saddam could have given to terrorists to make a dirty bomb. So did Saddam Hussein have the capability of giving WMDs to terrorists? Yes, he did. Apparently, John Kerry has no problem with that.

9) Because we invaded Iraq, nations like Iran and North Korea cannot blithely disregard the idea that we will attack them and they'll be much more likely to make a deal with us, just as Libya did. As Mark Steyn said,

"You don't invade Iraq in order to invade everywhere else, you invade Iraq so you don't have to invade everywhere else."

10) Obviously Saddam had such poor judgement that it was dangerous to allow him to stay in power. Just look at this quote...

"It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world....He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel. ...We should not go to war because these things are in his past, but we should be prepared to go to war because of what they tell us about the future."

You know who said that back on 10/09/02? John Kerry. He was right the first time.

11) By taking out Saddam Hussein, we freed more than 25 million Iraqis and are helping them towards Democracy. This is no small thing given that Democrats justified military intervention in places like Bosnia and Haiti SOLELY on humanitarian grounds.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Feb 09 - 08:27 AM

Why not just assasinate him, Sawz???


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Feb 09 - 11:36 AM

The Promise In Iraq's Rebirth
The Washington Post February 7, 2009; Page A13
By Samir Sumaida'ie Iraq's ambassador to the United States.

When the United States went into Iraq in 2003, Americans had a very limited understanding of the country. Political pundits tended to reduce Iraq to neat categories: an oppressed Shiite majority; a Sunni minority linked to Saddam Hussein's regime; and the Kurds, who had no interest in remaining in Iraq. The strife between these supposedly monolithic communities was often portrayed as permanent and violent.

Much has happened since 2003. Iraq has emerged as a complex and sophisticated society with layers of identity and a diversity of loyalties and interests, all of which are in a dynamic state of change as the country makes an untidy yet fundamental transition from absolute dictatorship, through occupation and violence, to the beginning of a functioning parliamentary democracy.

The significance of the recent local elections must be understood within the context of this transition and change. What these elections reveal is far more than the relative strength or popularity of the various political players -- though this is important and should be studied carefully. These elections have shown that, finally, those who refused to accept the new order and were determined to defeat it by rendering the country ungovernable through violence have come to realize that they have lost; that the political process is the only game in town and that it is in their best interest to play by the new rules.
ad_icon

Those who had descended upon Iraq to defeat the United States through terrorism, initially finding favor and support from the "rejectionists," have themselves been rejected by the Iraqi people. Their strategy to ignite a sectarian civil war has failed. And though they still pose a threat to security, those extremist Islamists were comprehensively and strategically defeated in a Muslim country, a development of profound significance.

The elements in Iraq who thought that they could dominate and create a new form of dictatorship with the trappings of democracy have discovered that they must accept the principles of power sharing.

Furthermore, the elections have proved wrong those who had claimed that Iraqis could not comprehend democracy and therefore could not abide by its rules. The world watched as millions of ordinary Iraqis, proudly displaying their purple forefingers, declared their desire to choose their leaders, and the leaders themselves demonstrated their ability to make adjustments and compromises.This is not to say that Iraq has finally and irrevocably arrived at a perfect form of democracy. Far from it. Iraq is still beset by daunting external and internal challenges. It does, however, mean that after defeating the extremists and terrorists among its people and demonstrating a repulsion for sectarianism and a will to stay united, Iraq is set to consolidate all that it has achieved, with considerable help from the United States and others.

At the most critical junctures of this transition, Iraqis have demonstrated their independence and unity. This has given them more confidence in their future. Those who thought that they could dominate Iraq from outside, directly or by proxy, surely have realized that their influence will always be limited.

Looking ahead, the exact speed with which American troops are withdrawn must be determined by joint consultations between the political and military leaders of both countries within the parameters of the status-of-forces agreement. But the continued engagement of the United States in Iraq will be vital to ensuring that what has been achieved is not jeopardized, though the emphasis will inevitably shift from military issues to economic and diplomatic matters.

Our nations have mutual interests in Iraq's future. The success of Iraq would be an outstanding success of American foreign policy. If Iraq succeeds, it has the potential to become one of the most important assets and allies of the United States. This is the beginning of a new era in our relationship, one that opens the way to a flourishing economic, cultural, political and diplomatic partnership that augurs well for the future.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Feb 09 - 11:55 AM

Bobert: Assuming that you are referring to Saddam Hussein:

In 1976, President Gerald R. Ford issued Executive Order 11905 to clarify U.S. foreign-intelligence activities. In a section of the order labeled "Restrictions on Intelligence Activities," Ford concisely but explicitly outlawed political assassination:

                            5(g) Prohibition on Assassination. No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.

Since 1976, every U.S. president has upheld Ford's prohibition on assassinations.

In 1978, President Jimmy Carter issued an executive order with the chief purpose of reshaping the intelligence structure. In Section 2-305 of that order, Carter reaffirmed the U.S. prohibition on assassination.

In 1981, President Reagan, through Executive Order 12333, reiterated the assassination prohibition:

            2.11 No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.

Reagan was the last president to address the topic of political assassination. Because no subsequent executive order or piece of legislation has repealed the prohibition, it remains in effect.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Stringsinger
Date: 08 Feb 09 - 03:07 PM

There is a lot of misinformation being bandied about here which obscures the problem with Iraq. They don't want the US there. The US is an occupier. Although there are a handful of so-called terrorist leaders in many countries, terrorism is not as major a problem as poverty,
corruption in government, overarching militarism and the malfeasance of the defense industry including the introduction of mercenaries such as Blackwater. Triple Canopy and
other "privatized" organizations.

Saddam was placed in command by the US as a reaction to Iran. The US set him up and knocked down.

I question the veracity of long-winded statements which in themselves require hours of rebuttal. Blanketing the issue with these pompous pronouncements do not promote a healthy discussion of this issue.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Feb 09 - 04:19 PM

So Iraq is a complex and layered society??? Duhhh??? Is that a surprise to anyone... It has been for hundreds of years and was doing okay until colonialists thought that it needed their intervention...

As to executive orders... Are you really telling me it's okay to invade a soveriegn nation, kill upwards of a million people but noy okay to kill just one guy, Sawz??? Think about just how narrow minded that sounds...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Feb 09 - 04:24 PM

Sounds like a pompous statement to me. Trite.

You can always present some correct information.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Feb 09 - 06:37 PM

It takes a very twisted imagination to think that it's okay to kill a million people rather than just one...

Like who gives a flying fig about a 20 year old presidential order is those are the 2 choices...

Choice A: Follow a 20 year old presidential order, kill a million people, then kill Saddam or...

Choice B: Just kill Saddam and call it a day...

Ya' know, Sawz, you would make a lousy military leader because you have no ability to use common sense... You remind me of my brother-in-law who was also narrow minded and had no common sense... He was a career Army officer who did everything by the book... He was apssed over for promotions all his life becasue of it... You should read about Stonewall Jackson... Thqat was aman who would have fully understood the arguments that those4 of us on this side have repeatedly made... The book ain't gonna give you all the answersw... It didn't for my brother-in-law, it ain't for T and it ain't for you...

You can live yer life by an instruction manual if you like but keep this in mind: The mind is like a parachute, it's only works if it is open...

But you go ahead a stick with yer petty little presdiential order from Jerry Ford if that makes you fell any less guilty about the million Iraqis you and yers have murdered... Yes, you... You hand is in it as deep as Bush's becuase you refuse to admit that you were (and are) wrong...

Blix gave you and Bush an out but you were too steeoed in pride and dogma to take it...

Very sad for you... Very sad, indeed...

There is no revisionism here to turn the chicken shit into chicken salad...

You have chosen to cast your lot with people who historians will one day mention with Magabe and Hitler...

Like I said....Very sad for you...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 04:37 AM

Assassinating Saddam Hussein would have accomplished nothing in terms of improving the lot of the people of Iraq, or of increasing security in the region as a whole. As like Assad's succession in Syria, Saddam would have been replaced by one, or other of his sons, who potentially were a damn sight worse than their father.

Saddam Hussein could only ever been killed in the manner he actually was.

Saddam Hussein had to be removed from power - which he was

Put on trial in an Iraqi Court to answer the charges against him - which he was

Executed in accordance with Iraqi Law - which he was.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Barry Finn
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 09:15 AM

Ha, Ha, Ha!
He was dethroned by an invading military force, the country was thrown into upheaval, he was tried & hung in Kangroo style & fashion. How barbaric of us to think we had cause & right, anymore than if Spain, France, Russia invading US becasue they were tired of US being the "One & Only" superpower calling all the shots. Iragqi law is nothing more that the will of the occupyer.
Iraqi court, of our "pick & choosing". Load up the bases, here we go again.

It wasn't a great place to live but we wanted him in power & we put him there, then we didn't want him in power so we took him out. We had no right to be manipulating nations to our will in the first place. They were the most educated nation of peoples in the mid-east & we came in & blew them back into the stone age & blew their asses off in the process too. Are we proud yet, are we having fun yet, are we fucking broke yet???????

Nothing could ever give US the right, we should all be ashamed of what our nation did.

But some will forever continue to rationalize it by saying we brought peace & democracy to the masses. We reigned hell on them, in the name of financial power, balance & gain. Who do you think you/we are fooling????
Barry


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 09:58 AM

"It wasn't a great place to live but we wanted him in power & we put him there,...."

That Barry is a lie and you know it. However if you do believe it to be true perhaps you can provide some detail by way of substantiation

"we wanted him in power & we put him there" - I take it the "we" is the USA. Now why did the US want Saddam in power in 1979?? And exactly how did the USA go about putting him in there??


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: TIA
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 10:36 AM

Teribus - "my figures" ? ? ?
Read more carefully please.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 10:53 AM

Your figures TIA = the ones that you posted in order to make your point regarding there being a lot of explaining to be done.

During Saddam's 24 year period in office he killed on average between 154 and 282 people every day depending on what statistics include. For anyone to attempt to say that the US has been responsible for the same number, if not more, in one quarter of the time is ludicrous.

The IBC web-site has a very good appraisal and evaluation of the John Hopkins Study figures that were published in the Lancet - basically rips it to bits - It doesn't surprise me for one second that the man responsible for the John Hopkins Study is not all that keen on full transparency.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Stringsinger
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 12:47 PM

The US has over the years done it's share of killing to eclipse what Saddam has done.
Hiroshima, Nagasaki etc. etc. Saddam was a gangster. But what America has done in terms of killing innocents exceeds that of Saddam. If you evaluate the history of comparing the US and Iraq in terms of taking human lives, it is absurd to think that Iraq has done more of this.

Once again, the barrage of "factoids" that are exhibited as some kind of proof in an attempt to overwhelm specific rebuttals of their nonsense is a ploy used by think tanks. I wonder which think tank some of you are swimming in?


Stngsngr


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Barry Finn
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 04:57 PM

That kind of thinking would give nations cause to contemplate reign change in the US?

Barry


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 05:18 PM

And the problem with the "154 to 282" people killed every day by Saddam is, at best, dubious... Now if Amnesty International was saying this in 2001 it would have some level of crdibility but there are so many governmental agncies and so-called non-profits with axes to gring that these numbers are most likely as the bogus excuses that ya'll have given to justify this immoral and illegal war...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Folkiedave
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 05:30 PM

It doesn't surprise me for one second that the man responsible for the John Hopkins Study is not all that keen on full transparency.

Whereas the US Government has always been in favour of full transparency.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 11:15 PM

Bobert: How come you blast Bush and claim he has broken the law and needs to be impeached but he should have violated presidential executive orders?

You have him in a no win situation. No matter what he did, it was wrong according to you.

I agree, it would have been better to assassinate the SOB but it would not be Kosher and it would lead to all kind of liberal whining, crying and sucking snot about imperialisim.

Yeah, I agree too many people got killed but to let the situation continue would eventually cost more lives to be lost later on.

Why in the hell didn't Clinton really go after UBL in Afghanistan and get the bastard then? Or for that matter, why didn't Bush I keep after Saddam when he had him on the run? Either action would have saved many more lives down the road.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 12:54 AM

"The US has over the years done it's share of killing to eclipse what Saddam has done.
Hiroshima, Nagasaki etc. etc. Saddam was a gangster. But what America has done in terms of killing innocents exceeds that of Saddam." - Stringsinger

Oh I don't think so Frank, even including Hiroshima and Nagasaki which were acts of war in time of war and perfectly justifiable. I note that in addressing the killing of innocents you omit to give mention to the worst offenders since the end of the Second World War - Now why is that Frank??

The FOIA applies to the US Government Folkiedave it doesn't to the man who did the study for John Hopkins. The study including its timing for release was entirely politically motivated and fortunately was so ridiculous and at odds with information coming out of Iraq at the time that it failed to help Kerry in the 2004 Presidential Election.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 07:52 AM

Neither Hioshima nor Nagasaki were justified... They were not "acts of war"... They were terrrorism as it's worst because they were intended to kill civilians along with everything else...

The US could have dropped the bomb off the coast of Japan as a demonstartion of it's "new weapon" and that would have had the same effect in terms of ending the war...

As for the numbers of folks killed every day by Saddame that T and others stand by??? Consider the source... Propaganda is just that... After a while folks like T actually beleieve what Hitler referred to as the "Big Lie"...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 11:26 AM

"Neither Hioshima nor Nagasaki were justified..."

Now this is a very easy thing for Bobert to trot out in February 2009. Might have had a slightly different slant on it had he been a serving member of the USMC bobbing about off the coast of Japan on an assault transport in 1945. But then I would doubt very much that Bobert would ever have placed himself in that situation - he prefers to enjoy to the full the freedoms that other people fight for on his behalf.

"The US could have dropped the bomb off the coast of Japan as a demonstartion of it's "new weapon" and that would have had the same effect in terms of ending the war..."

Pure speculation Bobert and as such irrelevant and pointless. I could suggest that Hirohito and Tojo could have been sent photographs of the test firing with a 78rpm gramaphone recording of the sound the explosion made and that would have had the same effect - I don't believe it for one minute, but it doesn't stop me suggesting it, like I said irrelevant and pointless.

Well shall we just take look at how Saddam's "average" daily figures for his 24 year reign of terror are derived Bobert.

- How about official Iraqi records Bobert? You see when Saddam, or his sons said they wanted somebody killed the person they ordered to do it had to prove it, otherwise he might suffer the same fate. that propaganda Bobert??

- How about excavation of mass graves Bobert?? Were they all make believe Bobert??

- How about official battle casualty figures Bobert, I take it that they were all made up as well.

- How about corroborated eye-witness accounts Bobert - All made up??

Now when someone tells me that so-and-so was arrested and there is a report of that arrest and paperwork stating that so-and-so entered into custody then I would tend to believe that so-and-so was indeed arrested. When the same someone tells me that they received notification that so-and-so was executed, and that eye-witnesses come forward who had seen so-and-so taken out to be executed, and further eye-witnesses state that they were so-and-so's executioners and indicate where so-and-so's body was disposed of and that on excavating that site so-and-so along with thousands of others are discovered - Then Bobert I would tend to believe that yes so-and-so has been executed on the orders of Saddam Hussein - No lie, big, or otherwise, about it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 01:44 PM

"The US could have dropped the bomb off the coast of Japan as a
demonstartion"

Timeline for Bobert:

On July 26, 1945, Truman and other allied leaders issued The Potsdam Declaration outlining terms of surrender for Japan. It was presented as an ultimatum and stated that without a surrender, the Allies would attack Japan, resulting in "the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland".

Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki declared at a press conference that the Potsdam Declaration was no more than a rehash of the Cairo Declaration and that the government intended to ignore it. The statement was taken by both Japanese and foreign papers as a clear rejection of the declaration.

No surrender.

On 4 August 1945, American aircraft dropped leaflets on Hiroshima warning the citizens to expect terrible destruction to be visited upon their city because Japan had refused to surrender. Although many civilians had already been evacuated to the country, this warning was largely ignored. On August 6, the first atomic bomb was dropped on this city. At Hiroshima, 60,000 Japanese died and a similar number were injured.

Still no surrender.

Three days later, when the first atomic bomb had still evoked no response from Japan, a second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, a port with naval installations. The primary target on this day had been the city of Kokura where a huge army arsenal was located. Thick clouds over Kokura forced diversion of the B-29 with the second bomb to Nagasaki. At Nagasaki, 36,000 were killed and about 60,000 wounded.

Japan Surrendered.

