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

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Mar 09 - 09:49 PM

1.        "Had the USA not acted as it did on March 20th 2003 in dealing with Iraq, when and how would you have liked to have found out about Libya's totally secret nuclear weapons?"

Gervase's Answer:
Sooner. Yet another example of defective intelligence. The sort that got us into the war the first place.

Comment:
Libya renounced its WMD programmes and weapons. Up until this point it was only thought that Libya was pursuing WMD programmes centred on chemical and biological weapons. When Libya declared all it's WMD programmes the world learned of a nuclear weapons programme that was very far advanced.

So without the invasion of Iraq the first anybody might have found out about this is would have been when something went bang.

Gervase what do you think would have prompted the Libyans to tip their hand "sooner" as you put it??

How did defective intelligence get us into the war in the first place Gervase?? UNMOVIC didn't have to find WMD in Iraq it only had to clear the findings and obtain explanations for the discrepancies contained in the earlier UNSCOM Report in a verifiable manner and establish that Iraq had indeed disarmed. Everybody believed the Saddam still had WMD in 2003 because he, by his own admission, worked damn hard to create the impression that Iraq still possessed these weapons.

2.        "Do you think that chances of secret development of nuclear weapons on the basis of sale to the "highest bidder" have been enhanced or reduced by the exposure of the activities of Dr.A.Q.Khan? Has what has happened, i.e. exposure and shutting down of this network been of any significant benefit to mankind?"

Gervase's Answer:
See above. And to claim that this is the reason for the invasion is like saying we put a man on the moon to invent the non-stick frying pan, you clot.

Comment:
Oh no Gervase not the reason for the invasion – all this came about as a direct result of the invasion. We would never have known a thing otherwise. In the course of checking out how the Libyans had advanced so far in total secrecy the network of Dr.A.Q.Khan was uncovered and rolled up along with a trail of contacts and front companies, links were established between Pakistan, North Korea, Libya, Iran, Iraq and Syria. So without the invasion of Iraq and the resulting abandonment of the Libyan WMD programmes this secret and illegal network engaged in proliferation of nuclear weapons would not have been discovered. With the network shut down the chances of secret proliferation of nuclear weapons has been greatly reduced. Good thing or a bad thing Gervase??

3.        "When and how would you have liked to have found out about Iran's totally secret nuclear weapons?"

Gervase's Answer:
Have we found out?

Comment:
Gervase even the Iranians now know that they are fooling no-one any longer with their "peaceful" nuclear energy programme, after all if your programme is intended for peaceful purposes you do not need the design drawings for a nuclear weapon do you. And once it has been discovered that you have those designs it doesn't take you two years to hand them over to the IAEA when they ask for them.

Without the US invasion of Iraq we would never have found out about the hitherto secret Iranian uranium enrichment facility at Natanz and a heavy water facility at Arak. Although signatories of the nuclear NPT, Iran had not declared these sites to the IAEA as they were obliged to do. Why do you think that was Gervase?? You appear to be an extremely trusting individual I'm sure you can come up with a plausible explanation for that.

4.        "Who do you think would have won the second Iran/Iraq War, and in what way would that outcome be beneficial for the region and the world"

Gervase's Answer:
So, Saddam would have attacked Iran? Don't make me bark. Iran would have attacked Iraq? Ditto?

Comment:
Now we are talking about Saddam Hussein here Gervase, the man who in 1980 attacked Iran because his UN Ambassador had told him that Iran wished to negotiate a settlement of the ongoing dispute related to the Shat-al-Arab waterway.

Early in 2002, Germany, Russia, China and France were testing the waters with a view to getting the UN sanctions against Iraq lifted. No great problem if they had stayed, the "oil-for-food" scandal showed that few were sticking to them.

Now while "Peanut" Carter had stripped the US of any human intel in the region in 1979, Saddam's Iraq still had plenty of contacts, so it would be around the summer of 2002 that Saddam would have been informed of Natanz and Arak. Now then Gervase if you think for one milli-second that Saddam Hussein would just sit back and let Iran develop a nuclear weapon it is you that is barking.

Rearmament and resurrection of the Iraqi Armed Forces?? No problem, Saddam's former business partners would have been only too delighted, after all Gervase what happened to the price of oil after 9/11 and during 2002, what do you think would have happened to the price once it became known that Iraq was rearming?? I'll give you a hint Gervase it would not have gone down.

So by the end of 2003 at the latest Iraq would have been good to go, we could now be into the fourth or fifth year of the Second Iran/Iraq War by now Gervase. If the price per barrel had risen while Iraq was preparing for war just think what would have happened to the price with a full scale war in progress and with Iran controlling the Straits of Hormuz. $147 per barrel would have cheap at twice the price. But none of that happened because GWB didn't let Saddam, Iraq or the UN off the hook. And guess what Gervase throughout the entire period from the build up for the invasion to today, oil production from the Gulf was not only unaffected, the production totals actually increased.

