 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 19 Dec 08 - 06:59 PM Well as a side-bar on the "Shoe Throwers" thread, the Iraq War has raised it's ugly head yet again with my ol' bud, Teribus, conviently dodging the realites surrounding the day leading up to George "The Decider" Bush making the worst decision of his presidency... Here are the facts that T-zer won't acknowledge... 1. After the weapons inspectors were pushed out of Iraq in 1998, they we back shortly after UN Resolution 1441 of November 8, 2002 was adopted. 2. By January 27th, 2003, Hans Bliz gave a progress report to the UN in which he said: "Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most Important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great gelp in building up the infastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosui. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable." Then in Bliz's summation he says: "We have now an inspection appartus that permits us to send multiple inspection teams every day all over Iraq, by road or by air. Let me end by simply noting that that capability has been built-up ina short time and which is now operating, is at the disposal of the Security Council." These were the facts on the ground, T... We were told that the reason for invading Iraq was because it possessed WMDs yet Bush refused to accepth the fact that inspectors were there and the Iraqi's were coopertaing... You can blow and blow about 1441 but these were the facts... Why Bush felt he had to invade will be up to armchair historians and psycologists but the fact did not warrent this war... You and others refuse to accept the facts... You once challenged me to provide Hans Blix's actual words in the report and then right on back to your laundry list of irrelevent stuff that really has nothing to do with the facts on the ground on January 27, 2003... I know that you won't eccept them now either becuase if you did then you would have to admit that you were wrong... You haver accused me of lieing in one of your recent posts but it isn't me who has trouble accepting the truth... The above is the truth.... Now I hope that you and the other war-apologists will just accept the fact that you were wrong... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 19 Dec 08 - 07:11 PM Why not let people read the ENTIRE Blix Report, Bobert? It makes clear that Saddam was no complying with UNR1441. http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix/index.html "The substantive cooperation required relates above all to the obligation of Iraq to declare all programs of weapons of mass destruction and either to present items and activities for elimination or else to provide evidence supporting the conclusions that nothing proscribed remains. Paragraph 9 of Resolution 1441 states that this cooperation shall be "active." It is not enough to open doors. Inspection is not a game of catch as catch can. Rather, as I noted, it is a process of verification for the purpose of creating confidence. It is not built upon the premise of trust. Rather, it is designed to lead to trust, if there is both openness to the inspectors and action to present them with items to destroy or credible evidence about the absence of any such items. On 7th of December 2002, Iraq submitted a declaration of some 12,000 pages in response to paragraph 3 of Resolution 1441, and within the time stipulated by the Security Council. In the fields of missiles and biotechnology, the declaration contains a good deal of new material and information covering the period from 1998 and onward. This is welcome. One might have expected that in preparing the declaration Iraq would have tried to respond to, clarify and submit supporting evidence regarding the many open disarmament issues which the Iraqi side should be familiar with from the UNSCOM documents 9994 and the so-called Amorim report of March 1999. These are questions which UNMOVIC, governments and independent commentators have often cited. While UNMOVIC has been preparing its own list of current unresolved disarmament issues and key remaining disarmament tasks in response to requirements in the Resolution 1284, we find the issues listed in the two reports I mentioned as unresolved professionally justified. These reports do not contend that weapons of mass destruction remain in Iraq, but nor do they exclude that possibility. They point to a lack of evidence and inconsistencies which raise question marks which must be straightened out if weapons dossiers are to be closed and confidence is to arise. They deserve to be taken seriously by Iraq, rather than being brushed aside as evil machinations of UNSCOM. Regrettably, the 12,000-page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that will eliminate the questions or reduce their number. Even Iraq's letter sent in response to our recent discussions in Baghdad to the president of the Security Council on 24th of January does not lead us to the resolution of these issues. I shall only give some examples of issues and questions that need to be answered, and I turn first to the sector of chemical weapons. The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed. Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tons, and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said that the agent was never weaponized. Iraq said that the small quantity of [the] agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared. There are also indications that the agent was weaponized. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq. " Do you need more direct quotes from Blix? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 19 Dec 08 - 07:14 PM would now like to turn to the so-called air force document that I have discussed with the council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi air force headquarters in 1998, and taken from her by Iraq minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. I'm encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC. The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi air force between 1983 and 1998, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tons. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for. The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at the storage depot, 170 kilometers southwest of Baghdad, was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the rockets must have been moved here in the past few years at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding. Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve, but rather points to the issue of several thousand of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for. The finding of the rockets shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate. During my recent discussions in Baghdad, Iraq declared that it would make new efforts in this regard and has set up a committee of investigation. Since then, it has reported that it has found four chemical rockets at a storage depot in al-Haji. I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of ... a mustard [gas] precursor. While addressing chemical issues, I should mention a matter which I reported on 19th of December last year concerning equipment at a civilian chemical plant at al-Fallujah. Iraq has declared that it had repaired chemical processing equipment previously destroyed under UNSCOM supervision and had installed it at Fallujah for the production of chlorine and phenols. We have inspected this equipment and are conducting a detailed technical evaluation of it. On completion, we will decide whether this and other equipment that has been recovered by Iraq should be destroyed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 19 Dec 08 - 07:15 PM I turn to biological weapons. I mention the issue of anthrax to the council on previous occasions, and I come back to it as it is an important one. Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 liters of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction. There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared and that at least some of this was retained over the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was indeed destroyed in 1991. As I reported to the council on the 19th of December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kilos, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as reported in Iraq's submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999. As a part of its 7 December 2002 declaration Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate, as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered. In the letter of 24th of January this year to the president of the Security Council, Iraq's foreign minister stated that, I quote, "All imported quantities of growth media were declared." This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 liters of concentrated anthrax. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 19 Dec 08 - 07:16 PM I turn, Mr. President, now to the missile sector. There remain significant questions as to whether Iraq retained Scud-type missiles after the Gulf War. Iraq declared the consumption of a number of Scud missiles as targets in the development of an anti-ballistic missile defense system during the 1980s, yet no technical information has been produced about that program or data on the consumption of the missiles. There has been a range of developments in the missile field during the past four years, presented by Iraq in the declaration as non-proscribed activities. We are trying to gather a clear understanding of them through inspections and on-site discussions. Two projects in particular stand out. They are the development of a liquid-fueled missile named Al-Samud II and a solid propellant missile called Al-Fatah. Both missiles have been tested to arrange in excess of the permitted range of 150 kilometers, with the Al-Samud II being tested to a maximum of 183 kilometers and the Al-Fatah to 161 kilometers. Some of both types of missiles have already been provided to the Iraqi armed forces, even though it is stated that they're still undergoing development. The Al-Samud's diameter was increased from an earlier version to the president 760 mm. This modification was made despite a 1994 letter from the executive chairman of UNSCOM directing Iraq to limit its missile diameters to less than 600 mm. Furthermore, a November 1997 letter from the executive chairman of UNSCOM to Iraq prohibited the use of engines from certain surface-to-air missiles for the use in ballistic missiles. During my recent meeting in Baghdad, we were briefed on these two programs. We were told that the final range for both systems would be less than the permitted maximum of 150 kilometers. These missiles might well represent prima facie cases of proscribed systems. The test ranges in excess of 150 kilometers are significant, but some further technical considerations need to be made before we reach a conclusion on this issue. In the meantime, we have asked Iraq to cease flight tests of both missiles. In addition, Iraq has refurbished its missile production infrastructure. In particular, Iraq reconstituted a number of casting chambers which had previously been destroyed under UNSCOM's supervision. They had been used in the production of solid fuel missiles. Whatever missile system these chambers are intended for, they could produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 kilometers. Also associated with these missiles and related developments is the import which has been taking place during the last two years of a number of items despite the sanctions, including as late as December 2002. Foremost among these is import of 300 rockets engines which may be used for the Al-Samud II. Iraq has also declared the recent import of chemicals used in propellants, test instrumentation and guidance and control system. These items may well be for proscribed purposes; that is yet to be determined. What is clear is that they were illegally brought into Iraq; that is, Iraq or some company in Iraq circumvented the restrictions