PS:
80,000 people died in one conventional bomb attack on Tokyo on the night of 8/9 March 1945 than in Hiroshima the bombing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Stringsinger
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 04:32 PM

The above are not necessarily the correct facts of the situation. First of all, the rationale for using the atomic bomb was that Japan would not surrender. This is not the whole story.
Japan was due to surrender because they were not successful in repelling the US. It was Truman's propaganda that was trotted out in order to use the bomb. Even if Japan had said they wouldn't surrender, they would have had to eventually without the use of the bomb.

The 80,000 figure listed above sounds like a false estimate. How would anyone know this?
It has to be speculated not factual.

Timelines are easily constructed without regard for the truth.

Stringsinger.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 04:50 PM

"80,000 people died in one conventional bomb attack on Tokyo on the night of 8/9 March 1945 (more) than in Hiroshima the bombing." - Sawzaw.

to which we got this from Stringsinger:

"The 80,000 figure listed above sounds like a false estimate. How would anyone know this? It has to be speculated not factual."

Really Frank?? Now I just bet with the way you speak about Hiroshima and Nagasaki that you are one of the outraged and concerned citizens who vehemently declare the Dresden raid a "war crime" in which you will claim that 135,000 to 225,000 people were killed. Yet when German records are examined the toll was actually somewhere between 18,000 and 25,000.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: TIA
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 06:08 PM

I am not surprised that Teribus clings to the IBC. From the Guardian link above:

"Only the conservatively calculated Iraq Body Count death toll credits the occupation with an average annual rate that is less than that - some 18,000 deaths in the five years so far. Every other source, from the WHO to the surveys of Iraqi households, puts the average well above the Saddam-era figure."

So, if IBC has ripped the Lancet study to shreds (a matter of opinion), they still need to rip the Baltimore study, the WHOI study, the ORB study, and the director of the Baghdad morgue.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 06:34 PM

No, T... My thoughts on the 2 nuclear strikes is not "irrelevant or pointless"... That is what seperates caring people from thugs... It is very relevant to this discusssion...

Some folk, like you and others here, think that killing lots of people is the way that conflicts are solved... That doesn't solve the conflict... It just worsenes the conflict...

This is the same thinking that causes men to beat up or kill their wives... They don't understand how to solve conflict...

It is relavent to talk about people differing philosophies... If we don't then we are doomed to repeat history...

I'm glad to see that folks like you are now on the outside and in the minority... The world is safer without testeserone driven foriegn olicy and we've had quite enough to testesterone over the last 8 years, thank you...

So it is not at all pointless or irrelevat to discuss these issues just because you say so... The world has quit listening to your types and is loking for a littler more sanity and humanity...

You and yers are on the wrong side of history and on the wrong side of the here-an-now...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 06:42 PM

Bobert: What side of this history are you on?

OWI presses were turning out leaflets that revealed the special nature of Hiroshima's destruction and predicted similar fates for more Japanese cities in the absence of immediate acceptance of the terms of the Potsdam agreement. By 9 August, more than 5 million leaflets about the atom bomb had been released over major Japanese cities. The OWI radio station beamed a similar message to Japan every 15 minutes.

Front side of OWI notice #2106,View the leaflet
dubbed the "LeMay bombing leaflet," which was delivered to Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and 33 other Japanese cities on 1 August 1945. The Japanese text on the reverse side of the leaflet carried the following warning: "Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or friend. In the next few days, some or all of the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs. These cities contain military installations and workshops or factories which produce military goods. We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique which they are using to prolong this useless war. But, unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America's humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives. America is not fighting the Japanese people but is fighting the military clique which has enslaved the Japanese people. The peace which America will bring will free the people from the oppression of the military clique and mean the emergence of a new and better Japan. You can restore peace by demanding new and good leaders who will end the war. We cannot promise that only these cities will be among those attacked but some or all of them will be, so heed this warning and evacuate these cities immediately.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 06:52 PM

Gregg Zoroya, USA TODAY

More than 600,000 Iraqis have died by violence since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, according to a study released Wednesday by researchers at Johns Hopkins University.

The figure is based on surveys of households throughout most of the country. It vastly exceeds estimates cited by the Iraqi government, the United Nations, aid and anti-war groups, and President Bush.

The new estimate was immediately challenged by the Pentagon. Lt. Col. Mark Bellesteros, a Pentagon spokesman, said the Iraqi government "would be in a better position ... to provide more accurate information on deaths in Iraq."

Frederick Jones, a spokesman for the National Security Council said "many experts" found that a 2004 study by the same group "wildly inflated the findings." That study said the war had caused 100,000 Iraqi deaths.

"This study appears to be equally flawed," he said. The new study said the deaths have resulted from coalition military activity, crime and religious violence.The Iraqi government dismissed the Johns Hopkins estimate. The toll in the report "exceeds the reality in an unreasonable way" and the report "gives inflated numbers in a way that violates all rules of research and the precision required of research institutions," Iraq spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said in a statement.

"These numbers are far from the truth," al-Dabbagh said.

The Iraqi government has never given an official number of people killed since the U.S. invasion.

Iraq's Health Ministry has estimated 50,000 violent deaths since the war began, through June. Last December, President Bush put the figure at 30,000. The Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank, estimated the death toll at 60,000.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 07:22 PM

Bobert: This whole thread is one of your stink bombs.

You don't believe 600,000 iraqis were killed yourself.

You are just trolling and messing with Tbus.

"I'd mess with em' and they'd get all upset"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 07:34 PM

A study that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by the antiwar billionaire George Soros.

Soros, 77, provided almost half the nearly $100,000 cost of the research, which appeared in The Lancet, the medical journal. Its claim was 10 times higher than consensus estimates of the number of war dead.

The study, published in 2006, right before the election was hailed by antiwar campaigners as evidence of the scale of the disaster caused by the invasion, but Downing Street and President George Bush challenged its methodology.

“The authors should have disclosed the [Soros] donation and for many people that would have been a disqualifying factor in terms of publishing the research,â€쳌 said Michael Spagat, economics professor at Royal Holloway, University of London.

The Lancet study was commissioned by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and led by Les Roberts, an associate professor and epidemiologist at Columbia University. He reportedly opposed the war from the outset.

His team surveyed 1,849 homes at 47 sites across Iraq, asking people about births, deaths and migration in their households.

Professor John Tirman of MIT said this weekend that $46,000 of the approximate $100,000 cost of the study had come from Soros’s Open Society Institute.

Roberts said this weekend: “In retrospect, it was probably unwise to have taken money that could have looked like it would result in a political slant."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 07:46 PM

    [Personal attack message deleted.
    -Joe Offer]


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 09:59 PM

Hey Bobert: Your words matter, once you say something it is said and you have to live with it, You can't sneak away from it by accusing somebody else of being sneaky.

Now in that big bad study you use like a bludgeon to bully Tbus with, what was the base line they used?

Come to find out, they cherry picked their baseline from a short little period with very little extermination by the Saddam regime. That blows that study away, exposes their bias and subjective results.

Tom Grey answers David Crow's request the empirical basis for his statement on the number of dead under Saddam Hussein.
Here is an excerpt:"Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 10:20 PM

Ahhhhh, didn't matter much that the Kurds were trying to take him out...

But wait, fir an extra $2.95 (plus shipping and handling) you'll get documentation that the US government had promised the Kurds they would support them against Saddam... Hmmmmmmk???...

Heck, the US even provided the bad gas that was used against the Kurds... Even rewarded Saddam ****afterwards**** with all kinds of booty, including a gold plated M-16 rifle...

Hmmmmmmmmm????

You got it wrong, Sawz... But what is new here???

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 10:42 PM

2.95 is purdy cheap compared to what Soros paid to get the results he wanted. And it made him and you both happy.

Another day, another stink bomb.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 11:43 PM

March 16 and 17, 1988, Iraq dropped poison gas on the Kurdish city of Halabja, then held by Iranian troops and Iraqi Kurdish guerrillas allied with Tehran; throughout the war, Iran had supplied the Iraqi Kurdish rebels with safe haven and other military support.

The poison gas attack on the Iraqi town of Halabja was the largest-scale chemical weapons (CW) attack against a civilian population in modern times. It began early in the evening of March 16, when a group of eight aircraft began dropping chemical bombs, and the chemical bombardment continued all night. The Halabja attack involved multiple chemical agents, including mustard gas, and the nerve agents sarin, tabun and VX. Some sources have also pointed to the blood agent hydrogen cyanide.

While the United States did not supply full-fledged chemical weapons to Iraq, it did approve private business sales of biological weapon precursors to Iraq, according to a 1994 report issued by the US Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, the Riegle Report. It should be noted that the report does not provide proof of U.S. involvement in Iraqi chemical weapons and that the gas attack was carried out by Mustard gas and not a biological weapon. In addition, there is no evidence that Iraq ever used biological weapons in combat during the war with Iran.

Several European nations also participated in arming Iraq, specifically Germany. German chemical companies and German Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical protective gear manufacturers also supplied the Iraqi Army and Rustimiya Officers Academy. Stores of German chemicals and training materials were found in June 2003 by U.S. soldiers in east Baghdad.


I see Bobert, You claim the US was selling gas to Saddam to use against the Kurds at the same time that the US was backing the Kurds against Saddam and the Kurdish town that was gassed was being held by Iranian forces abd Iraqi Kurdish guerrillas on the side of Iran.


Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh something don't add up.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 02:42 AM

Ah Bobert, see you've got to the stage of now completely ignoring the points put to counter your rather weak arguements and are now simpley attacking the persons calling them into question.

Iraq Body Count - Reality Check relating to the figures given in the John Hopkins Study:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/reality-checks/

I'll go with IBC as they take the trouble to check and confirm.

From the above link, Press Release 14 dated 16th October 2006:

If the Lancet figures are correct then - "The Coalition has killed far more Iraqis in the last year than in earlier years containing the initial massive "Shock and Awe" invasion and the major assaults on Falluja." - Simply does not add up, no wonder the man who conducted the study does not want to let anybody know what questions were asked to get his figures. But some people like Bobert and TIA will swallow anything, without question as long as it suits their arguement.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 07:58 AM

Yer a stuck record, T....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 08:48 AM

Just like the facts, logic, reason and common-sense Bobert - and they all tell me that 1,300,000 Iraqi civilians have not been killed by the US in Iraq since 20th March 2003.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: TIA
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 10:34 AM

Okay, now how about ORB, Baltimore, WHOI, etc.?
IBC is still the outlier in the statistical sense. Not saying they are wrong or biased or anything of the sort. All measures in all sciences tend to fall on a bell curve of some sort. Seizing upon the outlier and ignoring the rest of the distribution is not good science or logic.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 10:39 AM

"Seizing upon the outlier and ignoring the rest of the distribution is not good science or logic. "

EXACTLY.

I have not insisted on the IBC ( I think when IBC was 100,000 I used 300,000 as the most likely number)- I HAVE commented that Bobert's selection (and insistance on regardless of the facts) of the Lancet report, the definite outlier,required a lot more justification than he ever offered.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 10:41 AM

the previous numbers were in reference to the TOTAL number of Iraqis killed BY ALL SOURCES- NOT just US. But I notice no-one cares how many are killed by insurgents supported, supplied, and funded by Iran.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 11:57 AM

What about them TIA?? Didn't you provide a link from a Guardian article that covered all of them, detailing their methodology and their weaknesses.

Out of all of them only one actually concerned itself with reported and confirmed deaths, care to tell us which one it was TIA. That organisation TIA now accepts single source accounts, they did use to use this information before to help establish "low" and "high" figures.

The figures were presented to the world to indicate civilian casualties, but with most they also tossed in combatants casualty figures as well.

So you have reported now approximately is as follows:

- Iraq Body Count at just under 100,000 "high" - deaths as reported and verified.
- Iraq Ministry of Health 150,000 approx - deaths as reported.
- WHOI 233,000 - batch sampled estimate.
- John Hopkins 655,000 - batch sampled estimate.
- Baltimore (John Hopkins II) 1,300,000 - batch sampled estimate.
- ORB 1,400,000 - batch sampled estimate.

Now throughout the period of the Second World War 1,380,000 German civilians died just under 600,000 died as a result of Allied Bombing.

That equates to the "estimated" figures conjured up by the Baltimore Study and by ORB. Now in all seriousness are you attempting to tell the people on this forum that more civilians have been killed in Iraq since March 2003 than were killed in Germany during the Second World War??

For the actual combat phase of the invasion in 2003 something like 9,100 Iraqi troops were killed and approximately 7,200 civilians were killed. During this period the US forces could count on a maximum of 1663 aircraft of all types. During the Second World War the Western Allies had 14,133 Bombers available and they dropped 1,588,062 tons of bombs on Nazi Germany.

As I said before the figures just simply don't add up.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: TIA
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 02:04 PM

Are you truly saying that the "confirmed" deaths represent the total of true deaths? There are no unreported or undocumented (by IBC standards) deaths?
That would be astounding.
Here in the modern, information highway USA, there are still people unaccounted for after Hurricane Katrina. These would not be confirmed deaths to the IBC. I am not knocking them or their methodology opr their purpose, but you do have to realize what their numbers represent.

They are not the true or actual number, they are an absolute indisputable minimum. The truth goes up from there. One can legitimately argue how high, and that is what the other studies are doing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 05:19 PM

No TIA the only thing regarding numbers killed that I have ever said is that one million plus Iraqi's have not died.

i.e. the John Hopkins Study; the Balmoral Study and the ORB figures are all batch sampled estimates - rubbish trotted out at optimum times in order to further a political agenda.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: TIA
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 05:27 PM

And you are citing the IBC count as the basis for your opinion, so please understand what it represents.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 05:37 PM

Yeah, TIA... T thinks that only ***his*** facts are the real deal and anyone elses are bogus... The problem is that no one knows for sure exactly how many Iraqis have died... We do know that over 30,000 sorties (bombing missions) were flown and millions of rounds of various calibre ammunition were fired so it is very concievable that a lot of folks have been killed...

But as long as T can keep us arguing over counting methodology the better for T because T never wants to stop arguing over academic stuff to have to look in the mirror and see that he is partly responsible for the deaths, be it one or be it a million... So T will keep this thing on a purely academic pedestrian level because that does not threaten T at all that way...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 05:38 PM

site as a comparison because it shows the disparity between a reported and confirmed versus a batch sampled estimate. Obviously the truth lies somewhere in between, my bet is that it lies pretty much in line with the figures provided by the Iraqi Ministry of Health.

IBC have just altered their method of counting to permit single source reporting of deaths and on retrospective investigation trialed it and found their previous figures were understimated by just under 13%.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 06:02 PM

"The problem is that no one knows for sure exactly how many Iraqis have died... We do know that over 30,000 sorties (bombing missions) were flown and millions of rounds of various calibre ammunition were fired so it is very concievable that a lot of folks have been killed..." - Bobert.

What was your source for the "over 30,000 sorties (bombing missions) were flown"?? Oh and I think we've been through in the past how a sortie or mission can be flown where no bombs or bullets are fired and no-one gets killed - obviously that still hasn't registered.

OK then Bobert back to some very creditable, confirmed and authenticated figures:

Between 1939 & 1945 Bobert did you know that 297,663 bombing sorties were flown over Germany by night and 66,851 were flown by day, making a grand total of 364,514 bomber sorties.

In the course of flying those sorties Bobert 7,449 aircraft were lost by night and 876 were lost by day.

In flying those 364,514 sorties against Nazi Germany a total of 1,588,062 tons of bombs were dropped causing something in the order of 600,000 German deaths.

Are you seriously attempting to convince anybody that with less than 10% of the bombers available; flying at most 8% of the missions; in less than 1% of the time resulted in double the number of casualties inflicted on the Germans during the entire Second World War.

In the words of John McEnroe - "You just cannot be serious!!"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Folkiedave
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 07:13 PM

Teribus - the war has cost so far $600 billion dollars. What has it been spent on?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 08:41 PM

The number of sorties was published in the Washington Post at least 5 years ago, T... and it was closer to 35,000 than 30,000...

And please, can you keep up, man??? We ain't talkin' about WW II... We are talkin' about Iraq... A country about the size of Texas...

Geeze... Get back on yer alzheimers meds... You keep driftin' off...

B;~)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 11:04 PM

Like I said Bobert the study was flawed and not accurate. It did not reflect the true death rate of the pre war era.

You you have not been able to dodge that fact with your gold plated M16 urban legend that was actually a gold plated AK47 that was found in Iraq by US forces.

You you have not been able to dodge the fact that It was other countries that sold the gas ingredients.

You you have not been able to dodge the fact that the vast majority of those "Kurds that "Ahhhhh, were trying to take him out..", were unarmed grannies, babies, women and children that you characterize as some how doing something wrong which justified Saddam's genocide.