5.        "The first Iran/Iraq War resulted in 1.5 million dead, how stupid, brutal, thoughtlessly callous, inhumane and short-sighted a betrayal of mankind do you think it would have been to allow such a conflict to occur?"

Gervase's Answer:
See above. Do you honestly imagine that either Iraq or Iran would have been so stupid, etc?

Comment:
Yeah Gervase see above. But one question I forgot to ask about that. What leads you to believe that Saddam would have sat back and let Iran develop a nuclear weapon? What leads you to believe that Saddam would sit back and let Iran develop any form of nuclear capability at all?

6.        "With regard to peace in the middle-east do you believe chances of finding a lasting solution are increased or reduced by the removal of a state sponsor of terrorism?"

Gervase's Answer:
Decreased, thanks to a resurgence in Islamic groups like Hamas and Hizbollah, buoyed up by a general Islamic resurgence in the region fostered by the invasion. It's cool to be anti-Western.

Comment:
Well let's see Gervase did you compare number of suicide attacks inside Israel before and after the US invasion of Iraq?? I did, guess what Gervase, the number of attacks went down, they decreased and since the invasion with regard to Israel/West Bank relations they have been fairly peaceful, all the result of Saddam's regime no longer sponsoring attacks by Palestinians inside Israel from the West Bank. Good old George eh Gervase??

Hamas and Hezbollah are resurgent are they Gervase?? Well Hezbollah, Lebanon and Syria got the shock of their lives in 2006 and haven't done a damn thing since then, quiet as church mice. Hamas in Gaza, resurgent?? Well not really, they've proved themselves to be a bit of a joke haven't they to be quite honest and since the last stramash in December and January even they are beginning to cotton on, and more importantly so is the electorate of Gaza – Hamas is leading them nowhere and they know it.

Far from being resurgent Gervase the whole thing is sort of running out of steam. They'll be even quieter still when the new Israeli Government takes over in Office.

7.        "With regard to peace in the middle-east do you believe that Lebanon stands a better chance of achieving peace and stability as an independent sovereign state without the presence of Syrian Forces of occupation, or was the Lebanon better off as a Syrian colony?"

Gervase's Answer:
And the relevance of this to the invasion of Iraq is, er, what precisely?

Comment:
No relevance Gervase, relationship as a result of the invasion of Iraq. Syrian forces had been occupying Lebanon for what 27 years Gervase. Hariri get assinated and the UN Security Council passes a Resolution calling on Syria to co-operate with the UN Inquiry and withdraw from Lebanon. Now this had been requested before but like another Ba'athist regime in the area UN Resolutions were not really things you bothered about. That is until Ba'athist Iraq tried playing ducks and drakes with one in 2003 and ended up getting invaded with the ensuing result that the Ba'athist reign in iraq ended rather abruptly. So with the best part of 150,000 US troops living next door, when Syria is dealt a UN Resolution stating that it has to get out of Lebanon, you tell me Gervase, what did Bashir Assad decide to do?? That's correct Gervase he got his troops the hell out of Lebanon.

Oh while we are on about Syria, didn't they lose something up by the Turkish border. Oh yes that's right, the Syrians lost this building and the North Koreans lost some technicians if memory serves me correctly.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Mar 09 - 08:10 PM

T-zer, T-Bird, T-Bollocks...

I kinda like T-Bollocks... Has that nice ring to it...

But really, he has earned it...

I mean, one doesn't just twist chicken crap into chicken salad without a little work and T-Bollocks is the master of rationalization...

There was one point where he actually didn't realize what Bliz told the UN and asked me for my source... I find it curious that just recently on this thread that T's American counterpart, bb, asked me the same question...

Hmmmmmmmmmmm???

Could it be that it wasn't until well after the invasion that T didn't know what Blix had told the UN Security Council????

Well, that still would never have justified the invasion but his ignorance of the Blix report could expalin his cluelessness...

Of course, T will deny asking me for my source but he knows he did and also knows that I'm not going to go back thru every Iraq thread to pinpoint where it was that T asked me to provide the source... He knows he did just as bb knows that he just asked this past week or so...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Gervase
Date: 13 Mar 09 - 06:02 PM

OK, to answer your 'objective' questions:
"Had the USA not acted as it did on March 20th 2003 in dealing with Iraq, when and how would you have liked to have found out about Libya's totally secret nuclear weapons?"
Sooner. Yet another example of defective intelligence. The sort that got us into the war the first place.

"Do you think that chances of secret development of nuclear weapons on the basis of sale to the "highest bidder" have been enhanced or reduced by the exposure of the activities of Dr.A.Q.Khan? Has what has happened, i.e. exposure and shutting down of this network been of any significant benefit to mankind?"
See above. And to claim that this is the reason for the invasion is like saying we put a man on the moon to invent the non-stick frying pan, you clot.

"When and how would you have liked to have found out about Iran's totally secret nuclear weapons?"
Have we found out?

"Who do you think would have won the second Iran/Iraq War, and in what way would that outcome be beneficial for the region and the world" So, Saddam would have attacked Iran? Don't make me bark. Iran would have attacked Iraq? Ditto?

