 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
|
|
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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~ |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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". |
|
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. |
|
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 |
|
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. |
|
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 |
|
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. |
|
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~ |
|
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 |
|
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~ |
|
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 |
|
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. |
|
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? |
|
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. |
|
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 |
|
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~ |
|
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. |
|
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~ |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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?????? |
|
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 |
|
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. |
|
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~ |
|
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? |
|
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? |
|
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)... |
|
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. |
|
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~ |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: kendall Date: 23 Dec 08 - 07:33 PM "War is the ultimate failure" |
|
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. |
|
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~ |
|
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. |
|
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???? |
|
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~ |
|
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? |
|
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, ... |
|
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. |
|
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. |