Despite your smoke screen of all those urban legends that you claim are facts while you claim other people's facts are not true, your Boss Hogg Soros financed subjective study that you use like a bludgeon to bully other people with is flawed because the baseline was cherry picked from a certain period when Saddam was not exterminating his own people.

Conspiracies and myths always trump facts for liberal Bush haters.

It's like watching a documentary containing facts as compared to sitting down and watching a fictional thriller with a bowl of popcorn. or in your case, a bowl of something else that keeps the Mexican drug lords well financed so they can behead some more innocent people.

The Hopkins researchers chose their "base-line" for pre-invasion Iraq carefully: January 1 2002 to March, 2003. They chose to characterize Ba’athist violence by a period during which the Kurds were sheltered by a U.S.-imposed no-fly zone in the north. They chose to calculate the "pre-war" death rate after the extermination of hundreds of thousands of Shi’a and Marsh Arabs in the South and Kurds in the north has occured.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Feb 09 - 01:54 AM

"The number of sorties was published in the Washington Post at least 5 years ago, T... and it was closer to 35,000 than 30,000..." - Bobert.

Bobert how very unlke you to play down an important number like that. Five years ago you say, so that adjusts the comparison as follows:

"with less than 10% of the bombers available; flying at most 9% of the missions; in less than 8 weeks managed to kill double the number of casualties inflicted on the Germans during the entire six years of the Second World War.

In the words of John McEnroe - "You just cannot be serious!!"

The numbers simply do not add up, to anyone gifted with a modicum of common-sense. No doubt Bobert you will continue to rant on about your one million dead Iraqis because one thing no-one could ever accuse you of would be your abundance of common-sense.

Oh still looking for those "dnaged kies" you reckon I bought - do they taste good??


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 12 Feb 09 - 01:29 PM

Iraq's Good Example Jim Hoagland The Washington Post February 8, 2009; Page B07

A new Iraq is emerging from five years of American invasion and occupation, and at first glance it looks distressingly like the old Iraq: Its people are still bound by the barbed wire of suspicion and hatred as much as by any sense of common purpose and history.

But the new Iraq is clearly a nation in ways that the old Iraq -- long considered by experts as an artificial creation that would fly apart under the pressure of outside intervention -- was not. It did not fly apart and has in fact undergone significant, positive mutations as a result of a soon-to-subside U.S. presence.

The provincial elections held a week ago were far from perfect, and personal relationships among the country's Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds still range from malignant to murderous. In Anbar province, disgruntled Sunni sheiks didn't ask for recounts or fire their political consultants. They unleashed threats of new mayhem unless they were immediately declared the winners. Old habits die hard in Iraq, too.

But by the standards of the past -- and of the rough neighborhood in which Iraqis still live -- the two general elections that Iraq has held in four years stand as paragons of progress and adaptation that others in the region should aim to emulate. That development should not be ignored or minimized, particularly as the United States and Europe wrestle with analogous problems that confront a newly besieged Afghanistan. Even more important than shifting troops from Iraq to Afghanistan may be shifting counterinsurgency lessons learned.
ad_icon

Another signpost suggests that Iraq is closer today to being a source of regional stability than it ever was in its pre-American era, when Saddam Hussein repeatedly threatened (and at times tried) to annihilate Iraq's Arab and Iranian neighbors as well as Israel. That signpost is the growing acceptance by the region's Sunni Arab regimes of the central Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whose Shiite-based State of Law coalition scored the biggest victories in the election results released Thursday.

Just a few years ago, Jordan's leaders were ominously warning that they would not accept Iraq's becoming part of a "Shiite crescent" of subversion. Today, Amman leads the way in establishing improved diplomatic relations, economic cooperation and security ties with Baghdad. Abu Dhabi and other Gulf states, as well as Egypt, have also upgraded their relations with Iraq, as Maliki and his aides have established some distance from both the United States and Iran.

"President Bush made many mistakes in occupying Iraq," one Arab official told me recently. "But he did the right thing in staying with the surge and giving the Iraqi government time to show it could sustain itself. The results of the past 18 months have persuaded many of us that Iraq's civilian government is here to stay, and it is time to cooperate" with Baghdad, rather than push for a return to domination of Iraq by the Sunni Arab minority.

Saudi Arabia is the most notable holdout from this trend, in part, it seems, because of poor personal relations between Maliki and the royal family. But the Saudis should not feel comfortable in remaining isolated on this issue in the face of Maliki's solid electoral victories last week over his more religiously minded rivals in Iraq's southern provinces.

A continuing argument here over whether the surge worked misses the significance of the broader, still-unfolding historical changes brought by the 2003 toppling of Saddam Hussein. The internalizing of Iraq's strife -- as horrible as that strife can be on any given day for Iraqis -- makes the region less of a global tinderbox than it was. That the country's Kurds no longer live under the threat of genocide directed from Baghdad and that the Shiites no longer have to submit to state-organized mass murder on a routine basis constitutes real progress for them and for humanity.

For too long, Bush resisted letting the Iraqis find their own way -- however messy or even brutal -- to reconcile their differences. President Obama should reflect on that as he develops a new approach to the conflict in Afghanistan, another "new" country that looks very familiar as corruption, drug dealing and Taliban control mount.

Reflect on this part of the Iraqi example as well, Mr. President: American power was able to shock Iraqis. But it did not awe them. They are returning quickly to old habits, to their own moral and social compasses. But they do not return unchanged by the experience. Nor do their neighbors.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Feb 09 - 07:57 PM

Define "The Surge", Sawz...

You, T.... If yer gonna go quotin' folks at least say who the heck you are quotin'... Yer above post make no sense... None what so ever, mah man...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 12 Feb 09 - 11:43 PM

Heres part of it Bobert, If you want to see all of it click here

Iraqis Are in the Lead in Ensuring Success â€"U.S. in Support Role
•Place the responsibility for success on the Iraqis
•Recognize and expect that sectarian violence must be addressed by Iraqis
•Encourage Iraqis to reach national reconciliation
•Urge Iraqi Government to serve Iraqis in an impartial way
The Primary Mission Is Helping Iraqis Provide Security to the Population
•Help Iraqis provide greater levels of security in Baghdad in order to enable political and economic progress
•Help Iraqis create the security environment in which political deals needed to sustain security gains can be made
•Bolster Iraqi capabilities and transfer responsibility to able units as part of this effort
Moderates Will Be Vigorously Supported in their Battle with Violent Extremists
•Counter extremist portrayalof Iraq’s conflict as Sunni vs. Shi’a, rather than moderates vs. extremists
•Recognize and act upon the reality that the United States has a national interest in seeing moderates succeed
•Build and sustain strategic partnerships with moderate Shi’a, Sunnis, and Kurds
We Will Diversify our Political and Economic Effort in Iraq to Achieve Our Goals
•Increase attention to developments outside of the International Zone â€"emphasize flexibility
•Help Iraqi provincial governments deliver to their constituents and interact with Baghdad
•Extend the political and economic influence through the expansion of our civilian effort
We Will Further Integrate Our Civil and Military Efforts
•Harness all elements of national power; further augment joint civilian-military efforts throughout theater
•Resource at levels that assume a resilient enemy and realistic assessment of Iraqi capacity over the next 12 months
Embedding Our Iraq Strategy in a Regional Approach is Vital to Success
•Iraq is a regional and international challenge
•Intensify GOI and USG efforts to expand regional and international help, counter Iran and Syria meddling
•Invigorate diplomatic efforts to improve the regional context
We Must Maintain and Expand Our Capabilities for the Long War
•Acknowledge that succeeding in Iraq is the immediate challenge, but it is not the last challenge
•Ensure we have adequate national capabilities to fight the long war, on the military and civilian side
•GOI leads outreach to insurgents; maintain outreach and keep door open for Sunni moderates


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 12 Feb 09 - 11:50 PM

Cherry Street Fish Market Opens Doors

Wednesday, 11 February 2009

FOB FALCON â€" For thousands of years, fishermen near the Ma Baynaa Al-Nahreen, the Land Between the Two Rivers, sold their catch to others to sustain their existence.

Today, the Saydiyah Fish Market stands as a classic example of where Iraqi fishermen sell their wares to their neighbors from across Iraq.

Senior Multi-National Division â€" Baghdad leaders attended the Saydiyah Fish Market’s ribbon-cutting ceremony with their Iraqi Security Forces partners, Feb. 9, to mark the re-opening of the market that fell to disrepair during the war.

Muzhir Ali Salman, the General Cooperative Union chairman, welcomed the attendees to the market's compound along Cherry Street in the Saydiyah community of southern Baghdad.

Muzhir thanked the Coalition forces for starting the project to rejuvenate the fish market and the commanders who worked on the project.

"This is the main fish market in all of Iraq, not just Baghdad," he added.

The fishermen sell their fish wholesale to the other provinces in Iraq as well as retail to the citizens of Baghdad, Muzhir explained.

Brig. Gen. Faiswl Malikmhsen al-Talall, commander of the 5th Brigade, 2nd National Police Division, recognized the importance of the market and the eagerness of the community.

"We thank Coalition forces for their contribution to this project. I appreciate the readiness of the people and their ideas to embrace progress," he said.

The rebuilding of Iraq began after the security situation improved in the area due to the cooperation of everybody, said Faiswl, who used the ceremonial scissors to cut the ribbon at the entry into the compound.

The fish market is not just important to Saydiyah, but it is significant to the rest of the city of Baghdad, said Sheik Abdulnazzaq, the Saydiyah Tribal Support Council chairman.

The 1st BCT’s embedded Provincial Reconstruction Team displayed a tremendous effort using the co-ops in Baghdad and the neighborhood councils to come up with this fantastic opportunity, said Col. Ted Martin, commander, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, MND-B.

"We are priming the pump to bring a better life back to the Cherry Street Market," said Martin, who hails from Jacksonville Beach, Fla. "The only reason we can do a project like this is because of the increase in security in Saydiyah. It was a hot spot for insurgent activity, but now all the sects get along to live together peacefully."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 07:48 AM

Sawz,

How would that list differ from pre-Surge objectives???

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 09:57 AM

"How would that list differ from pre-Surge objectives???"

Now why would there have to be a difference Bobert??


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 10:07 AM

"How would that list differ from pre-Surge objectives???"

If you would click the clicky, there are charts there that precisely compare the two.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 11:12 AM

Amos:

I happen to agree with Obama that the surge worked.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Stringsinger
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 03:50 PM

The surge has worked to keep the US in Iraq for at least ten to twenty more years.
The big embassy that the US has built there is a joke. Anyone who thinks that the violence in Iraq is over is sadly mistaken. Obama has inherited an occupation that will be difficult to
end. More American troops will die as a result.

As to the Right-wing spin on this issue with a lot of phony proclamations by essentially biased "pundits", you can take them with a bushel of salt.

More factoids and less reality.

Stringsinger


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 06:26 PM

Yer supposed definition of "the surge" is laughable, Sawz... It was written by the National Security Council and, frankly, is about as amatuerish as it was Bush propaganda...

The reality is that the US was sold this bill of goods that only a surge in troop levels would tunr around a certain defeat in Iraq... That was bull... Troop levels went up and down from 2003 thru 2005 with little change on the ground...

Hey, I'm not making this stuff up... That was the story...

A book by Thomas Ricks entitled "The Gamble" goes into all the details of what really happened in Iraq that *temporarially* turned the tides of violence levels...

And guess what, Sawz???

He doesn't talk about any of those generalized pablum talking points that you posted from the NSC's propaganda...

What he does talk about are the same things that Joe Biden tried to talk about during his debate (ha) with Ms. Sarah... The problem is that "the surge" had nothing to do with increased troop levels... It was much more complex than that...

The problem is that when the truth is told the story is too long to hold the average Joe's attention because the average Joe wnats his policy positions to fit neatly on a bumper sticker... Problem is that "the surge" and the decreased violence don't fit on a bumper sticker...

You need to avail yourself, Sawz, of the real truth... One that involves the Anwar Awakening, the one where US troops were assigned to work neighborhoods 24/7, the one where Sunni leaders were paid off...

Check the book out when it hits yer local library... It would do you a world of good to opperate from a truth position ratehr than a fairy tale position of what the Bush War machine has poon fed you...

BTW, Ricks ain't no flaming liberal so don't even go there... Yeah, not that he has put out a book that dispells the mythology there will be Bush mythology peddleres who will say so but that what they always do...

Read the facts, Sawz...

Leave the mythology alone...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Stringsinger
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 07:17 PM

Again, Iraq was Bush's idea. He an Cheney and Rumsfeld. Blair was Bush's patsy.

This was not about National Security or revenge for 911. It was because Bush wanted his
"political capital". He wanted to flex his Commander-in-Chief muscles and as a result,
showed his complete incompetence for the job.

Anything other than this is just spin.

Stringsinger


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 07:38 PM

exactly...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Barry Finn
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 07:42 PM

The "Surge" didn't work what work was we paid the Iraqi's to spot fighting amongst themselves & that's the only way "we can keep any semblance of peace"! We will be able to pull out our combat troops but we will be there "keeping the peace" a lot longer than we've been at war. We will continue to piss money into Iraq like "Niagara Fails". We will probably spend as much on health care for vets over their lifetime as we have spent on the war. We will pay for "Bush's Blunder" for generations & still we will only be paying off the interest & at a high % rate to boot. We will have lost any respect in the region for who knows how long & the blood we let there will fertilize a crop that will that will forever be bitter to our tastes. This was not just a mistake, it was a failure in human development, a disaster in humanity. Not only was it a failure to communicate, it was akin to spitting in the eye of God. We were landscape engineers designers planning a graveyard in order to raise a new crop of terrorists. "This was a good thing"? You must be mad!

And now we will commit to the same mistakes in Afganistain.

Barry


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 08:23 PM

Question for all you who think that Iraq was a mistake,

How do you think the second Iran v Iraq war would be going now??

My reckoning is that it would now be in its third or fourth year. Who do you think would be winning and what would the price of middle-east oil be per barrel? (currently around $34 per barrel).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 08:48 PM

What???

The Iraq war was about oil???

What a surprise... I never thought of that, T...

Not...

You Bozo... That's what we tried to tell you a long time ago and all we got was alot, Imean alot, of UN Resoultion 1441 and all that usaul crapola but...

...Hey, welcome on board, mate...

Now yer seeing the real deal...

Glory days...

Stop the presses!!!!

T finally gets it!!!

One down, two to go....

Hey, bb 'n Sawz... Yer boy just come over to the side of truth!!!

Better jump quick while we are still acceptin' new members to "The Truth"...

Man, glad to have ya, T...

Pull up a nice comfy chair and prepare to do some battle with yer ol' buds...

Cowabunga...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 10:13 PM

"Yer supposed definition of "the surge" is laughable, Sawz."

I never defined anything Bobert. I just pasted and pointed you to the actual written plan. Laugh all you want. Are you still chuckling over the mythological gold plated M 16 given to Saddam?

Bobert: "What you get from me is gleaned strictly from the Washington Post, The New York Times and the TV news"

Show me the article about the gold plated M16 in the Washington Post, The New York Times or the TV news.

Show me the news that says America sold the "bad gas" to Iraq. In the New York Times there was an article about where it came from and did not mention that it came from the US. Why is that Bobert?

And where is the most populated place on earth? Is that somewhere in the NYT WAPO or TV news? Where? I missed it.

You think all these Bobert facts are credible when you can't back up any of them except with threats of bodily harm because they are all in your mind. Is that laughable?

Just another Bobert funny story you tell, another stink bomb so you can go over and mess with Tbus and call him a jerk.

You don't believe this stuff yourself. You just make believe you do for trolling purposes, for your entertainment.

Something tells me you have to get buzzed up on some good shit first so reality gets all blurred and your fingers don't hit the keys you are aiming for.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 06:52 AM

Huh?? What on earth are you yabbering on about Bobert??

Your last post made absolutely no sense at all - which really shouldn't come as all that much of a surprise as few if any of your posts do, composed as they mostly are of lies, mis-representations, myths and half-truths.

Ignored the question posed to boot - again not unusual.

Iraq a mistake Bobert? - Not in the least, and there are millions of LIVE Iraqis will vouch for that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 08:03 AM

Sorry, T...

Iy sounded like you were equating the current price of oli to the US/UK invasion??? I even reread that part about a theoretical Iraq/Iran war and what the price of oil would be if that was the case rather than the US/UK/Iraq war???

I'm sorry that you have gone back accross the truth line into the untruth zone... Just know that you are welcome over here anytime you need to catch yer breath from singing the company fight song...