"The first Iran/Iraq War resulted in 1.5 million dead, how stupid, brutal, thoughtlessly callous, inhumane and short-sighted a betrayal of mankind do you think it would have been to allow such a conflict to occur?" See above. Do you honestly imagine that either Iraq or Iran would have been so stupid, etc?

"With regard to peace in the middle-east do you believe chances of finding a lasting solution are increased or reduced by the removal of a state sponsor of terrorism?" Decreased, thanks to a resurgence in Islamic groups like Hamas and Hizbollah, buoyed up by a general Islamic resurgence in the region fostered by the invasion. It's cool to be anti-Western.

"With regard to peace in the middle-east do you believe that Lebanon stands a better chance of achieving peace and stability as an independent sovereign state without the presence of Syrian Forces of occupation, or was the Lebanon better off as a Syrian colony?"And the relevance of this to the invasion of Iraq is, er, what precisely?

Teribus, your questions are specious. I'm afraid you're talking bollocks again.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Mar 09 - 04:58 PM

Answer the questions Amos or does the prospect of doing so honestly and truthfuly make you too uncomfortable

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 13 Mar 09 - 03:14 PM

I guess, T, that you have deeply embedded yourself in the identity of a war-monger and have heapped deep and thick powers of rationalization and justification on top of it. One need only look at your post above to see that you think hypothetical situations could serve as reason for real slaughter. There is no justification for "just in case" warmongering, unilateral invasion among sovereign nations, or committing armed violence on imaginary grounds, all of whichh occurred on your Bush-baby's watch.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Mar 09 - 12:42 PM

"Saddam left in place was a guarantee of continued unimaginable suffering, pain, loss, disability, and destruction, mangled bodies, broken minds, lost lives and ruined potential – for Iraqis; Iranians; Israelis & Americans." - Teribus

"Saddam left in place was not our call to remove "no matter the reason: We do not remove anyone from their office by means of force unless they have attacked US." – Barry Finn.

Ah so according to you, a country has to actually attack the United States of America before the US can act to protect its sovereignty, its population and its interests. Just as well you are not, and hopefully will never be, President of the United States of America Barry.

By the bye Barry, regime change in Iraq was written into the official foreign policy of the US Government by Congress in the summer of 1998.   

"Saddam did not to (do?) any of what's quoted above to Americans!!!!!" – Barry Finn

I said left in place Barry, what presupposes you to believe that Saddam would not seek to attack the US indirectly via an international terrorist group using WMD supplied by Iraq, or using WMD technology supplied by Iraq.

"As it is the world is now far worst off for our going into Iraq than if we had stayed out."

And the grounds for making this statement are what? Please answer the following questions:

•        "Had the USA not acted as it did on March 20th 2003 in dealing with Iraq, when and how would you have liked to have found out about Libya's totally secret nuclear weapons?"

•        "Do you think that chances of secret development of nuclear weapons on the basis of sale to the "highest bidder" have been enhanced or reduced by the exposure of the activities of Dr.A.Q.Khan? Has what has happened, i.e. exposure and shutting down of this network been of any significant benefit to mankind?"

•        "When and how would you have liked to have found out about Iran's totally secret nuclear weapons?"

•        "Who do you think would have won the second Iran/Iraq War, and in what way would that outcome be beneficial for the region and the world"

•        "The first Iran/Iraq War resulted in 1.5 million dead, how stupid, brutal, thoughtlessly callous, inhumane and short-sighted a betrayal of mankind do you think it would have been to allow such a conflict to occur?"

•        "With regard to peace in the middle-east do you believe chances of finding a lasting solution are increased or reduced by the removal of a state sponsor of terrorism?"

•        "With regard to peace in the middle-east do you believe that Lebanon stands a better chance of achieving peace and stability as an independent sovereign state without the presence of Syrian Forces of occupation, or was the Lebanon better off as a Syrian colony?"

"Our economy went under with the high costs of the war & so followed the economy of the world,"

No, your economy went under because your banks and lending institutions lent money to people who could not pay it back, plain and simple. Those people should never have been lent the money in the first place.

"terrorism has flourished"

Has it Barry?? Where??

But talking about "foolish idiots" – What "Commander-in-Chief" of the Armed Forces of a country engaged in combat operations declares to the World's Press that his country is losing? I mean just how bloody stupid can you get? You may think that and voice that opinion in private, but has this clown and his Vice-President not heard about "Giving Aid & Comfort to the Enemy". The news must have been received exceptionally well in the mountains of the Hindu Kush. I can just imagine all those Taleban leaders saying to one another, "Ah the Americans are losing, let's negotiate before it's too late."

"Obama now has to deal with a failing heath system that at present will never catch up because of all the medical problems that will last the life time of the home-coming vets who'll need extreme care for the next half century."

Psssst Barry, I'll let you into a little secret, you can pass it on to Barack Obama. The US can have the greatest universal free health care system in the world tomorrow if it wants it. All you need to do is start paying $4-$5 per gallon for your petrol and diesel. Problem solved.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Mar 09 - 11:51 AM

500 Up

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Mar 09 - 11:50 AM

You haven't answered any of my questions Amos, why is that??

