BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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~

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!

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.

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.

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

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~

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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~

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~

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.

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?)

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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~

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

We are addicted to war.

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~

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.

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.

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~

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.

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...

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?

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. ***

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.

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.

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?

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

I would have!

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.