Yo, Sawz.... So in your own words, define surge...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Barry Finn
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 08:23 AM

What the price is/was/could or could not have been is no justification to this war, that's just film floating on the surface. Weither or not Iran & Iraq would've had a go at each other is not our call nor a reason to invade. We hold no corner on predicting the future much less dictating the future. One million LIVE Iraqi's would not vouch for this war. You are joking aren't you? Almost every Iraqi has lost someone close to them or has had someone dear to them mained or scared. Some have lost entire extended families for no other reason than they were breathing the air surrounding their homes.

Barry


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 09:34 AM

A surge is an increase.

Now where is the news article about

"Even rewarded Saddam ****afterwards**** with all kinds of booty, including a gold plated M-16 rifle..."

Hmmmmmmmmm????

Washington Post _________

The New York Times __________

TV news __________

The untruth zone __________


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 05:01 PM

Oh, I don't keep every article but you can bet that it was in the Washington Post... I believe it was some time around 1982-83 and I recall that it was Donnie Rumsfeld who presented the gifts to Saddam...

Tell ya what, Sawz, I'll find the source if you'll agree that when I find it that you admit that you are wrong... Unless I get that then it's not worth the time it will take to dig it up...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 06:53 PM

OK lets put the question in even simpler terms, for those who are slightly uncomfortable with the concept.

For all you tossers who have lambasted the US administration for altering the state of affairs in Iraq - OK got the group who should be responding to this???

Exactly what would have been Saddam Hussein's reaction been to Irans attempt to acquire nuclear weapons??

Lets hear some sort of response people??? You have after all been extremely forth-coming in your opinions before.

Bobert - you're excused - the mental exercise may prove too taxing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Folkiedave
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 07:02 PM

there are millions of LIVE Iraqis will vouch for that.

And at the last count over 4,200 dead Americans and a further 699 or so from coalition forces to vouch for its failure.

Is it simply a numbers game?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 07:21 PM

Well Folkiedave why don't you ask some Iraqi that question?

You were one of those opposed to the thing from the beginning - Yes??

You were one of those who were quite content to let the Iraqi people suffer under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein

The last Iran v Iraq war cost 1,300,000 lives. Now tell me FolkieDave how many would have been killed in a second Iran V Iraq War if GWB had not acted??


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 07:35 PM

First of all, T, "Fu*k Off"... I'll outthink yer sorry butt any day of the week so please spare us the the condescending crap... Really...

Sp here's the deal... Exactly why would Saddam ahve wanted to mix it up with anyone??? Think about it... The US discovered (duhhhhhh...) that Iraq didn't have jack when it came to WMDs... It really didn't have jack in the way of anything that would be considered modern weaponry... That is fact... That is not opinion...

So your theory is that a severaly crippled Iraq would take on Iran???

Really???

That would have been a completely insane move on Iraq's part...

Lastly, nothin' wrong with my critical thinkerator but I an worried that yer's is "out of order"...

Please tell us why a severely depleted Iraqi military would have taken on Iran...

Por favor...

And stop the condescending crap... You, afterall, are the one on the wrong side of history...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 08:19 PM

Yo, Sawz...

Okay it was a pair of golden spurs and an M-16... Who cares???

Problem I have is giving gifts to folks who you are are gonna later string up and vilify...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 02:54 AM

Ah Bobert,

Had the US and GWB not acted as they did:

- The UN sanctions would have been lifted completely in 2002, or just conveniently ignored by Saddam's trading partners as was found to be the case when the UN "Oil-For-Food" scandal broke.

- Russia, China, France and North Korea would have had no problems at all in re-equipping Saddam's armed forces in exchange for Iraqi oil concessions, so by 2004 at the latest, Iraq would have been more than ready.

- The reason Saddam would want to "mix it" with Iraq is simple Bobert. There is no way on God's earth that Saddam would sit back and let Iran acquire nuclear weapons without first doing something to prevent it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Folkiedave
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 06:16 AM

The problem is Teribus, there are lots of nasty people in the world.

Now why pick on Iraq?

Why not go rescuing the Burmese people - suffering under a dictatorship. Or the Zimbabweans, who are dying of starvation as their country suffers under a dictator. Thousands if not millions have died in the Congo region of Africa. Wny not send a task/invasion force there instead of pussyfooting around?

Is it the job of the USA just to go around putting the wrongs of the world right? If you believe it is then a little consistency might be appropriate.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 08:56 AM

"there are lots of nasty people in the world." - Very true Folkiedave, very true.

"Now why pick on Iraq?" - Ask the US Joint House Security Committee, or all of the nineteen US Security and Intelligence Agencies who separately identified Saddam Hussein's Iraq as the nation posing the greatest threat to the United States of America, her interests and her allies.

"Why not go rescuing the Burmese people - suffering under a dictatorship." - Burma was not considered to be a threat to the United States of America, her interests and her allies.

"Or the Zimbabweans, who are dying of starvation as their country suffers under a dictator." - Zimbabwe was not considered to be a threat to the United States of America, her interests and her allies.

"Thousands if not millions have died in the Congo region of Africa. Wny not send a task/invasion force there instead of pussyfooting around?" - The Democratic Republic of the Congo was not considered to be a threat to the United States of America, her interests and her allies.   

"Is it the job of the USA just to go around putting the wrongs of the world right? If you believe it is then a little consistency might be appropriate." - No it is not the job of the United States of America to go round putting the wrongs of the world right, and I do not believe that I have ever said that it was. That little job is supposed to fall on a rather useless and ineffectual organisation known as the United Nations, who if memory serves me correctly:

- Did absolutely nothing in Rwanda
- Did absolutely nothing in the Balkans
- Did absolutely nothing in Tibet
- Did absolutely nothing in Cambodia
- Did absolutely nothing in Darfur
- Did absolutely nothing in Burma
- Did absolutely nothing in Zimbabwe
- Were doing nothing in Iraq until the USA stated if you do not act we will.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Folkiedave
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 12:04 PM

Ask the US Joint House Security Committee, or all of the nineteen US Security and Intelligence Agencies who separately identified Saddam Hussein's Iraq as the nation posing the greatest threat to the United States of America, her interests and her allies. All of whom got it wrong of course. You forgot to mention that bit.

Have you not noticed the USA has a long history of invading people and sometimes democratically elected leaders?

Since 1960..........

Bay of Pigs 1961
Dominican Republic 1965

Vietnam (1959 - 1974) Bit far away to pose a threat weren't they?
Still the domino theory said if they won the world would collapse and "no longer be safe for democracy". Well they won with no visible effect on democracy, apart from a couple of million dead in the area, widespread use of chemical defoliants - carpet bombings of civilans etc etc...and the 58,000+ dead Americans. But American governments love spending money on war.

Overthrowing regimes or installing puppet regimes in Indonesia, Guatemala, backing the right-wing regimes in El Salvador, bombing Libya.

CIA overthrowing a democratically elected regime in Chile. Come to the UK and take a look at my friend Luiz's scars where Pinochet's thugs tortured him.

Invading Panama 1989 and overthrowing Noriega. My that did a lot to stop drug-running didn't it!

Reagan even managed to upset his best (possibly only) friend Mrs Thatcher by invading a Commonwealth state. My those heavily armed Grenadans posed a real threat to the USA didn't they? Was it their armed aircraft carriers? Nuclear submarines? Supersonic Bombers?

Or did they just invade a tiny island in the Caribbean because they could?

Countries are invaded on a whim, nothing to do with threats to the USA and their allies. Often to overthrow a regime the USA simply doesn't like or to protect US big business.

Give it a rest old boy - I am afraid history in not on your side.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 12:30 PM

OK Bobert, I will admit that I am wrong about Saddam being given a gold plated M16 if you can show it in one of the sources you cited. Ya got a deal.

But there are other things like the "bad gas" that you claim the US sold to Saddam that need to backed up with something credible.

You see, I research before I make an assertion. The closest things I can find to your assertion is a Dutch guy that got jail time for selling tons of ingredients to Saddam for making the bad gas and one of the ingredients came from a company in Baltimore.

U.S. authorities say the defunct company, Alcolac Inc. effectively supplied both sides during the Iran-Iraq war. Alcolac pleaded guilty in 1989 to knowingly violating export laws in the case of a shipment of thiodiglycol that ultimately went to Iran. Alcolac turned a blind eye to abundant evidence in its files that this chemical was not going to the final destination that its customers stated in documents filed with customs.

The other thing I found was that a non profit group gave some germ specimens to some medical group in Iraq that requested them for research. It was approved by the US government.

Do you think these could have been hyped until it turned into the US selling the poison gas and Bio WMDs?

Also WMDs was not the only reason for going after Saddam. You base your assertions on that as if it were fact and then build this whole thread on it as if it was a fact. Maybe WMDs were the main reason or considered the most important reason but not the only reason.

Another thing is that is perfectly possible for someone to be incorrect about some things and correct about other things.

Often people try to use false logic of saying that if someone was incorrect about one thing it proves they were wrong about other things. That either they are stupid or a liar. That is a logical fallacy.

I have seen instances where I agreed with Amos or Bobert, I said so and was not struck by lightning.

Another logical fallacy is to assert that because a plurality of people believe something to be true, it must be true, a famous Amos ploy. How many people thought the earth was flat? They were wrong.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 02:22 PM

Apparently you didn't read a post along the way, Sawz... It was a set of gold plated "spurs" and an M-16 (un plated)...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 02:00 AM

Bobert: I see quite clearly that you asserted "with all kinds of booty, including a gold plated M-16 rifle"

Now you are backing off and saying it was a pair of golden spurs and an M-16? What news source provided this information?

Now how about the assertion that "the US even provided the bad gas that was used against the Kurds" and how was Saddam rewarded with all kinds of booty, including golden spurs and an unplated M-16 rifle? What was the other booty?

What news source provided this information?

Washington Post _________

The New York Times __________

TV news __________

The untruth zone __________

Pravda ______________


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 02:01 AM

HR 114:

The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:

    * Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
    * Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."[2]
    * Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
    * Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
    * Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
    * Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq."
    * Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
    * The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
    * The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
    * Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 02:10 AM

Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton 10/10/2002.

"Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. Now this much is undisputed."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 02:14 AM

The Carter Doctrine

The Carter Doctrine was a policy proclaimed by President of the United States Jimmy Carter in his State of the Union Address on January 23 1980, which stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf region.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Folkiedave
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 04:05 AM

..... which stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf region.

Which apart from controlling oil are..............?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 08:15 AM

Did ya' read the Ricks editorial yesterday, Sawz??? Get the book "The Gamble"... You could use a little truth to mix in with yer confusion...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 10:12 AM

"yer confusion" I think you need to go back and read your own words Bobert because you are clearly confused about whet you said.

Bobert one day:
"What you get from me is gleaned strictly from the Washington Post, The New York Times and the TV news"

Bobert another day:
"No, T, that is not my source... My source is http;//www.justforiegnpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html

You are throwing up a smoke screen because you are unable to answer simple straightforward answers, yet you seem to think you know all the answers.

Where did any of your "facts" about:

"the US even provided the bad gas that was used against the Kurds"

"Saddam rewarded with all kinds of booty, including golden spurs and an unplated M-16 rifle"

appear in any of the sources you cited.

What was the other booty?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 01:03 PM

"All of whom got it wrong of course. You forgot to mention that bit."

Got what wrong exactly Folkiedave?? Before answering:

- Actually read the relevant UN Security Council Resolutions particularly 678 and 687.

- Actually read the final reports from UNSCOM to the UN Security Council delivered in January and March 1999.

- Then take the trouble to learn exactly what it was that was considered to pose the greatest threat to the United States of America in the wake of the attacks of 11th September 2001.

You will then find out that they got it spot on.

"Have you not noticed the USA has a long history of invading people and sometimes democratically elected leaders?"

Well no I haven't Folkiedave. The US has "invaded" very few countries in the post-Second World War era. Certainly a damn sight fewer than Soviet Russia, or China. Your list of US "invasions" resulted in far fewer casualties, in comparison to their Soviet counter-parts, resulted in no "occupation" of foreign soil and were extremely short in duration. But let's have a look at your contenders as "invasions" shall we.

"Since 1960.........." - Why only since 1960 Folkiedave??

Bay of Pigs 1961 - "Cold War"
Not really an invasion by the United States of America was it Folkiedave? It was an unsuccessful attempt by a force of Cuban immigrants to the US who were exiled from Cuba to invade southwest Cuba with support from U.S. government armed forces and overthrow the Cuban government of Fidel Castro.

Dominican Republic 1965 - "Cold War"
Not really an invasion by the United States of America was it Folkiedave? Initial US intervention due to responsibility to protect and evacuate US citizens from a "civil war" situation. The United States along with the Organization of American States (OAS) formed an inter-American military force to assist in the intervention in the Dominican Republic. Later, the Inter-American Peace Force (IAPF) was formally established on May 23. In addition to the United States military presence, the following troops were sent by each country; Brazil 1130, Honduras 250, Paraguay 184, Nicaragua 160, Costa Rica 21 military police, and El Salvador 3 staff officers. Some 6,500 people from many nations were evacuated to safety. In addition, the US forces airlifted in large relief supplies for Dominican nationals. The fighting continued until 31 August 1965 when a truce was declared. Most American troops left shortly afterwards as policing and peacekeeping operations were turned over to Brazilian troops, but some U.S. military presence remained until September 1966.

Vietnam (1959 - 1974) "Bit far away to pose a threat weren't they?" - "Cold War"
Not really an invasion by the United States of America was it Folkiedave? The Vietnam War, also known as the Second Indochina War, the Vietnam Conflict, or often in Vietnam the American War occurred in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia from 1959 to April 30, 1975. The war was fought between the communist North Vietnam, supported by its communist allies, and the government of South Vietnam, supported by the United States and other member nations of the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO).

Care to tell who it was that invaded Vietnam in what was known as the Third Indochina War Folkiedave??

"Still the domino theory said if they won the world would collapse and "no longer be safe for democracy". Well they won with no visible effect on democracy, apart from a couple of million dead in the area, widespread use of chemical defoliants - carpet bombings of civilans etc etc...and the 58,000+ dead Americans. But American governments love spending money on war." - Well so much left-wing froth and indignation. What the US intervention in Vietnam did achieve was to discourage the Kremlin and Beijing from further attempts at expansion in South-East Asia, the SEATO alliance held when many planners in the Kremlin thought it would fold. While Vietnam was starting another "communist inspired insurgency" was being defeated in Malaysia.

The US invaded Indonesia?? Really - don't think so Folkiedave, same goes for your other candidates. Want to compare notes on the Soviet invasions and occupations that followed the end of the Second World War Folkiedave?? Travel to eastern Europe Folkiedave and ask the people living there if they want to have the Russians back, I dare say you'll find more than a few there who could show you their scars and be more than willing to tell you who were responsible for them - but that's not the sort of history you would want to hear of acknowledge is it Folkiedave??.

As for your remark - "Give it a rest old boy - I am afraid history in not on your side." - I'm pretty sure that you, and the likes of you, do wish that I would give it a rest. Becomes pretty embarrassing when every time you trot out the usual myths, lies, misrepresentations and half-truths that someone calls you to task for it. The history that you say is not on my side is the rather selective version that the socialist left cling to in order to bolster their prejudices.

Now how about that list that defines the Left's march to the "Brave-New-World" since the defeat of Nazi Germany, eh Folkiedave - Shall we take the USSR first Dave:

The following are "Invasions" proper Folkiedave, not quick "in-and-out" affairs lasting a couple of months where few died. What we're talking about here is brutal use of military force, thousands of deaths, permanent military bases and occupations lasting years, where the political will of Soviet Russia was ruthlessly imposed upon the subject nations.

- Bulgaria
- Romania
- Poland (Twice although second time round by proxy)
- Latvia
- Lithuania
- Estonia
- Hungary (Twice)
- Czechoslovakia (Twice)
- Yugoslavia
- Albania
- East Germany
- Angola
- Mozambique
- Vietnam
- Indonesia
- Afghanistan

China next, eh Folkiedave??:
- South Korea
- Tibet
- Vietnam

Shall we now compare the death tolls for each?? Followed by the durations??

Who's side is history on now Folkiedave??


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Stringsinger
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 06:09 PM

The idea that the US is least culpable in invasion is pure fantasy. Once again, the stats are not substantiated by facts. Who is doing the counting?

The UN security council is different from the other branches of the UN. The biggest threat to the US is the idea that invading foreign countries makes it safe.

The Vietnam War was escalated by Johnson who believed in the "domino theory". Here is what Wiki says about the Bay of Tonkin.