As for your quote:

"Here's a quote: "After September 11th, having been hit once, how could we take a chance Saddam might not strike again? And that's the threat that has been removed, and I think we're all safer with that threat being removed." -- Ari Fleisher on Hardball, March 11, 2009.

I understand perfectly exactly what he saying there, as should evrybody considering the date of the quote.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 13 Mar 09 - 11:18 AM

SOrry--that should be Fleisher.


--
"They have always taught and trained you to believe it to be your patriotic duty to go to war to have yourselves slaughtered at their command. But in all the history of the world you, the people, have never had a voice in declaring war, and strange as it certainly appears, no war by any nation in any age has ever been declared by the people." Eugene Debs

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 13 Mar 09 - 09:59 AM

Oh, T--remember Ari Fleischman, Bush's mouthpiece to the world? Here's a quote: ""After September 11th, having been hit once, how could we take a chance Saddam might not strike again? And that's the threat that has been removed, and I think we're all safer with that threat being removed."

-- Ari Fleischer on Hardball, March 11, 2009

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Barry Finn
Date: 13 Mar 09 - 02:49 AM

"Saddam left in place was a guarantee of continued unimaginable suffering, pain, loss, disability, and destruction, mangled bodies, broken minds, lost lives and ruined potential – for Iraqis; Iranians; Israelis & Americans.

Saddam left in place was not our call to remove "no matter the reason:. We do not remove anyone from their office by means of force unless they have attacked US. Otherwise we would be in a thousand tiny places governing the ways of the world.

Saddam did not to any of what's quoted above to Americans!!!!!

As to weither or not anyone is better off was never the point nor a reason. As it is the world is now far worst off for our going into Iraq than if we had stayed out. Our economy went under with the high costs of the war & so followed the economy of the world, terrorism has flourished becasue of our foolish idiots which is now reverberating across the globe, generations will hate us for how we've treated those we had no understanding of, we have belittled & castrated world org & our allied bnations by forcing their hands & bending them to our will. We became a shadow government who spies on it's own, doesn't trust the will of it's people & therefore won't listen to our voices & strips us of our rights & freedoms. Our grandchildren will still pay for our mistakes & they will still be repairing the damage & righting our wrongs. Bush & company became the quake in the water whose rogue waves just keep on causing damage on the shores it washes up on.
Obama now has to deal with a failing heath system that at present will never catch up because of all the medical problems that will last the life time of the homs-coming vets who'll need extreme care for the next half century.
Oh! You're not convince that this war was not a bad move yet. We still have to deal with voters who can't get the sand out of their eyes, ears & throats from having their heads buried in the desert for the past 8 yrs. So there's still a chance that these sandbagged voters will, in the future vote in another idiot like MacWar or Paylying & we will repeat our mistakes & relive this nightmare all over again.

Ask all the idiot questions to throw out a different angle but none makes our invasion of Iraq right!

"When will they ever learn"? "What's the answer my friend"?


Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Mar 09 - 01:27 AM

Saddam left in place was a guarantee of continued unimaginable suffering, pain, loss, disability, and destruction, mangled bodies, broken minds, lost lives and ruined potential – for Iraqis; Iranians; Israelis & Americans.

Questions for you Amos:

•       "Had the USA not acted as it did on March 20th 2003 in dealing with Iraq, when and how would you have liked to have found out about Libya's totally secret nuclear weapons?"

•       "Do you think that chances of secret development of nuclear weapons on the basis of sale to the "highest bidder" have been enhanced or reduced by the exposure of the activities of Dr.A.Q.Khan? Has what has happened been of any significant benefit to mankind?"

•       "When and how would you have liked to have found out about Iran's totally secret nuclear weapons?"

•       "Who do you think would have won the second Iran/Iraq War Amos, and in what way would that outcome be beneficial for the region and the world"

•       "The first Iran/Iraq War resulted in 1.5 million dead, how stupid, brutal, thoughtlessly callous, inhumane and short-sighted a betrayal of mankind do you think it would have been to allow such a conflict to occur?"

•       "With regard to peace in the middle-east do you believe chances of finding a lasting solution are increased or reduced by the removal of a state sponsor of terrorism?"

•       "With regard to peace in the middle-east do you believe that Lebanon stands a better chance of achieving peace and stability as an independent sovereign state without the presence of Syrian Forces of occupation, or was the Lebanon better off as a Syrian colony?"

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 12 Mar 09 - 10:21 PM

"...he did NOT state or infer that Saddam or Iraq had anything to do with it"

Jaysus. Teribus doesn't know the difference between "infer" and "imply". With this level of (il)literacy, why should anyone listen to any of the crap he spews so copiously?

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Mar 09 - 09:07 PM

Yeah, it does come down here that we have made a full (fool) circle and it has been shown that Bush had options had he only allowed more voices into his inner circle... He didn't want to do that because he was a lazy president who proudly admitted that he didn't read newspapers or watch the news???