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident is the name given to two separate incidents involving naval forces of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) and the United States in the waters of the Gulf of Tonkin. On 2 August 1964, the destroyer USS Maddox (DD-731) engaged three North Vietnamese P-4 torpedo boats, resulting in damage to the three boats. Two days later the Maddox (having been joined by the destroyer USS Turner Joy (DD-951) reported a second engagement with North Vietnamese vessels. This second report was later concluded to be in error.[1] Together, these two incidents prompted the first large-scale involvement of U.S. armed forces in Southeast Asia.the Bay of Tonkin

This was assuredly a pretext for an invasion of magnitude by the US. The Vietnam War did not discourage China or Russia who were rejected by the North Vietnamese. The "domino" theory did not hold water and was later refuted by those who were involved. The incident was based on a mistake. Sonar picked up misinformation on who the attackers were.
They were whales.

Actually, The Bay of Pigs was a clandestine operation supported by the Kennedy Administration. The mafia was even involved which there is some support for the idea that this is what caused JFK's assassination.

The money to finance the Iraq war was managed so poorly that a billion dollars was lost in transit that the taxpayer had to fund.

The idea that the USSR has to be compared to the casualty list of the US is a specious argument. Both nations have had their share of extensive bloodshed.

BTW there is no democracy in Iraq today unless you consider Shari'a law to be that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 06:17 PM

"there is no democracy in Iraq today" A specious and uncolorable argument.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 10:35 AM

"the stats are not substantiated by facts" - Care to give us some then Frank?? Your usual left wing waffle doen't really provide much information.

For example taking Folkiedave's examples of US "Invasions":

1. Bay of Pigs 1961 - Any details relating to the US Army, Naval and Airforce Units assigned to this invasion and the numbers involved? It was an attempted US invasion of Cuba wasn't it?

2. Dominican Republic 1965 - I've given you quite a bit of information on this one Frank, in addition I believe that 41 US ships were involved in the blockade, the 82nd Airbourne were also involved ashore, alongside Brazilians, Hondurans, Paraguayans, Nicaraguans, Costa Ricans and 3 guys from El Salvador. What did the mighty US need with those guys Frank?? It was a US invasion wasn't it?? Have got substantive information that neither the OAS or IAPF were involved?? If so how come it was the Brazilians who were the last to leave?? Were they there on holiday??

Get the drift Frank?? I could go on but won't.

Here are some statistics for you. Since the end of the Second World War the United States of America could with some justification be accused of the deaths of tens of thousands of people due to their meddling and interference in the affairs of others. During the same period the USSR and China could with some justification be accused of the deaths of millions due to their meddling and interference in the affairs of others.

And Frank it doesn't matter how much you wriggle those statistics are fact and nothing is going to change that.

"Workers of the world unite.. Eh??" load of bollocks.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Folkiedave
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 02:35 PM

ere are some statistics for you. Since the end of the Second World War the United States of America could with some justification be accused of the deaths of tens of thousands of people due to their meddling and interference in the affairs of others.

Sorry, how does that arise Teribus?

You seemed to indcate the USA hadn't been guilty of anything - helping a country here, assisting a country there, a little mild overthrowing of democratically elected governments occasionally. Nothing serious like.

Now apparently "with some justification" they are responsible for tens of thousands of deaths.

Bit like I suggested.

Do those figures include Vietnam by the way? Cos' the numbers are a bit low otherwise.

And by the way when interfering in the democratic affairs of another country one death is too many.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 06:52 PM

So then Folkiedave let us here you roundly condem your Marxist pals the USSR & China in the same terms you seem to reserve for the Government of the USA.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Folkiedave
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 05:02 AM

I don't have any Marxist pals and the use of such a term shows a decided ignorance of political theory and a profound knowledge of right-wing ideology.

I have been doing that which you have (eventually) got around to asking for years. I have supported those who wanted freedom from UK rule and hegemony (I often use Cyprus as an example) and wholeheartedly condemn the USSR and China for the way it treated people in the past and nowadays. I don't work on the basis of ideology but on what people's actions are. My condemnation of countries who invade other countries is unequivocal.

And I don't even ask you if you will now condemn the USA for all those deaths you talked about.

I know you will because I believe you are a very fair man.....and I mean that most sincerely.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 07:40 AM

Well, Dave... Ya' wonder why T used the USSR and China as justifications for the the US endless thirst for war... I mean, why not the Germans in WW II???

I mean, if yer gonna use one bad country to justify your own badness, ehy, lets just call it like it is... And what it is is the the US just can't seem to get enough killing to keep it satisfied...

And the bad thing about it is that there have sho nuff been some very bad countries that have gotten away with alot of bad stuff that the US had absolutely no interest in???

(No oil, Boberdz...)

Oh???

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: GUEST,AR
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 10:09 AM

At least some good news although sad. I know Teribus was touched by this story recently.

Reality TV star Jade Goody is expected to make almost £1 million from the TV and magazine rights to her wedding.

It's been revealed that she has finalised deals with OK! magazine and Living TV for exclusive coverage of the event.

The magazine deal is reportedly worth more than £700,000 with a further £100,000 coming from the sale of the TV rights.

Her publicist Max Clifford said: "They (Living TV) have an ongoing relationship with Jade but then of course because of what's happened to her, that has become much more sensitive and complicated.

"What I suggested is they film the wedding, and then that's it. There won't be more episodes of the series they have been filming."

27-year-old Jade was told by doctors last weekend that her cervical cancer was terminal and that she has just months to live.

Her wedding to boyfriend Jack Tweed is due to take place this weekend at a country house hotel in Essex.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Folkiedave
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 03:38 PM

I wouldn't know JG if she passed me in the street but I understand from listening to broadcasts that since she is hardly likely to need the money it will be left to her sons.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 02 Mar 09 - 01:23 AM

Polling Data

In the long run, will the U.S. mission in Iraq be seen as a success or a failure?

    Feb. 2009   Aug. 2008

Success   43%         38%

Failure   35%         41%

Not sure 23%         21%
Source: Rasmussen Reports
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 1,000 American adults, conducted on Feb. 4 and Feb. 5, 2009. No margin of error was provided.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Mar 09 - 08:53 AM

Well, sure, Sawz...

The only way that Obama can get US the heck out of Iraq without the right winged warmongers spending millions in hate ads is to change the story to their liking...

Doesn't make the Iraq war any righter (pun intended)... This is the current crop of PR, this time from Obama, to soften up the reaction so that we can get out...

Politics... Not reality on the ground...

The civil war is just on hold in Iraq... That is reality...

Reality, Part B... There was never any real justifictaion for going into Iraq... If people were asked the if they thought going into Iraq was a good idea the polls would be very different... It's all in PR and how the questions are asked...

People aren't that much different than rats in Skinner's Box when it comes to polls...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 02 Mar 09 - 11:02 PM

A whole bunch of posturing an rhetoric but nothing to back it up.

Polls don't mean anything but your unsubstantiated opinions do?

The phenomenons known as "BOBERT FACTS" are the only thing that means anything? Screw what the great liberator Obama said, only what Bobert says is true.

Maybe they mean something to you but they are based on you own personal spin.

"There was never any real justification for going into Iraq"

I have shown you the pre Bush Administration list of reasons but you ignore it. Want to see it again?

How about the Clinton Administration's Iraqi Liberation Act of
1998?

How about the Carter Doctrine?

"The civil war is just on hold in Iraq... That is reality"

Now pray tell us what this "BOBERT FACT" is based on?

Have you got any news yet on the bad gas we sold Saddam to gas the Kurds with and that M16 and other booty we gave him for gassin' those insolent Kurds that were tryin to over throw him? HMMMMMMMMMMM?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Barry Finn
Date: 03 Mar 09 - 01:03 AM

If people thought that George Bush made the right move his ratings wouldn't be the lowest we've seen in this century, he could've jumped off a dime at his exit time. If the parachute didn't open he'd break his neck from the fall
MacWar would've won he Bush been right.

Barry


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Mar 09 - 07:16 AM

Exactly, Barry...

That is common sense... Some thing that Sawz seems to know nuthin' about...

I mean, lets get real here...

Sheesh!!!

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Mar 09 - 10:37 AM

400 Up


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Mar 09 - 10:50 AM

Now James "Peanut" Carter was someone Bobert said he voted for. Bobert also reckoned that Carter was one of the best Presidents the US ever had.

OK Bobert you were asked a question.

Tell us what the "Carter Doctrine" was?

Another question that both Bobert and Barry ducked.

What was the aim of the Iraq Bill that one William Jefferson Clinton Introduced and had passed?

Iraq a mistake Bobert - HELL NO!!

Carter succeeded in only one thing - In making the US a laughing stock. He also seriously damaged the capability for the US to gather meaningful intelligence in one of the most crucial areas of the planet - The Middle-East.

Clinton although constantly warned of the dangers elected to bury his head in the sand and win popularity contests instead of looking to the security of the United States of America. His reluctance to act resulted in five major attacks.

Bush did act and to date America has not been successfully attacked once since 9/11.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 03 Mar 09 - 11:19 AM

The Carter Doctrine does not apply to Iraq, Teribus; it was limited to preventing outside interference, notably by the USSR, in US interests relating to Saudi Arabia, foremost, and secondarily the rest of the Persian Gulf region. It cannot be used as a justification for unilateral invasion absent a precipitating offensive move on the part of another country.

It was the Reagan corollary that extended it to internal matters, which is surely what the Iraq invasion was about. This shifted the Carter doctrine and placed the self-anointed mantle of "arbitrary police of other nations" on the shoulders of America, wanted or not.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Mar 09 - 11:46 AM

"outside interference" covers a multitude of sins Amos (think nuclear) and is not only restricted to a physical presence or invasion.

Cornerstone of US policy in the gulf region has always been that no single country in the region shall be permitted to exercise hegemony over the area.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 03 Mar 09 - 01:41 PM

The only thing thing that I seem to know nuthin' about are the following ******* BOBERT FACTS ******:

Heck, the US even provided the bad gas that was used against the Kurds... Even rewarded Saddam ****afterwards**** with all kinds of booty, including a gold plated M-16 rifle.


Please educate me as the which of the sources you claim you glean all of your information from, mention these facts?

Are you sure it wasn't Mad Magazine?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 03 Mar 09 - 02:49 PM

Close your eyes Bobert, stick your fingers in your ears and say "I'm Not Listening"
Myths of Iraq
During a recent visit to Baghdad, I saw an enormous failure. On the part of our media. The reality in the streets, day after day, bore little resemblance to the sensational claims of civil war and disaster in the headlines. No one with first-hand experience of Iraq would claim the country's in rosy condition, but the situation on the ground is considerably more promising than the American public has been led to believe. Lurid exaggerations and instant myths obscure real, if difficult, progress. I left Baghdad more optimistic than I was before this visit. While cynicism, political bias and the pressure of a 24/7 news cycle accelerate a race to the bottom in reporting, there are good reasons to be soberly hopeful about Iraq's future.
Much could still go wrong. The Arab genius for failure could still spoil everything. We've made grave mistakes. Still, it's difficult to understand how any first-hand observer could declare that Iraq's been irrevocably "lost."

Consider just a few of the inaccuracies served up by the media:

Claims of civil war. In the wake of the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra, a flurry of sectarian attacks inspired wild media claims of a collapse into civil war. It didn't happen. Driving and walking the streets of Baghdad, I found children playing and, in most neighborhoods, business as usual. Iraq can be deadly, but, more often, it's just dreary.

Iraqi disunity. Factional differences are real, but overblown in the reporting. Few Iraqis support calls for religious violence. After the Samarra bombing, only rogue militias and criminals responded to the demagogues' calls for vengeance. Iraqis refused to play along, staging an unrecognized triumph of passive resistance.

Expanding terrorism. On the contrary, foreign terrorists, such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, have lost ground. They've alienated Iraqis of every stripe. Iraqis regard the foreigners as murderers, wreckers and blasphemers, and they want them gone. The Samarra attack may, indeed, have been a tipping point--against the terrorists.

Hatred of the U.S. military. If anything surprised me in the streets of Baghdad, it was the surge in the popularity of U.S. troops among both Shias and Sunnis. In one slum, amid friendly adult waves, children and teenagers cheered a U.S. Army patrol as we passed. Instead of being viewed as occupiers, we're increasingly seen as impartial and well-intentioned.

The appeal of the religious militias. They're viewed as mafias. Iraqis want them disarmed and disbanded. Just ask the average citizen.

The failure of the Iraqi army. Instead, the past month saw a major milestone in the maturation of Iraq's military. During the mini-crisis that followed the Samarra bombing, the Iraqi army put over 100,000 soldiers into the country's streets. They defused budding confrontations and calmed the situation without killing a single civilian. And Iraqis were proud to have their own army protecting them. The Iraqi army's morale soared as a result of its success.

Reconstruction efforts have failed. Just not true. The American goal was never to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure in its entirety. Iraqis have to do that. Meanwhile, slum-dwellers utterly neglected by Saddam Hussein's regime are getting running water and sewage systems for the first time. The Baathist regime left the country in a desolate state while Saddam built palaces. The squalor has to be seen to be believed. But the hopeless now have hope.

The electricity system is worse than before the war. Untrue again. The condition of the electric grid under the old regime was appalling. Yet, despite insurgent attacks, the newly revamped system produced 5,300 megawatts last summer--a full thousand megawatts more than the peak under Saddam Hussein. Shortages continue because demand soared--newly free Iraqis went on a buying spree, filling their homes with air conditioners, appliances and the new national symbol, the satellite dish. Nonetheless, satellite photos taken during the hours of darkness show Baghdad as bright as Damascus.

Plenty of serious problems remain in Iraq, from bloodthirsty terrorism to the unreliability of the police. Iran and Syria indulge in deadly mischief. The infrastructure lags generations behind the country's needs. Corruption is widespread. Tribal culture is pernicious. Women's rights are threatened. And there's no shortage of trouble-making demagogues. Nonetheless, the real story of the civil-war-that-wasn't is one of the dog that didn't bark. Iraqis resisted the summons to retributive violence. Mundane life prevailed. After a day and a half of squabbling, the political factions returned to the negotiating table. Iraqis increasingly take responsibility for their own security, easing the burden on U.S. forces. And the people of Iraq want peace, not a reign of terror. But the foreign media have become a destructive factor, extrapolating daily crises from minor incidents. Part of this is ignorance. Some of it is willful. None of it is helpful. The dangerous nature of journalism in Iraq has created a new phenomenon, the all-powerful local stringer. Unwilling to stray too far from secure facilities and their bodyguards, reporters rely heavily on Iraqi assistance in gathering news. And Iraqi stringers, some of whom have their own political agendas, long ago figured out that Americans prefer bad news to good news. The Iraqi leg-men earn blood money for unbalanced, often-hysterical claims, while the Journalism 101 rule of seeking confirmation from a second source has been discarded in the pathetic race for headlines. To enhance their own indispensability, Iraqi stringers exaggerate the danger to Western journalists (which is real enough, but need not paralyze a determined reporter). Dependence on the unverified reports of local hires has become the dirty secret of semi-celebrity journalism in Iraq as Western journalists succumb to a version of Stockholm Syndrome in which they convince themselves that their Iraqi sources and stringers are exceptions to every failing and foible in the Middle East. The mindset resembles the old colonialist conviction that, while other "boys" might lie and steal, our house-boy's a faithful servant. The result is that we're being told what Iraqi stringers know they can sell and what distant editors crave, not what's actually happening. While there are and have been any number of courageous, ethical journalists reporting from Iraq, others know little more of the reality of the streets than you do. They report what they are told by others, not what they have seen themselves. The result is a distorted, unfair and disheartening picture of a country struggling to rise above its miserable history.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Lighter
Date: 03 Mar 09 - 03:56 PM

Sawzaw, simply as a point of information: the results of a public opinion poll, no matter how scrupulously conducted, say nothing about what the actual likelihood of success or failure (however these are defined) may be.

The poll only measures the level of confidence of the respondents. But I doubt they have much expertise or any first-hand knowledge.

And what might be "success" for one person (say, "a stable, neutral Iraq") might well be "failure" for someone else (who, for example, might demand "a stable, democratic, U.S.-aligned Iraq").

Opinion polls measure opinions and little else, and they don't always do that very well.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 03 Mar 09 - 05:39 PM

Lighter: That is your opinion, I presume, that carries more or less weight than the poll?

Amos: You are right. Saddam was not exactly an outside force. But I think it sets the stage (gives an excuse) for military intervention in the middle east.

Carter proclaimed:

    The region which is now threatened by Soviet troops in Afghanistan is of great strategic importance: It contains more than two-thirds of the world's exportable oil. The Soviet effort to dominate Afghanistan has brought Soviet military forces to within 300 miles of the Indian Ocean and close to the Straits of Hormuz, a waterway through which most of the world's oil must flow. The Soviet Union is now attempting to consolidate a strategic position, therefore, that poses a grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil.

    This situation demands careful thought, steady nerves, and resolute action, not only for this year but for many years to come. It demands collective efforts to meet this new threat to security in the Persian Gulf and in Southwest Asia. It demands the participation of all those who rely on oil from the Middle East and who are concerned with global peace and stability. And it demands consultation and close cooperation with countries in the area which might be threatened.

    Meeting this challenge will take national will, diplomatic and political wisdom, economic sacrifice, and, of course, military capability. We must call on the best that is in us to preserve the security of this crucial region.

    Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 03 Mar 09 - 05:43 PM

Sawz:

Fromt he smell, I would guess your recent cut-and-paste was several years old, no? WHy not provide source information yourself?


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Mar 09 - 06:02 PM

Yo, Sawz...

Apparent;y you don't read all my posts 'casue it's been at least a month since I corrected the gifts that we given to Saddam...

Maybe you could tell us what those gifts were, por favor??? Also, who presented these gifts, por favor???

And maybe if you quit you friggin' shouting you'd have more tiem for keeping up with these threads...

(Nah, Boberdz... He wouldn't... And shouting is all he really knows...)

Sad...

B!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Mar 09 - 06:40 PM

Oh, BTW... How about doing it in yer own words...

Yer lenghthy cut and posts from rightie blogs is rather ingenious so I don't ven read them... Nor do other folks here... It may make you feel smugly warm and fuzzy but if no one reads yer rightie blogs then you have done a disservice to your argument/s...

And T, Amos is ebntirely correct... The Carter Docrine had nothin' to do with Bush and Co.'s (you incvluded) trumped up excuses for his trumped up war....

Had common logic prevailed Bush would have backed down after the Jan 27th report to the UN by Blix... But cowboys and common logic don't exactly mix too well...

"Cowboys ain'y easy to love
and they're hearder to hold
They rather give you a song
than diomonds of gold
Thems that don't know him
won't like him
And those that do won't know
how to take him
But there's something
That's won't let him do things that is right..."

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Mar 09 - 08:08 PM

"Bush did act and to date America has not been successfully attacked once since 9/11"

Gawd I love that one.

So, Bush gets a pass on 911 - even though he had been in office for nine months...even though the outgoing administration implored him to pay attention to Al Qaeda (while he crowed about missile defense shield)...But *after* 911, we haven't been attacked. Well, for the nine prior years we had not been attacked either!

Bush kept us safe *after* 911...   "Other than that how was the play Mrs. Lincoln".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Mar 09 - 08:42 PM

Wait a minute!!!

Seems to me that the two worst terrorist attacks have occured under Republican presdients...

Beruit under Reagan and...

...9/11 under Bush???

Hmmmmmmm??? And exactly how is it that the US is safer from terrorists under the Repubs???

Yeah, TIA... Like, what kinda revisonionists acid trip are the Bushites on here???

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Lighter
Date: 03 Mar 09 - 09:35 PM

Well, since you ask, it is my opinion, based on experience, that few members of the general public chosen at random have a profound understanding of Iraq and Iraqi society. (I certainly don't.) Therefore their personal expectations of success or failure in Iraq(however defined) have little to do with what's actually happening or will happen. Especially if, as you say, the news media have been misleading them.

What remains a fact, though, is that the majority opinion concerning something the opinion-givers don't know much about has little bearing on the actuality of that something. The Iraq War, in this case. All the poll does is count poorly-informed opinions on all sides.

That remains true regardless of the subject of the poll and regardless of whether one likes its findings or not.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 03 Mar 09 - 10:55 PM

So Lighter, of public opinion is to be discaounted the your opinion should be discounted or not?

CNN:

"Do you think that the United States of America is winning or not winning the Iraq war?"        
            Winning       Not Winning      Unsure                  
                    %             %             %                  
02/18-19/09        50            46             4
12/01-02/08        49            49             2                  
08/29-31/08        49            49             2                  
08/06-08/07        32            63             5                  
03/09-11/07        29            61             9
11/17-19/06        34            61             5         

"Do you think the United States of America can win or cannot win the Iraq war?"        
                  Can          Cannot       Unsure                  
                    %             %             %                  
02/18-19/09        60            38             2                  
08/29-31/08        58            41             1                  
08/06-08/07        54            43             3                  
03/09-11/07        46            46             8                  
11/17-19/06        54            43             3


Washington Post:

"Thinking about the next year, do you feel optimistic or pessimistic about the situation in Iraq?" 
                 Optimistic    Pessimistic      Unsure                  
                         %            %             %                  
12/11/08-12/14/08        65          30             5         


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 03 Mar 09 - 11:07 PM

So, Saawz: how will we know? The surreender of...um...who????

Or is there some other definition of "win" in your mind?



A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 07:55 AM

Yer exactly right, lighter... And I offer into evidence Sawz post of 10:55 as "Exhibit A"...

Face it, the wrong question was asked... This thread is about whether or not going into Iraq was a mistake and not about warm and fuzzy regergitation of what the media has been cramming down our throats since (drum roll) "The Surrrrrrrrgggggge"...

Of course the American people really have no concept of waht the surge was... Most would say it simply was more boot on the ground which, of course, is an incorrect answer... But that answer, however incorrect, fits nicely into the revisionists bumnper sticker lenght policy positions...

I mean, I even asked Sawz a whi,le back what the surge was and he listed a bunch of stuff that never really dealth with the facts on the ground and shift in tactics (not strategy) and perhaps why even to this day he is completely in the dark about what this thread is really about...

Garbage in, garbage out...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Lighter
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 09:03 AM

You're missing the point.

Polling people who are poorly informed about X tells nothing about X itself, regardless of what X is. That's a fact that every professional pollster knows and, I suspect, many professional journalists too.

The poll thing is a non-partisan observation that's true of any subject. I haven't expressed any opinion at all about the Iraq War.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 11:24 AM

Still no answer form Bobert on those *********BOBERT FACTS********* Yet he loves to call people liars.

What happened to the offer you made Bobert? Are you backpedaling? Why would such a always correct person need to avoid doing what he said he would do?

Lighter: You are missing the point. If opinions expressed by others is not accurate, what makes your opinion on polls accurate?

The number indicates a change in opinions over the years. Did they get samrter or dumber over the years?

What does the percentage of error mean?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 11:50 AM

"I even asked Sawz a whi,le back what the surge was and he listed a bunch of stuff that never really dealth with the facts on the ground"

You asked me about the surge and I directed you to the government website that laid it all out. Then you wanted to know how it was different from the existing strategy. I directed you to that too.

I answered your question. Your problem, like the arrogant Bill O'Reilly, is that my answer is not the answer you wanted so you continue to bully and accuse me of not answering.

I have politely agreed to appologize if you can show me where your alleged facts appeared in any of the three sources you cited.

Now you ridicule and search for some flaw in what I said in an effort to excuse your self from doing what you said you would do.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 11:51 AM

"First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully."
-- Former Deputy Attorney General John Yoo, in a 2001 Justice Department memo


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 12:20 PM

This is the excellent foppery of the world, that, when we are sick in fortune — often the surfeits of our own behavior — we make guilty of our own disasters, the sun, the moon, and the stars."

Lear


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Barry Finn
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 01:06 PM

That should read "Floppery" Amos.
You only "touch the tip" Amos when you mention "First Amendment speech and press rights"! One should take into account of illegal wire tapping, the loss of 'Hey-bus in the Corpses', the right to face your accuser, the right to a speedy trail, 'the right to a trial", the use of kidnapping, extreme rednditions, imprisoment without cause-on hearsay accusations with no presentation of evidence. The list at times seems endless & only now is there showing up any evedience of intention to purposely circumvent the Constitution.

Barry


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 03:35 PM

Here comes the Foppery. Hippity hoppity. ;}


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 03:53 PM

That John Yoo, there, Sawz, was a man after your own heart, I take it?


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 04:11 PM

Rahm Emanuel "Never let a serious crisis go to waste"

Marxist Saul Alinsky: "Rule one, never allow a crisis go to waste."


Good Job comrade Rahm


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 04:13 PM

What a ridiculous comparison, Sawz. By your logic, if a man is NOT a Communist, he should insist on letting all crises go to waste, because someone who was one said otherwise? Do you live your whole live but such avoidance schemes????



A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 05:52 PM

Well, Hitler said that the people would beleieve the Big Lie and some 60 years later we had the Big WMD Lie... And people did beleive it... Even after evidence to contrary a large number of people still believed it...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 09:34 PM

Bobert with the ear plugs, blindfold and ballerina slippers:

I got my apology all ready, waitin' and gift wrapped for when you do what you said you would do. I might eve throw in a box of pink peeps left over from last Easter and a six pack of Turbo Dog to wash 'em down with.

Bobert: "Tell ya what, Sawz, I'll find the source if you'll agree that when I find it that you admit that you are wrong... Unless I get that then it's not worth the time it will take to dig it up."

OK Bobert, I will admit that I am wrong about Saddam being given a gold plated M16 if you can show it in one of the sources you cited. Ya got a deal.

Your turn Bobert. Let your Honesty overcome your Ego.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: TIA
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 11:11 PM

In the 1400s, it was possible to poll people and find out that a plurality believed the world was flat.

Don't forget that the full name of polls is ususally "Opinion Polls". Polls have no meaning when issues of fact are at hand.

Or shall we take a poll as to whether penicillin cures bacterial disease?

Maybe we should take a poll about whether my spork will fall if I let it go right now.

So what is the "fact' we are discussing? *"WIN"* What does it mean, and what did it mean to those answering the poll? Without a firm handle on these, the polls are farts in a windstorm.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 08:11 AM

Sawz,

Call yer local mental helth clinic and run, don't walk, to it because you are clearly disturbed...

I made the correction about the M-16 along time ago... It was gold plated spurs and an M-16 rifle (unplated)... Big woop... You act as if this changes the issue here... It doesn't... It's not relavent to this discussion...

Get that mental health and then come back when you have been cured of yer obsessive compulsiveness...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 10:24 AM

Bobert still does not hold up his end of the bargain. Instead he accuses the person he made the bargain with of being mentally disturbed.

"Bobert: "Tell ya what, Sawz, I'll find the source if you'll agree that when I find it that you admit that you are wrong... Unless I get that then it's not worth the time it will take to dig it up."

Have you found that source yet?

You made the following statement during this discussion so it must be revelant:

"Heck, the US even provided the bad gas that was used against the Kurds... Even rewarded Saddam ****afterwards**** with all kinds of booty, including a (redacted) M-16 rifle."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 11:10 AM

Yo, Sawz...

For the ten millionth time, I corrected the booty list a long time ago...

Your continued harrassment won't change that...

If you can't accept that then go get mental health 'cause you certainly are coming off as some slobbering cyber-sicko...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 06:33 PM

Meanwhile spare a thought for Teribus and his other war. The problems of Afghanistan, far from being overcome, are spreading across Pakistan too. But perhaps all is not lost, as NATO is now hoping to be dug out of its hole by Russia and Iran.

(Amos, Edmund said it, not Lear.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 10:49 PM

Bobert: "I'll find the source"

Where is the source Bobert?

Correcting the fact that the mythological M-16 was not gold plated does not reveal the source or who when and where the mythological M-16 was given.

"Okay it was a pair of golden spurs and an M-16" Does this reveal the source?

Then there is your statement that:

"Heck, the US even provided the bad gas that was used against the Kurds ****afterwards**** with all kinds of booty"

What was the "all kinds of booty", when where and how did the US provide the gas?

Bobert: "What you get from me is gleaned strictly from the Washington Post, The New York Times and the TV news"

Where is the source for the above facts por favor? You said you would look it up so please do so.

"But wait, fir an extra $2.95 (plus shipping and handling) you'll get documentation that the US government had promised the Kurds they would support them against Saddam... Hmmmmmmk???

I got my $2.95 for the documentation right here, Where do I send it?

You are very good at making personal attacks instead of backing up your ******* Bobert Facts ******* except with threats.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Mar 09 - 01:04 AM

Fionn typical BBC reporting, that's the same BBC that cannot write the word "Taleban" without prefixing it with "resurgent", the same BBC who have predicted massive spring and summer Taleban offensives that will drive ISAF out of the country every year since 2006 - odd that none of them have ever materialised.

If you actually read the item they are talking about talks. Read nothing in it at all about Iran or Russia being asked to dig anyone out of a hole. Anything like that would be have to be done through the United Nations. They after all were the ones who put NATO into Afghanistan.

Now what has the "Beeb" got to tell us about how terrible things are in Iraq??


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 06 Mar 09 - 01:30 AM

"This is the excellent foppery of the world, that,
when we are sick in fortune,--often the surfeit
of our own behavior,--we make guilty of our
disasters the sun, the moon, and the stars: as
if we were villains by necessity; fools by
heavenly compulsion; knaves, thieves, and
treachers, by spherical predominance; drunkards,
liars, and adulterers, by an enforced obedience of
planetary influence; and all that we are evil in,
by a divine thrusting on: an admirable evasion
of whoremaster man, to lay his goatish
disposition to the charge of a star! My
father compounded with my mother under the
dragon's tail; and my nativity was under Ursa
major; so that it follows, I am rough and
lecherous. Tut, I should have been that I am,
had the maidenliest star in the firmament
twinkled on my bastardizing."
— William Shakespeare (King Lear)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Mar 09 - 07:26 AM

Fact: Georeg Bush's war machine lied about Iraq having WMDs...

Fact: George Bush's war machine lied about ties between Iraq and al qeada...

Fact: Goerge Bush's war machine lied about Iraq trying to by nuclear material

Fact: On January 27th Hanz Blix stated that the Iraqis were cooperating with the inspectors in letting the inspectors inspect whereever they (the inspectors) wanted...

Opinion: Given that the US was in a position to find or not find WMDs in Iraq there is a cognitive disconnect in why the Bush war machine ordered up the invasion...

That is the discussion here...

Anyother discussion is just subterfuge...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 06 Mar 09 - 08:01 AM

"Fact: Georeg Bush's war machine lied about Iraq having WMDs..."


False. Since Bush said that Saddam had WMD programs, NOT WEAPONS, you are making a strawman arguement based on a lie ( LIE 1)



"Fact: George Bush's war machine lied about ties between Iraq and al qeada..."

False. Bush stated that there were reports , and there have been shown by Iraqi documents that Al Quida did recieve aid and comfort by Saddam. ( LIE 2)



"Fact: Goerge Bush's war machine lied about Iraq trying to by nuclear material"

False. There are records of Saddam trying to get nuclear PROGRAM materials ( forbidden by the UN) the mistake about the yellow cake ( Gee, we bought HOW MUCH yellowcake from Iraq, and shipped it secretly to the US? But I guess it was a gift, since he did not buy it...) ( I will not call this a lie, as the specific claim was mistaken, although Saddam has been shown to buy nuclear material.




"Fact: On January 27th Hanz Blix stated that the Iraqis were cooperating with the inspectors in letting the inspectors inspect whereever they (the inspectors) wanted..."

You fail to tell the rest of the report, where Blix states that it is NOT suffiecient, and that Saddam is STILL in violation ( after his last chance to come clean) of the UNR.

This one I have told you before, and the specific statemnet you make, while true, is NOT what the report states as a conclusion.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Mar 09 - 08:36 AM

LOL, bb...

You know he lied and we all know that you will go to the grave defending him...

Nothing new here...

BTW, will you explain what is more important than "most important" which is what Blix said in reference to the report where he said the Iraqi's were cooperating????

I don't think that there is a word "moster" which would relegate "most important" to mean not "most important"...

But with yer logic (or lack thereof) I'm sure you find some way the degrade "most important" to meaning something less than that...

That is the crux of all of you arguments... Semamtics verses reality... I gues that "mushroom cloud" was not literally a mushroom cloud but something quite different...

That's the problem we have here... Most folks, other than diehard Bush-heads, would agree that the Bush war machine centered its arguments for war on 3 lies: WMDs (not programs, or wantabee programs) but WMDs, an al qeada link and Iraq trying to buy nuclear material...

That's reality to everyone in the world other than you folks who blindly followed the Bush War campaign... Ya'll can wiggle a sqirm now but it doesn't change the facts of the s

Maybe you should revist some of the reporting in the Post from those days... No, not cherry pick but revisit the entirity of the articles written in the Post...