I don't want a president who os proud to be ignorant...

I mean, if one is making decisions as if it was a big ol' rock/paper/sizzors then we're gonna get alot of Vietnams and Iraqs...

Blix gave Bush an out but I doubt that Bush ever knew what Blix told the UN... Probably still doesn't... Might not know who Blix is???

Like I've said before... Garbage in, garbage out = Iraq...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 09 - 08:16 PM

T:

I don't have the time or the inclination to mess with your screed, which is a scurrilous and smarmy piece of rationalization.

The choice for Bush COULD have been to use his brains to realize Hussein was a poseur, or at least CORRECTLY assume the probability. You repeatedly ignore all the advice Bush received against the war, as though everybody agreed it was inevitable. It was not the case--there was LOTS of input available to him against the story of WMDs. He subscribed to the BS line in full knowledge he was shutting out a lot of information. AND disregarding the known consequences of war for the nation. Instead he was swept up in a presumably Cheny-conducted wave of gleeful opportunism for war-contractors and the exciting prospect of showing his Pop how good he was. It was a nutsoid decision made by a less than qualified human.


A

A

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Barry Finn
Date: 12 Mar 09 - 07:58 PM

T, you started off the above looong post with;

"On the subject of bad choice and underestimation with regards to Iraq Amos, the only person who had any choice in the matter was Saddam Hussein and you are right he did choose badly"

Wrong, the US & UN gave Saddam choices & in his choice he complied with the wishes of the UN & open up to inspections.
It's the US who had choices & blundered baly. We had the choice of many avenues both the worst choice & what should've been the last resort was, we choose to invade a sovereign nation, illegally. At the cost & expense of the lives of many of our young soldiers & innocent Iraqi's, at the cost of putting our economy into bankrupcy, at the cost of our good standing in the world, at the cost of the trust of our own citizens, at the cost that own own youth will not see their own government with respect, at the cost of our own leaders becoming war criminals, at the cost of our ownn human & civil rights, at the cost our own freedoms, at the costs of our won saftey.
For some hindsight is the only vision that they're blessed with, some are also blessed with foresight. You weren't in either line when those were being given out. I'm so sorry for you, you have my pithy.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Mar 09 - 07:28 PM

Of course T has lots of time on his hands, Gervase... He is a paid plant here in Mudville... Not too sure who pays him to be here but you can take it to the bank that some rightie group does...

But wait... There's more... I think that T ain't just T...

Huh???

That's right... I think that T has an entire staff of rightie bloogers to help him... Ya' ever wonder how you can say soemthing and within an hour T can respond with a longer post than 5 people would have had time to type??? But it's peppered with lots of shortie references to others here in Mudville just so that it looks as if he is actually addressing various opponenets... But like I say, unless he types 500 words a minute that kinda stuff can't happen...

I've always wondered what happened to T after Iraq went bad... He was gone from Mudville up until "The Surge" and then reassigned to promote it and do battle with anyone who might question it...

That has always been a curious situation...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Gervase
Date: 12 Mar 09 - 06:50 PM

Fuck me, Teribus, you do seem to have an awful lot of time on your hands!
Ultimately, however, your entire reply is predicated on the truthfulness or otherwise of the US administration (we'll forget the UK - because we were told by Blair that regime change was not an issue; it was solely WMDs).
The evidence' as you claim to call it, is little more than what the administration chooses to publish. Various members of that administration have subsequnetly cried foul on the way that 'evidence' was put forward, while Blix himself - the independent voice on whom you seem to place so much store - was against the invasion.
You believe what you are told. I don't.
And that, old fruit, is that. End of. You can huff and puff and cut and paste all your like, but it won't make you right or me change my mind. So why not go back to a nice jigsaw or the Daily Express picture crossword. I say that in the assumption (given the amount of time you spend on here and the fact that your brain's clearly not firing on all cylinders) that you're retired and that you're not diddling some poor employer out of paid time.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Mar 09 - 06:27 PM

Yeah, bruce, no problemo...

"Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in the 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 helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable." (Dr. Hanz Blix addressing ther UN Security Council on Jan 27, 2003)

That quote is from early in Blix's report to the UN...

But wait... Here is how Blix closed out report before the UN:

"We have now an inspection apparatus that permits us to send multiple inspection teams every day all over Iraq, by road or by air. Let me end by simply noting that that capability which has been built-up in a short time and which is now operating, is at the disposal of the Security Council" (ibid)

Source: UN News Centre

http;//www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Mar 09 - 11:47 AM

On the subject of bad choice and underestimation with regards to Iraq Amos, the only person who had any choice in the matter was Saddam Hussein and you are right he did choose badly. He listened to whispers of encouragement from his "influential" friends and erstwhile trading partners and believed what they were telling him. In doing so he seriously underestimated the metal of the man who was charged with protecting the security and interests of the United States of America and her allies, who, let's face it, clearly stated his intentions and determination on the issue of Iraq's verifiable disarmament from the outset.

Now with regard as to what is, is:

1.        "You and T. seem to have a shared attitude that violence against people is perfectly jusifiable even when it is avoidable."

I would dearly like to hear your grounds for making that assumption. If you look back over my posts in the run up to the invasion of Iraq, particularly those in the very early days, you will discover that I was one of the people stating an opinion that the invasion would not happen – Based on the premise that I could not believe that Saddam Hussein and the entire Ba'athist regime in Iraq would be as stupid as they indeed proved to be.

Looking at it entirely from the perspective of the United States of America, as George W. Bush HAD TO DO, that being his job, what were the response options to the threat situation facing the United States of America in the wake of 9/11?

•        Ignore the advice of all 19 US Intelligence and Security Agencies and that of the Joint Congressional Security Committee with regard to their warnings about the threat that Iraq posed and blithely hope for the best?

•        Heed those warnings and take the matter before the United Nations?

•        Immediately launch attacks upon Iraq as his predecessor had done in 1998?

Tell us all what the President of the United States did Amos? On the other hand don't bother, the question's rhetorical – He went to the United Nations.

2.        "I think resorting to violence when it is not necessary is stupid. And defending it post-facto is similarly a bit twisted, IMHO."

Who resorted to violence went it wasn't necessary Amos? I can remember some quite clear markers that were put down at the time, each one gave ample opportunity to specifically avoid violence – All were studiously ignored.

In the case of Iraq your premise that intervention on the part of the United States of America was not necessary is questionable at best. As to defending the decision of the President of the United States to take military action being a bit twisted, that only holds good provided you subscribe to the opinion that military intervention was not necessary. Given what had occurred in the USA and the track records of both the United Nations and Saddam's Iraq, I can easily see why the President of the United States of America acted as he did. Exactly the same thing would have happened irrespective of who was in the "hot seat" because all the factors would have been the same.


3.        "An unimaginable amount of suffering, pain, loss, disability, and destruction, mangled bodies, broken minds, lost lives and ruined potential is contained in that cold expression of "Saddam was taken out" expression."

And you would rather have seen what Amos? Because Saddam left in place was a guarantee of continued unimaginable suffering, pain, loss, disability, and destruction, mangled bodies, broken minds, lost lives and ruined potential – for Iraqis; Iranians; Israelis & Americans. As I said in two of my earlier posts – Think about it.


4.        "I would be ashamed to think I had not been able to find a better solution to a problem, and would not consider a person worthy of leadership who could not, under the circumstances."

Now that sentence of yours Amos shows that you are in complete denial of what the President of the United States of America did, doesn't it? I believe that GWB did find the perfect solution to the problem his country was facing. He took the matter to the United Nations Security Council didn't he? We also know that the UN had taken the line of least resistance on this particular "situation" for the best part of 12 years and had completely ignored it for the last four years in the hope no doubt that it was just going to go away.

So faced with what everyone advising his administration said was a real and serious threat your President went to the UN knowing full well its weakness, lack of resolution and general ineffectiveness. He went and put the USA's concerns before the Security Council accompanied by a clear statement of intent – You resolve this in such a way that our justified concerns are addressed or we will act to accomplish that end independently if need be.

While Russia, China, France and Germany (All Security Council members at that time) were telling Saddam not to worry, the USA doesn't mean it, the President went back to Congress to get approval for action against Iraq if need be. He went to the Pentagon and requested that they update the existing "Contingency" Plans for armed intervention in Iraq, and to start getting units into position, making no mistake to ensure that the world and its dog knew about it.

The result of all this work was that after a break of over four years, all of a sudden Iraq invited UN weapons inspection teams back to Iraq.

5.        "It is just piss-poor management to waste your people, your finances, your repute and credibility, causing huge swaths of destruction, because of a severe shortfall of imagination and understanding. It is plain stupid, is what it is. Justify it away if you like, it is still stupid, brutal and callously unthoughtful, inhumane, short-sighted and piss-poor management of the nation's trust; in fact, it qualifies as an extreme betrayal of that trust.

So let's detail the accusations that you are flinging out here Amos:

•        A shortfall of imagination and understanding

I would have said that the Intelligence and Security Agencies of the USA and the Joint House Security Committee did a thoroughly conscientious and professional job when they were tasked with identifying what posed the greatest potential threat to their country. I believe that they did likewise in their evaluation of who in the world presented that threat. Their work can hardly be dismissed as being deficient in terms of imagination or understanding, particularly when it came to imagining and understanding what the result of inaction on the part of the United States of America would be.

•        Stupid

Since when has it been stupid to act in your own defence Amos? Since when has it been stupid to act to prevent a tragedy of massive proportions? Since when has it been stupid to act for the benefit of others?

•        Brutal

In what way "Brutal" Amos? Once you decide to fight, the only way to proceed is to make sure you win with as few casualties to your own side as possible. On balance I would have said that the force used was constrained compared to what force could have been applied to guarantee the same outcome.

•        Callously unthoughtful (No such word)

On the contrary I believe that a great deal of thought went into what actions had to be taken. Having said that however, I believe that the CPA period that followed the invasion was an unmitigated disaster.