The Post even admits that it got sucked into a "culture" during the selling of the war and admitted that it should have been more dilligent in questiooning the claims of the Bush War Machine... I believe that article was buried in the A-section on August 17, 2004 but I haven't looked for it for a while so that might not be the correct date...

So, bb, revise away... You are in a very tiny minority of people who just can't deal with reality...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 06 Mar 09 - 09:08 AM

Don't shoot the messenger Teribus. The BBC report was quoting Clinton. For instance: "If we move forward with such a meeting, it is expected that Iran would be invited as a neighbour of Afghanistan." And: "We can and must find ways to work constructively with Russia where we share areas of common interest, including helping the people of Afghanistan."

Teribus may not realise it, but this is a repositioning. To me it has a hint of desperation about it, but no doubt Teribus will read it as confirmation that NATO has achieved a military triumph and wiped the Taleban from the face of the planet.(LOL)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Mar 09 - 09:43 AM

Bobert I am waiting for you to supply the source of the "facts" that you brought to this discussion.

So far you have chickened out and are in a state of denial.


"For the ten millionth time, I corrected the booty list a long time ago."

So the "all kinds of booty" was:

_________________________________

The source was:

_________________________________

Now as fir other blogs???? I don't go to any of them... What you get from me is gleaned strictly from the Washington Post, The New York Times and the TV news...

Nuthin' more!!!

Allnatural, here... If I happen to see things the same way as some anti-Bush blogs see things then, hey, means we're both payin' attention....

But I swaer on my daddy's grave that these are my sources and I don't need nobody to tell me what to think or how to defend the postions I take... And I take that very seriously.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 06 Mar 09 - 10:30 AM

THe media were rich with implications, innuendos and even bald statements that Iraq was a holder of and potential user of weapons of mass destruction. "The smoking gun would be a mushroom cloud", said Condi. Remember tha one?


The administration made multiple statements on multiple occasions directly implying linksbetween al Qwda's attack on the US and Iraq. Are you seriously trying to weasel that fact? It has been documented in these threads almost as many times as it happened.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Mar 09 - 01:10 PM

"THe media were rich with implications, innuendos and even bald statements that Iraq was a holder of and potential user of weapons of mass destruction." - Amos

Ah so it was the MEDIA who stated that Iraq had WMD - How does that translate to this being a "Bush Lie" as Bobert wants it to be broadcast as. If fact if either of you ever bothered to read what the mandate of UNMOVIC was you would both know that UNMOVIC did not go into IRAQ to FIND WMD - They were tasked with going into Iraq to determine and verify what the status was with regard to WMD, WMD Programmes, WMD Weapons, WMD Delivery systems and Precursor Materials.

"The administration made multiple statements on multiple occasions directly implying linksbetween al Qwda's (??) attack on the US and Iraq." - Amos

That is a blatant lie Amos. Within five days of the attacks that took place on the 11th September, 2001 two senior members of the Bush administration stated clearly and unequivocally in broadcast statements and in interviews that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with those attacks.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Stringsinger
Date: 06 Mar 09 - 03:39 PM

But that's not the Party Line they told the public prior to that cover-your-ass announcement.

They ginned up the iraq invasion by linking Al Quaeda and Hussein.

"Smoking gun....mushroom cloud?" Bush's WMD pronouncement. B.S. to sell the invasion.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Gervase
Date: 06 Mar 09 - 05:39 PM

Teribus, that is utter and arrant bollocks, and if you search your conscience you will recognise the fact.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Mar 09 - 06:02 PM

If that is utter arrant bollocks Gervase then prove it - And guess what?? I can tell you now that you will not be able to.

Are you denying the fact that Colin Powell on the steps of the UN Building in New York on 16th September told CNN that the US were positive that neither Saddam Hussein or Iraq had anything to do with the attacks of the 11th September?

Are you denying that that same evening in an interview with Bob Russert on "Meet the Press" Vice-President Dick Cheney was asked:

Russert: "Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?"

Cheney: "No."

Now exactly what part of "No" do you not understand Gervase?? Can you give us any clue as to how he could have made his answer slightly less ambiguous??


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 06 Mar 09 - 08:16 PM

No, dimwit. The state,ents were by SECDEF, SECSTATE, POTUS and VPOTUS.

They were reported int he media.

Verbatim.



A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Mar 09 - 09:24 PM

Yo, Sawz...

As fir yer little juvilinistic game, try this one on on fir size: F**k off!!!

I've grown tiresome of yer gnat impersonation...

You add absolutely nothin' to this discussion at all... Your little kindergartenish game is beneath me...

You can type big scarey letters... I don't care... Paint 'um red... I don't care...

You are just a cyber wuss as far as I can see who thinks he has something on me... You ain't got jack on me... Alll you have is yer little game because you have given up trying to defend this war...

If you continue this line of childish and borderline obseesive behavior I will ask that Joe Offer remove your posts from this thread... I have a right to do that because it is my thread and you are trying to highjack it with meaningless childrens games...

This thread is for adults... Not the Pampers crowd...

Last warning!!! Keep f**king with this thread and I'll either have you bounced or I'll have the thread closed...

Square business...

And if you don't like it, I'm transparent... I'm easy to find... Come talk to me... Know what I nean, Vern???

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Mar 09 - 11:51 PM

Bobert:

If you are an adult and I am childish, just answer the questions about what you posted and that will solve the problem.

I will answer any question you ask the best way I know how. You might not like the answer and you might ridicule it rather than bring up a supportable fact that disproves it but at least it will be an answer, not an avoidance tactic and not a threat.

What I have "on" you is you are constantly stating outrageous things that have no basis in fact and you will not provide any support for those facts.

The US did not supply the "bad gas" for Saddam to use on the Kurds and they did not reward him afterwards with all kinds of booty including a M-16 rifle. To make such serious claims that are unsupported and unfounded is irresponsible. Just because you claim it is the truth does not make it the truth.

To make callous remarks and refuse to support them is not adult behavior and not responsible behavior.

Then you accuse me of being some kind of bully while you bully Tbus endlessly and call him a "belligerant blowhard who is too friggin; proud and partisan to admit that you are wrong" but if someone accuses you of being a blowhard because you wont answer questions, that is not allowed and someones teeth are threatened.

So tell Joe to kick me off or end the tread if you want but I don't believe I am being threatening, insulting or abusive but just some one you can't blow off because you don't want to or can't support your claims.

So now I am asking politely again for the source for your assertions about the gas, the rifle, the booty reward. Please.

Thanks


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 07 Mar 09 - 12:12 AM

The National Journal:

""
One of the more intriguing things that Bush was told during the briefing was that the few credible reports of contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda involved attempts by Saddam Hussein to monitor the terrorist group. Saddam viewed Al Qaeda as well as other theocratic radical Islamist organizations as a potential threat to his secular regime. At one point, analysts believed, Saddam considered infiltrating the ranks of Al Qaeda with Iraqi nationals or even Iraqi intelligence operatives to learn more about its inner workings, according to records and sources.

The September 21, 2001, briefing was prepared at the request of the president, who was eager in the days following the terrorist attacks to learn all that he could about any possible connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Much of the contents of the September 21 PDB were later incorporated, albeit in a slightly different form, into a lengthier CIA analysis examining not only Al Qaeda's contacts with Iraq, but also Iraq's support for international terrorism. Although the CIA found scant evidence of collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the agency reported that it had long since established that Iraq had previously supported the notorious Abu Nidal terrorist organization, and had provided tens of millions of dollars and logistical support to Palestinian groups, including payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

The highly classified CIA assessment was distributed to President Bush, Vice President Cheney, the president's national security adviser and deputy national security adviser, the secretaries and undersecretaries of State and Defense, and various other senior Bush administration policy makers, according to government records.

The Senate Intelligence Committee has asked the White House for the CIA assessment, the PDB of September 21, 2001, and dozens of other PDBs as part of the committee's ongoing investigation into whether the Bush administration misrepresented intelligence information in the run-up to war with Iraq. The Bush administration has refused to turn over these documents.

Indeed, the existence of the September 21 PDB was not disclosed to the Intelligence Committee until the summer of 2004, according to congressional sources. Both Republicans and Democrats requested then that it be turned over. The administration has refused to provide it, even on a classified basis, and won't say anything more about it other than to acknowledge that it exists.

On November 18, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said he planned to attach an amendment to the fiscal 2006 intelligence authorization bill that would require the Bush administration to give the Senate and House intelligence committees copies of PDBs for a three-year period. After Democrats and Republicans were unable to agree on language for the amendment, Kennedy said he would delay final action on the matter until Congress returns in December.

The conclusions drawn in the lengthier CIA assessment-which has also been denied to the committee-were strikingly similar to those provided to President Bush in the September 21 PDB, according to records and sources. In the four years since Bush received the briefing, according to highly placed government officials, little evidence has come to light to contradict the CIA's original conclusion that no collaborative relationship existed between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

"What the President was told on September 21," said one former high-level official, "was consistent with everything he has been told since-that the evidence was just not there."

In arguing their case for war with Iraq, the president and vice president said after the September 11 attacks that Al Qaeda and Iraq had significant ties, and they cited the possibility that Iraq might share chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons with Al Qaeda for a terrorist attack against the United States...."


resident George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.

On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings, interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration's case for war.

It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to Al Qaeda. This was the conclusion of numerous bipartisan government investigations, including those by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2004 and 2006), the 9/11 Commission, and the multinational Iraq Survey Group, whose "Duelfer Report" established that Saddam Hussein had terminated Iraq's nuclear program in 1991 and made little effort to restart it.

In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003. Not surprisingly, the officials with the most opportunities to make speeches, grant media interviews, and otherwise frame the public debate also made the most false statements, according to this first-ever analysis of the entire body of prewar rhetoric.

President Bush, for example, made 232 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and another 28 false statements about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Secretary of State Powell had the second-highest total in the two-year period, with 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Rumsfeld and Fleischer each made 109 false statements, followed by Wolfowitz (with 85), Rice (with 56), Cheney (with 48), and McClellan (with 14).

The massive database at the heart of this project juxtaposes what President Bush and these seven top officials were saying for public consumption against what was known, or should have been known, on a day-to-day basis. This fully searchable database includes the public statements, drawn from both primary sources (such as official transcripts) and secondary sources (chiefly major news organizations) over the two years beginning on September 11, 2001. It also interlaces relevant information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches, and interviews.

Consider, for example, these false public statements made in the run-up to war:

On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney's assertions went well beyond his agency's assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, "Our reaction was, 'Where is he getting this stuff from?' "
In the closing days of September 2002, with a congressional vote fast approaching on authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, Bush told the nation in his weekly radio address: "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year." A few days later, similar findings were also included in a much-hurried National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction — an analysis that hadn't been done in years, as the intelligence community had deemed it unnecessary and the White House hadn't requested it.
In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: "Sure." In fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an absence of "compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda." What's more, an earlier DIA assessment said that "the nature of the regime's relationship with Al Qaeda is unclear."
On May 29, 2003, in an interview with Polish TV, President Bush declared: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories." But as journalist Bob Woodward reported in State of Denial, days earlier a team of civilian experts dispatched to examine the two mobile labs found in Iraq had concluded in a field report that the labs were not for biological weapons. The team's final report, completed the following month, concluded that the labs had probably been used to manufacture hydrogen for weather balloons.
On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush asserted: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase agreement "probably is a hoax."
On February 5, 2003, in an address to the United Nations Security Council, Powell said: "What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources." As it turned out, however, two of the main human sources to which Powell referred had provided false information. One was an Iraqi con artist, code-named "Curveball," whom American intelligence officials were dubious about and in fact had never even spoken to. The other was an Al Qaeda detainee, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who had reportedly been sent to Eqypt by the CIA and tortured and who later recanted the information he had provided. Libi told the CIA in January 2004 that he had "decided he would fabricate any information interrogators wanted in order to gain better treatment and avoid being handed over to [a foreign government]."
The false statements dramatically increased in August 2002, with congressional consideration of a war resolution, then escalated through the mid-term elections and spiked even higher from January 2003 to the eve of the invasion....

http://projects.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/


Administration Statements Linking Iraq and Al Qaeda.

I think this horse is dead. Can I stop beating it now?


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Mar 09 - 02:54 AM

Hindsight's a marvelous thing isn't it Amos, I note you do not give the dates of those "cut'n'pastes" - 23rd January, 2008

Unfortunately your President had to deal with the information that was known at that time and the evaluation of that intelligence by the experts available to him at that time. Maybe the President was doubly unfortunate in that as far as the US Intelligence and Security Agencies went, they were still headed up and manned by and large by exactly the same men who had advised George W. Bush's predecessor in 1998, that Iraq constituted a threat to the United States of America. Although having said that, I can see no reason why men in those positions would, under such circumstances, not do their jobs conscientiously to the best of their professional ability.

In both your links, particularly the second one from "democratic underground.com" of a 27th August, 2006 edit of something originally posted on 23 November, 2005, their greatest failure is to not actually separate the attacks of 11th September, 2001 from what was evaluated as constituting the greatest threat of attack to the United States of America.

The two things are completely separate and totally different in scale and nature. The only relevance of 911 was that it demonstrated the frightening degree of the vulnerability of the United States of America to an asymmetric attack.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Barry Finn
Date: 07 Mar 09 - 03:52 PM

"Unfortunately your President had to deal with the information that was known at that time and the evaluation of that intelligence by the experts available to him at that time"

Not true! Bush excepted only the info that was useful for his war plan. He had all the info available that was needed to make an informed, intellegant choice. He did not want to wait to go to war & he painted the picture that best supported his plan & went ahead with it before the paint was dry enough for the rest of the world to get a good look at his masterpiece.

Barry


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 07 Mar 09 - 04:17 PM

T:

They were totally separate in fact.

They were conflated by the mouthpieces of the Administration in order to justifdy the invasion of Iraq for other motives.

The dates of the links above do not matter; what matters is they demonstrate that the Administration on multiple occasions tried to persuade the American people that there WAS a link, that there WERE WMD and that invasion WAS justified, all three of which turned out to be complete bullshit.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Mar 09 - 05:45 AM

From your links Amos and from intelligence reports received the following statement is true:

There was evidence of links and contacts between Al-Qaeda and the Iraqi Ba'athist Regime of Saddam Hussein.

The following statement is also true:

There were absolutely no links to, or involvement by the Iraqi Ba'athist Regime of Saddam Hussein in the Al-Qaeda attacks of the 11th September, 2001.

I can differentiate between the two - you and obviously thousands of your fellow countrymen cannot.

In exactly the same way, you and thousands of your fellow countrymen believe that the US went into Iraq to discover and unearth massive stockpiles of WMD. Which, of course if you actually read the remit of UNMOVIC, is nonsense. The Administration of George W. Bush did not make up the detailed list of what WMD Iraq might have and what WMD programmes might still be running. All that information came from UNSCOM, the very last group in Iraq monitoring the dismantling of those very same programmes. What UNMOVIC was sent into Iraq to do was to clearly and unequivocally establish exactly what the status was with regard to the discrepancies detailed previously by UNSCOM. Did they expect to find them? - Did they believe they were going to find them? - Of course they did.

How does this failure to grasp what is going on come about? Because you and all those thousands of "believers" did not take the trouble to read what was reported and match it up to what was actually said.

Best example of that that we saw in the UK was the "45 minute" claim. Poorly presented and stated in Parliament and woefully reported by the Press in the UK - Myself and any ex-forces member knew exactly what it meant, having had it hammered into us in "threat" lectures throughout the "Cold War". 45 minutes is the time it takes the armed forces of the Soviet Union and their Warsaw Pact Allies to arm their Chemical/Biological weapons.

Ask those whose statements have been highlighted in your links if they truly believed what they were saying at the time, you will a "Yes" right across the board. But while you are doing that also ask the Governments of the fifteen nations who made up the Security Council of the United Nations at the time whether they and their intelligence services also independently believed it, you will also get a "Yes" right across the board - even from Ba'athist Syria, Saddam's neighbour.

Another thing that you never mention - Saddam Hussein's own admission that he did everything in his power to foster the belief that Iraq still possessed WMD and was fully prepared to use them. Indication of this - the attempt in 2002 to buy 1 million ampules of atropine from Germany.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Mar 09 - 08:01 AM

What I'm waiting for is for Cheney to have to divulge his pre-war contacts at the CIA and testimony of the folks he spoke with there...

Right now, Cheney is sandbagging on providing much of anything about what he did for 8 years???

Funny thing... We know everything about his illnesses and his operation but nothing about the men involved in writing the mystery energy policy or his involvement at the CIA in shaping intllegence to fit a decision to invade Iraq, according to former Treasury Secretary, that was made long before 9/11???

(But, Bobertz... Bill Cliinton left orders to invade Iraq???)

He did???

Hmmmmmmmm??? Must have been the only Clinton order that Bush ever followed... Sho nuff didn't have any use for everything else the Clinton administartion stood for... You know, like keeping taxes high enough to pay for the governemnt, or continuing to remain engaged in the Palestian/Isareali conflict, missle treaties, global warming treaties, etc., etc....

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Gervase
Date: 08 Mar 09 - 03:06 PM

The material provided by Amos has been posted on here before but, Teribus, it seems that nothing short of ECT or a lobotomy will induce you to change your mind.
The fact is that, for all your wind and piss, you are in the same position as the thick tom on the passing out parade whose mother sighs, "Oh look, everyone's out of step except my Tommy!".
For all your frenetic cutting and pasting you are not going to persuade anyone as to the merits of your peculiar views, and as time passes and more things enter the public realm you simply look more and more silly. Your tiresomely repetitive rebuttals are beginning to seem as hysterical as those of any latter-day flat-earther or creationist
Still, your mulishness does provide some of us with a quiet chuckle!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Mar 09 - 05:39 PM

So with all this "evidence" that has come to light, all this "proof" of the President and his entire administration having lied to Congress and the people of America, why was there no impeachment Gervase?? After all Amos kept us amused for about four years with a semi-permathread running on this forum about Declarations of Impeachment, so you can hardly suggest that no-one was calling for it. But it didn't come to anything did it?? It couldn't because the actions taken at the time have to judged by what was known at the time and if you cannot see that Gervase then you have got to be as thick as pig shit without any of its usefulness.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Mar 09 - 08:41 PM

I'll take that one, Gervase, but before I do, my congrates to you for summing up T's little predicamant using so ver few words... Well done...

The reason, T, that there was no impeachement is because impeachment isn't supposed to be taken lightly but the impeachment of Bill Clinton was such a bogis partisan act that it disgusted the American peop,le and probably poisoned any possibility for impeachment, regardless of merit, for a generation...

I don't think that the Repubs could have possibly foreseen a scenerio whereby the impeachment of Clinton would come to serve their party not once, but twice... I'd like to think that it was just blind luck on the Repubs part but who really knows??? Either way, it saved Bush...

But the story isn't over... Cheney and Bush will not be able to sandbag their way outta this disaster of a foreign policy blunder regardless of the economis situation which I am now wondering if Bush and Co. didn't ochestrate to give them a smokescreen against invetsigations that would certainly be going on if there wasn't such a mess to clean up???

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 02:00 AM

Thanks for that Bobert - we now have witnessed the birth of yet another "BOBERT FACT". Forgive me if I don't take it seriously, standing as it does with absolutely nothing to back it up.

The reason that neither the President or Vice-President were impeached was because there was no case to answer, and no matter how much "joining of dots" in retrospect will detract from the necessity on the part of the President and the Government of the United States of America to act at the time based upon what they knew and believed to be the case at that time.

Was Iraq a mistake Bobert - No it most certainly was not.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Barry Finn
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 06:46 AM

Just because one doesn't get brought to trial does not mean a crime has not been commited

Barry


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Gervase
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 07:54 AM

you have got to be as thick as pig shit without any of its usefulness
Ah, a hit, a palpable hit!
When someone resorts to gutter insults it's a good sign that their fund of argument is pretty well bankrupt.
But to continue with the game: As you well know, Teribus, the process of impeachment is not simply a matter of concerned citizens signing a chitty to request it.
As for your second point there are lies of evasion, ommission, ellision and inference as well as the bald and straightforward telling of untruths. You, of all people, should be aware of those distinctions!
At no point did the Bush administration ever stand up and counter the mood music orchestrated by the spinners in the West Wing; a spin which is reflected in innumerable opinion polls which showed that most Americans believed Saddam Hussein to have had a hand in the events of November 11 2001.
And why not?
Because it suited the administration very well to have the population believe that about the Iraq misadventure, even when the administration itself knew at the time that such a link was highly improbable. The invasion had been high on the political agenda long before 9/11, and the more pretexts the better, however bogus.
I do wonder if you are able to accept that a conservative Western government is capable of doing wrong, Teribus. You really are the sort of useful idiot who banged on about the 'liberal conspiracy' and the 'real truth' about the Gulf of Tonkin incident long after it had been shown to be a sham.
You're almost worthy of a booth in a sideshow of fantasists - "Roll up, roll up; come and see the amazing proctocephalic seer; a man who will try to persuade you that black is white, that up is down and that the earth is flat. It's Terry the human sponge - no matter how much you throw at him, he soaks it up, rolls over and carries on talking utter bollocks..."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 01:49 PM

When someone resorts to gutter insults it's a good sign that their fund of argument is pretty well bankrupt."

So is that by way of an explanation as to why you started it??

"As you well know, Teribus, the process of impeachment is not simply a matter of concerned citizens signing a chitty to request it."

Well I think it has something to do with someone proposing the motion to impeach and being backed by a certain percentage of the Senate and House of Representatives – Was Dennis Kucinich a concerned citizen? No he wasn't he was an elected Congressman who wanted Bush et al impeached and bottled out of it because he knew it would get nowhere.

"As for your second point there are lies of evasion, ommission, ellision (WTF??) and inference as well as the bald and straightforward telling of untruths."

And it is up to those making the accusations to come up with the proof – True?? So far nobody has been able to do so based upon what information was known at the time.

"At no point did the Bush administration ever stand up and counter the mood music orchestrated by the spinners in the West Wing"

Ah the spinners were all in the West Wing were they?? From what was being reported in the Press and on Television I got the distinct impression that it was MSM that was doing all the spinning.

"a spin which is reflected in innumerable opinion polls which showed that most Americans believed Saddam Hussein to have had a hand in the events of November 11 2001."

Even after senior members of the Bush Administration had clearly and unequivocally stated that there was no connection – How many times do you have to be told something Gervase?? Besides Gervase the events of 911 had absolutely nothing to do with why the US invaded Iraq and removed Saddam Hussein from power.

"And why not?
Because it suited the administration very well to have the population believe that about the Iraq misadventure, even when the administration itself knew at the time that such a link was highly improbable."

"Highly improbable" Gervase, they had clearly stated that such a link with regard to 911 was not only highly improbable they had stated that it was non-existent.

"The invasion had been high on the political agenda long before 9/11,"

Had it Gervase?? Any substantiation for that?? Or are you now relying of "Bobert Fact".

If Saddam Hussein had had a whit of sense, and if the United Nations had actually done its job, there would have been no invasion.

"I do wonder if you are able to accept that a conservative Western government is capable of doing wrong, Teribus."

Oh most definitely Gervase, they screw up day in day out with monotonous regularity. All you have to do to see that is to follow the progress of our own current caricature "Gordon of Cartoon" to see that.

"You really are the sort of useful idiot who banged on about the 'liberal conspiracy' and the 'real truth' about the Gulf of Tonkin incident long after it had been shown to be a sham."

Really?? I don't recall ever stating any opinion on any "liberal conspiracy" or about any "real truth" about the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Perhaps you could provide examples??


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Gervase
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 08:42 AM

Honestly, Teribus, your inability to read nuance and your dogged literalism is exasperating. I have no idea whether or not you've ever expressed an opinion about the Gulf og Tonkin, but that's beside the point.
As for the rest of your diatribe, it's still bollocks. The PNAC was banging on about iraq long before 9/11, and can you tell me where any senior administration figure proactively approached the mainstream media and said anything to the effect of "Could everyone calm down. There is no connection at all between Saddam and 9/11, and to continue making those implications is simply wrong".
But I am glad tht you agree that 9/11 had nothing to do with the invasion or Iraq.
Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz each contributed to a PNAC report in September 2000 report which argued an invasion of Iraq as a means for the U.S. to "play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security..."
Paul O'Neill, Bush's former treasury secretary, has said that "contingency planning" for an attack on Iraq was launched soon after Bush's inauguration and that the very first National Security Council meeting involved discussion of an invasion.
But when Bush did hold a press briefing once the decision to attack had been made, guess what? Bush invoked 9/11 and Al Qaeda at least a dozen times to justify a preemptive attack. At no point did he say that Saddam had no link with 9/11. Take a peek.
And we won't even begin to go into Dearlove, Gimble, the Kerr Group or many others - all of whom have rather more than your powers of Googling to come up with their conclusions.
So, Teribus. Absolute bollocks again. You're making a bit of a habit of this, aren't you?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 09:49 AM

"Making a bit of a habit", Gervase...

Nah...

This habit goes way back to the Bush *mad-dash-to-Iraq" days where T-Bird would sit at his computer 24/7 cranking out Bush propaganda...

Then when things started going bad right after "Mission Accomphished" and no WMDs were found T-zer went away for a couple years??? Yeah, I know... Very starnge...

Then he came back thinking that everyone had completely forgotten all the arguments against the war with his *new and improved* revised versions of why the war was so wonderful... Problem is that two years wasn't long enough for those memories to go away so other than the usual suspects no one bought any of the *new and improved* stories any more than they bought the 2002-03 propaganda...

And the beat goes on... and on... and on...

BTW, T, you are very much mistaken in yer assessment about the American attitude toward yet another impeachment... You don't live here so how would you begin to understand our thnking on the matter... I am standing behind my opinion that had Bill Clinton not been impeached that the American people certainly would have been behind impeaching Bush for this boneheaded war...

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 12:33 PM

"You really are the sort of useful idiot who banged on about the 'liberal conspiracy' and the 'real truth' about the Gulf of Tonkin incident long after it had been shown to be a sham."

"your inability to read nuance and your dogged literalism is exasperating. I have no idea whether or not you've ever expressed an opinion about the Gulf og Tonkin, but that's beside the point."

And you have the nerve to go on about me talking a load of Bollocks!! Do make up your mind, you can't have it both ways.

"Have I ever banged on about the 'liberal conspiracy?" - The answer is either YES or NO?

If you select YES then please provide the proof of it

If the answer to that is NO, then I would draw your attention to the fact that I can then hardly be the sort of useful idiot who does anything of the sort.

"Have I ever banged on about the 'real truth' about the Gulf of Tonkin?" – YES or NO

Ditto the above with regard to substantiation and logic.

"The PNAC was banging on about iraq long before 9/11"

To hell with the PNAC, that was just a non-governmental independent think-tank, it didn't make, propose or set US Foreign Policy. But the US State Department did, the US Intelligence and Security Agencies did and the Administration of one William Jefferson Clinton did. They all decided that Iraq posed the greatest threat to the security of the United States of America long before 9/11 – Not Bollocks Gervase - FACT.

This next bit of yours is absolutely priceless, still laughing about it as I type:

"can you tell me where any senior administration figure proactively approached the mainstream media and said anything to the effect of "Could everyone calm down. There is no connection at all between Saddam and 9/11, and to continue making those implications is simply wrong"."

HAVE YOU EVER known any politician, civil servant, or Government Minister come out with anything as ridiculous as that?? Now you tell me Gervase what would the reaction of the fourth estate to that have been?? Say the likes of Rupert Murdoch or Piers Morgan?? – Oh, yes they would have backed down and acted responsibly immediately no questions asked - Laughable, bloody laughable.

"Paul O'Neill, Bush's former treasury secretary, has said that "contingency planning" for an attack on Iraq was launched soon after Bush's inauguration and that the very first National Security Council meeting involved discussion of an invasion."

I would have been very surprised if it hadn't been. I'd wager that a few other 'contingency plans' were dusted off and updated at exactly the same time, just as they all will be at the moment during the first days of Obama's Presidency – Except of course they now will not need one for Iraq. By the way Gervase what do take 'contingency' to mean??

"when Bush did hold a press briefing once the decision to attack had been made, guess what? Bush invoked 9/11 and Al Qaeda at least a dozen times to justify a preemptive attack. At no point did he say that Saddam had no link with 9/11."

He didn't have to. Oh by the way I did have a "Peek" – Did you?? If you read the full transcript you would see who is continually introducing 9/11 into the equation, you can see who is introducing the 'spin' – MSM.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Gervase
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 12:44 PM

Teribus,
"the sort of".
Geddit?
Now who was it muttered something about "thick as pigshit"?
I hadn't realised that you were quite as stupid as that. You have about as much understanding of the tripe you read and post as a parrot does of its own profanities.
And it's quite clear that have absolutely no understanding of the media and its relationship with the Bush administration. If you really are sitting there with tears of laughter rolling down your cheeks then you're more a figure of pity than scorn. You know, you really should get out more, you sad, deluded old fool.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 01:32 PM

"no understanding of the media and its relationship with the Bush administration"

Oh you mean the media who eagerly printed and highlighted all the "Bushisms" Gervase??

The media who highlighted KBR supplying expertise in the wake of the invasion as "no-bid" contracts but at the same time omitted to mention the fact that in 1998 KBR won the frame Agreement Contract to supply such servcies for a period of five years??

Look at you link Gervase who was the first to mention 9/11 the president or the reporter?? The President referred to lessons learned from 9/11 - he did state or infer that Saddam or Iraq had anything to do with it.

Now what was this relationship between the media and the Bush Administration again??


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 01:34 PM

Correction - That should of course state:

"The President referred to lessons learned from 9/11 - he did NOT state or infer that Saddam or Iraq had anything to do with it."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Gervase
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 06:43 PM

...or the New York Times, slavishly reporting Saddam's nuclear capabilities, his stocks of nerve gas and everything else that was drip fed from the administration.
Or Murdoch's Fox news, so far up Bush's rectum that the boom mike was tickling his tonsils.
Really Tebbit, you should try to have a wider range of reading materials.
As I've said - probably 90 per cent of your posts are absolute and arrant bollocks. The odd 10 per cent hits the spot, but that doesn't mitigate the lickspittle drivel in the rest.
Any more feigned outrage at the Gulf of Tonkin 'slur'; by the way, or did the penny finally drop?
I've noticed that you go very quiet when someone actually calls your bluff. All that bluster and assiduous cut and paste seems to hide a rather lacklustre intellect backed by an over-inflated ego, typical of some third-rate NCO or passed over major.
Never mind - I'm sure you get a great thrill from jingling your long-service tin on Armistice Day and telling the young'uns how you won the Cold War.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 07:34 PM

And rememeber Judith Miller of the Times??? You know, the lady who ordered her staff not to talk with Scott Ritter...

Scott Ritter??? Yeah, the very same Scott Ritter who probably knew more about weapons inspections in Iraq than anyone else back in 2002... The same Scott Ritter who said the intellegence on WMDs was bogus... The same Scott Ritter who said that going to war in Iraq would be a major mistake...

(But didn't Scott Ritter cheat on his wife, Boberdz??? Or was it something else???)

I don't know... They tried to "Valeria Plame/Joe Wilson" Scott Ritter with everything they could come up with becasue they thought if they could pin something on him then the media would avoid him like he was a radiation pit...

I found it very interesdting that both the Times and Post reported whatever the propoganda de jour was during the mad-dash days but only after the truth came out did the Post *kinda* admit tyhat they had blown it... Yeah, 6 months worth of front page Bush propaganda and one little fretraction found burined deep within the A section...

Hmmmmmmmmm???

That's kinda like letting one baseball team have bats for 8 1/2 inningsw and then with 2 outs in the bottom of the ninth letting the other team use a bat...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 02:25 AM

Gervase in 2002 all detail relating to what WMD Iraq could possibly have was taken from the UNSCOM reports to the UN Security Council. A report that Scott Ritter and a certain Dr. Hans Blix helped compile, I believe IIRC that they even actually signed it. So if anything was drip fed to the media it was information from the UN.

On the "Gulf of Tonkin" thing Gervase you have not yet shown me that one single thing I said so far is false or untrue. If you must resort to "sort of like" you've got to be scrambling.

Iraq a mistake - Hell no.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Gervase
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 03:07 AM

I said 'the sort of useful idiot' in the first post, you utter clot. Is English not your mother tongue or have years of self-abuse finally put paid to your eyesight? Should I write in upper case letters SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND?
Still, it does show that you don't actually read posts before your knee jerks and you start spouting bollocks.
Or is it just that Google can't come up with an answer for you and you're floundering around?
Ah well, it passes the time between jobs...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 01:14 PM

Gervase, instead of insults please indicate anything that I have said that is either mistaken, misrepresented, mythical or untrue. Good luck with that. Please yourself as to whether your written reply is in "Upper" or "Lower case".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: <