•        Inhumane

It would have been inhumane to have stood back and done nothing.

•        Short-sighted

Far from it, all things considered.

•        Poor management

Only on the part of Saddam Hussein and his advisors, who actually were guilty of all the short-comings that you have listed

•        Betrayal of the nation's trust

Now this one I found amazing. George W. Bush betrayed the nation's trust, in what way Amos?   By acting to ensure the security of the country and its citizens and to protect the nation's best interests and those of her allies?

Questions for you Amos:

•        "Had the USA not acted as it did on March 20th 2003 in dealing with Iraq, when and how would you have liked to have found out about Libya's totally secret nuclear weapons?"

•        "Do you think that chances of secret development of nuclear weapons on the basis of sale to the "highest bidder" have been enhanced or reduced by the exposure of the activities of Dr.A.Q.Khan? Has what has happened been of any significant benefit to mankind?"

•        "When and how would you have liked to have found out about Iran's totally secret nuclear weapons?"

•        "Who do you think would have won the second Iran/Iraq War Amos, and in what way would that outcome be beneficial for the region and the world"

•        "The first Iran/Iraq War resulted in 1.5 million dead, how stupid, brutal, thoughtlessly callous, inhumane and short-sighted a betrayal of mankind do you think it would have been to allow such a conflict to occur?"

•        "With regard to peace in the middle-east do you believe chances of finding a lasting solution are increased or reduced by the removal of a state sponsor of terrorism?"

•        "With regard to peace in the middle-east do you believe that Lebanon stands a better chance of achieving peace and stability as an independent sovereign state without the presence of Syrian Forces of occupation, or was the Lebanon better off as a Syrian colony?"

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Mar 09 - 07:59 AM

" is that when Blix used the "most important" in describing the process on the whole"

I would like to see a quote in context from a Blix report- all I have found are what I have refered to, which says that in PRINCIPLE but NOT on substance Iraq was cooperating.

Care to provide the ENTIRE paragraph where he says this????

You keep implying that the inspectors were supposed t FIND the WMD materials and programs. THAT is a false assertion.


Blix:"Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it. Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling the questions. "

THAT is what Iraq failed to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Mar 09 - 07:39 AM

The big difference , bb, is that when Blix used the "most important" in describing the process on the whole... The process was weapons inspection and that is why these people were there... To dispell or prove WMDs in Iraq... The other parts of report deal with the details and not the overall process... It was the overall process that provided Bush an alternative...

Seein' as no WMDs were found after the invasion it seems to be logical that none would have been found by the inspectors had Bush not jumped the gun... Then there would not have been this war with all of its terrible consequences...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Mar 09 - 07:19 AM

Bobert,

Since you like the phrase "most important", how about this??


"Another matter, and one of great significance, is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for.

To take an example, a document which Iraq provided suggested to us that some 1,000 tons of chemical agent were unaccounted for. I must not jump to the conclusion that they exist; however, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented.

We are fully aware that many governmental intelligence organizations are convinced and assert that proscribed weapons, items and programs continue to exist. The U.S. secretary of state presented material in support of this conclusion.

Governments have many sources of information that are not available to inspectors. The inspectors, for their part, must base their reports only on the evidence which they can themselves examine and present publicly. Without evidence, confidence cannot arise.

Mr. President, in my earlier briefings, I have noted that significant outstanding issues of substance were listed in two Security Council documents from early 1999 and should be well known to Iraq.

I referred, as examples, to the issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX, and long-range missiles, and said that such issues -- and I quote myself -- "deserve to be taken seriously by Iraq rather than being brushed aside," unquote.

The declaration submitted by Iraq on the 7th of December last year, despite its large volume, missed the opportunity to provide the fresh material and evidence needed to respond to the open questions.

This is perhaps the

MOST IMPORTANT

problem we are facing. Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it. Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling the questions.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Mar 09 - 06:57 AM

"Mr. President, UNMOVIC is not infrequently asked how much more time it needs to complete its task in Iraq. The answer depends upon which task one has in mind: the elimination of weapons of mass destruction and related items and programs, which were prohibited in 1991, the disarmament task; or the monitoring that no new proscribed activities occur.

The latter task, though not often focused upon, is highly significant and not controversial. It will require monitoring which is ongoing, that is open-ended, until the Council decides otherwise.

By contrast, the task of disarmament foreseen in Resolution 687 and the progress on key remaining disarmament tasks foreseen in Resolution 1284, as well as the disarmament obligations which Iraq was given a final opportunity to comply with under Resolution 1441, were always required to be fulfilled in a shorter time span. "

http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/bfeb/20_blix.html

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Mar 09 - 06:49 AM

OK, most important:

"Referring to the vast stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons (such as VX, sarin and anthrax) unresolved when UNSCOM was ejected in 1998, Blix said:

"If they exist they must be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented." He continued,

"This is perhaps the MOST IMPORTANT problem we are facing. Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it. Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling the questions." "

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 09:10 PM

Amen, Amos, amen...

This is what this thread is all about... It was a mistake... A big mistake...

Vietnam was also a mistake but Vietnam was the model of what not to do and yet Bush and Co. did it anyway... I could almost understand Iraq if a president of Obama's age making the decision... Then I could say to myself, "Hey, they ddin't have a model..."

Bush had the model... Vietnam...

That makes Iraq even more painfull for our nation... We repeated behavior expecting different results...

Thank you, Amos, for bringing the reality of that mistake so vividly clear in terms of human loss and suffering... Unless the medai bring that part into our living rooms we sometimes forget that part of the story...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 08:51 PM

I have no trouble living with the fact that what is, is, Bruce. But the invasion was a bad choice, and it was terribly misunderestimated by the peabrain driving Bush's regime.

You and T. seem to have a shared attitude that violence against people is perfectly jusifiable even when it is avoidable. I am no friend of cowardicve but I think resorting to violence when it is not necessary is stupid. And defending it post-facto is similarly a bit twisted, IMHO. An unimaginable amount of suffering, pain, loss, disability, and destruction, mangled bodies, broken minds, lost lives and ruined potential is contained in that cold expression of "Saddam was taken out" expression. I would be ashamed to think I had not been able to find a better solution to a problem, and would not consider a person worthy of leadership who could not, under the circumstances. It is just piss-poor management to waste your people, your finances, your repute and credibility, causing huge swaths of destruction, because of a severe shortfall of imagination and understanding. It is plain stupid, is what it is. Justify it away if you like, it is still stupid, brutal and callously unthoughtful, inhumane, short-sighted and piss-poor management of the nation's trust; in fact, it qualifies as an extreme betrayal of that trust.


A

A

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 08:03 PM

Again, bb... The word "most important" generally mean that what is about to fololow is the "most important" and the words following the "most important" wording in Blix's reprt wer not the cherry picked portuions that you and T point out... No, the words that followed Blix's "most important" wording was that Iraq was cooperating fully with the inspectors...

Now back when I was in school most was the4 suprelative... That means it could not be trumped... That's why if you look in Webster you don't find the word "moster" which would indeed trump "most"...

So on January 27th, 2002, if Blix said "most important" in regards to Iraqi cooperation then there isn't enough revisonists ink to change his intent...

Most = most...

Game over...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 05:13 PM

What "facts" am I excluding Amos?? I will stand by what I said:

"The rationale behind the war was faultless when you consider the alternatives from the point of view of the US, at the time.

In retrospect taking into account what came to light as a result of US actions it can be seen as beneficial from the perspective of the Gulf States, those dependent upon oil from the region, and the rest of the world at large.

Think about it."

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 02:57 PM

"IT is not truthful, Teribus, to fixate on a subset of the facts tot he exclusion of other relevant facts, to ignore context, and to deny semantic overtones that were very much actively in play at the time of the original incident."

You mean like when Blix says that in one area (Allowing searches of specified locations after UN requests) Iraq was starting to comply with one of the required actions, and interpreting that as saying that Iraq was complying with the UNR, even thought he listed the other areas where Iraq was not meeting the requirements????

Oh, I forgot: You apply *different* standards depending on the answer you want to justify.


Iraq WAS a mistake- but it was Saddam's, not Bush. Had Saddam complied with the UNR ( which NO "anti-war" proponants advocated) he would have been ok: Had he thrown open his borders to the UN forces, there would have been no deaths.

But, since he WAS in violation of the UNR, and failed to meet the ceasefire requirements, he has now been removed from being a threat.


Live with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 02:30 PM

IT is not truthful, Teribus, to fixate on a subset of the facts tot he exclusion of other relevant facts, to ignore context, and to deny semantic overtones that were very much actively in play at the time of the original incident.

The fact that some people believed SOME of the data surrounding Iraq, and ignored other data, does not mean they were seeking the truth. Au contraire, it indicates they were using pre-defined bias filters. An awful lot of folks saw through the duplicity of the Administration, despite the fact that many others bought their package, junk and all, and swallowed. Yourself included.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 02:24 PM

High blood pressure Gervase not at all, doesn't bother me.

Too used to people slipping things into their posts then taking me to task over opions and stances that I myself have not taken. If you had ever bothered to check, I am always the first to hold my hands up if someone has pointed out to me that I am in error.

The rationale behind the war was faultless when you consider the alternatives from the point of view of the US, at the time.

In retrospect taking into account what came to light as a result of US actions it can be seen as beneficial from the perspective of the Gulf States, those dependent upon oil from the region, and the rest of the world at large.

Think about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Gervase
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 01:48 PM

The rationale behind the war in Iraq, will that do you?
Unfortunately I'm self-employed, and have a job to do, so I can't fritter my day selectively Googling as you clearly can.
But to prove your powers of perception and ratiocination, how about you point out where I said you had banged on about the Gulf of Tonkin? Your childish misunderstanding there must have brought the blood pressure worryingly high!

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".

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...

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.

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~

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.

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."

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??

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.

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.

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

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?

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??

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..."

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

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.

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~

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.