imposed by various resolutions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 19 Dec 08 - 07:17 PM Mr. President, I have touched upon some of the disarmament issues that remain open and that need to be answered if dossiers are to be closed and confidence is to arise. Which are the means at the disposal of Iraq to answer these questions? I have pointed to some during my presentation of the issues, let me be a little more systematic. Our Iraqi counterparts are fond of saying that there are no proscribed items and if no evidence is presented to the contrary, they should have the benefit of the doubt; be presumed innocent. UNMOVIC, for its part, is not presuming that there are proscribed items and activities in Iraq. But nor is it, or I think anyone else, after the inspections between 1991 and '98 presuming the opposite, that no such items and activities exist in Iraq. Presumptions do not solve the problem; evidence and full transparency may help. Let me be specific. Information provided by member states tells us about the movement and concealment of missiles and chemical weapons and mobile units for biological weapons production. We shall certainly follow up any credible leads given to us and report what we might find, as well as any denial of access. So far, we have reported on the recent find of a small number of empty 122 mm warheads for chemical weapons. Iraq declared that it appointed a commission of inquiry to look for more. Fine. Why not extend the search to other items? Declare what may be found and destroy it under our supervision. When we have urged our Iraqi counterparts to present more evidence, we have all too often met the response that there are no more documents. All existing relevant documents have presented, we are told. All documents relating to the biological weapons program were destroyed together with the weapons. However, Iraq has all the archives of the government and its various departments, institutions and mechanisms. It should have budgetary documents, requests for funds and reports and how they have been used. They should also have letters of credit and bills of lading, reports and production and losses of material. In response to a recent UNMOVIC request for a number of specific documents, the only new documents Iraq provided was a ledger of 1,093 pages which Iraq stated included all imports from 1983 to 1990 by the Technical and Scientific Importation Division, the importing authority for the biological weapons programs. Potentially, it might help to clear some open issues. The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the lacing enrichment of uranium, support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals. This interpretation is refuted by the Iraqi side which claims that research staff sometimes may bring papers from their work places. On our side, we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes. Any further sign of the concealment of documents will be serious. The Iraqi side committed itself at our recent talks to encourage persons to accept access also to private sites. There can be no sanctuaries for proscribed items, activities or documents. A denial of prompt access to any site will be very serious matter. When Iraq claims that tangible evidence in the form of documents is not available, it ought, at least, to find individuals, engineers, scientists and managers to testify about their experience. Large weapons programs are moved and managed by people. Interviews with individuals who may have worked in programs in the past may fill blank spots in our knowledge and understanding. It could also be useful to learn that they are now employed in peaceful sectors. These are the reasons why UNMOVIC ask for a list of such persons in accordance with Resolution 1441. Some 400 names for all biological and chemical weapons programs, as well as their missile programs, were provided by the Iraqi side. This can be compared to over 3,500 names of people associated with those past weapons programs that UNSCOM either interviewed in the 1990s or knew from documents and other sources. At my recent meeting in Baghdad, the Iraqis have committed themselves to supplementing the list, and some 80 additional names have been provided. In the past, much valuable information came from interviews. There are also cases in which the interviewee was clearly intimidated by the presence of an interruption by Iraq officials. This was the background to Resolution 1441's provision for a right for UNMOVIC and the IAEA to hold private interviews "in the mode or the location" of our choice in Baghdad or even abroad. Today, 11 individuals were asked for interviews in Baghdad by us. The replies have been that the individual would only speak at Iraq's Monitoring Directorate or at any rate in the presence of an Iraq official. This could be due to a wish on the part of the invited to have evidence that they have not said anything that the authorities did not wish them to say. At our recent talks in Baghdad, the Iraqi side committed itself to encourage persons to accept interviews in private, that is to say alone with us. Despite this, the pattern has not changed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 19 Dec 08 - 07:30 PM Fine, bb... Just which part of the entire report superceeds what the portions that I quoted and justified pulling the plug on the inspections??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: SINSULL Date: 19 Dec 08 - 07:35 PM How much of this was actually found in Iraq? Seems to me, I remember, none. And how many other despots have been allowed to maim and murder their citizens while we trade with them? Send money? Teribus claims that mudcatters are against this war IN HINDSIGHT. I opposed it from the beginning and wept the day it started. 4000 Americans dead, thousands of Iraquis dead, thousands of Iraqis orphaned and widowed, many thousands of new terrorists created. Well done! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: katlaughing Date: 19 Dec 08 - 07:52 PM Hindsight my arse. Put Iraq in the thread title search and read some of the pre-war threads. There's plenty there to show many, many of us opposed the shrub's world abomination. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: kendall Date: 19 Dec 08 - 08:18 PM Rumsfeldt recently said in an interview that Bush did not consult any of his advisers before going into Iraq. It was illegal from day one. So, let's suppose for a minute that he did have WMDs. Who would he threaten? Us? Hardly. Israel? Possibly, but Israel knows a thing or two about neutralizing threats to its existence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 19 Dec 08 - 08:22 PM Exactly, Kat... I remember well the things you were not only saying here but doing in yer community... I remember eacha nd every one of you and what you said and what you did... I even remember those of you who were strugglin' to oppose the war... You know who you are... All of you... T would have us think that we didn't all come thru this together but we did and we all know what happened... We are not part of a generation that will buy the "revised version"... I didn't ven want to start this thread but T has been pushin' for a revisionist fight with me on another thread... Even stooped to saying that I was lieing... I feel sorry for T and the Bush/War apologists here because they will have to carry this burden for the rest of their lives but... ...it's never too late to look at the old arguments and admit that they were wrong... There is a lot of "truth" in "the truth will set you free"... I know that T is probably paid to come here and sing the company fight song... I would hope the others aren't and have the option of sayin', "Hey, I messed up"... This ain't about win/lose... It's about setting history right and about, once again, bringing an awareness that, in the words of Voltaire, "Those who don't know history tend to repeat it.".... Peace, Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 19 Dec 08 - 08:24 PM Cross posted, Kendall, but good point... Even if Isreal was threatened, Isreal had enough fire power to wipe any adversary off the globe if Isreal so wanted... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: artbrooks Date: 19 Dec 08 - 08:45 PM Why don't you people all give it a rest? At this point, whether we care or not how it began, it did and there's little or nothing to do about it now. Anyone who thinks that anyone in the current administration will ever be held accountable for anything in connection with it all, whether they deserve to be or not, is fooling themselves. Let's put our minds and efforts toward getting the troops and "contractors" out of Iraq and allowing the Iraqis the opportunity to run their own lives and nation, for better or for worse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 19 Dec 08 - 08:48 PM Bobert, Which part of the entire report justifies the continuing violation of UNR by Saddam? I quoted a part: Shall I post the rest? The conclusions reported are that Saddam was NOT in complience, nor making a true effort to comply. As has been stated here before, IMHO it is the words and demonstrations of the Left against any action about Saddam that are the cause of the war- Had he not been encouraged to resist the UN by those saying that no effort should be made to force him to comply with the ceasefire terms, Saddam would have taken the earlier offer to go off ( with his money) into "retirement" ( see the Saudi efforts just after UNR1441). Those who protested the war the most ( while NOT even asking that Saddam comply with the UN) are more top blame for that war than Bush. To demand that the UN NOT take action, and then NOT demand that Saddam comply is direct encouragement of Saddam and his efforts to remain in violation of the ceasefire terms. Just my opinion, as supported by the UN reports and Saddam's subsequent actions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 19 Dec 08 - 09:02 PM Well, bb, what you apparently are unwilling to accept it the facts as I pointed them out at the beginning of this thread... Regardless of what Saddam was doing, wanted to do, hoped to do, thought he might be able to do is not relevant to my arguments... My argument then, as it is today, is that with inspectors in place for about 2 months and a cooperating Iraqi governemnt that time was on our side... There was no hurry... There were people, Scott Ritter, a former inspector who were begging Bush to step back... Ten upon millions of people around the world were doing the same thing... If ever a president was given every opportunity to not scrww up it was then and Bush was too stubborn to listen... I don't give rat's ass about poeple who now ****proclaim**** that Iraq, Saddam or Donald Duck was this or that... Who cares, bb??? The facts on the ground as of Jan. 27, 2003 were not the basis for the war... Your opinion, bb, will be shot up like Swiss Cheeze by historians... It was wrong then and given what has transpired it is 100 times wronger now... Give it up, bb... Give it up... Yo, art, Hey, I didn't want this thread... I didn't seak it out... Teribus pushed and pushed on another thread and this thread had to happen... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: kendall Date: 19 Dec 08 - 09:51 PM What would have happened if George H.W. Bush's Ambassador had not told Saddam that we didn't care what he did over there?Would he have invaded Kuwait? I wonder what would have happened if Truman's sec. state, Dean Acheson, hadn't said that there was nothing in Southeast Asia of interest to us? Would North Korea have invaded South Korea? Voltaire was right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 20 Dec 08 - 01:17 AM Bobert: How do your "facts" prove anybody was wrong about anything? Only with your special spin do they indicate anything other than the fact that the majority of the Democratic party was in agreement with Bush. How many of them said there are no WMD's???????????????? Now with red faces and their asses hanging out they need to explain away their call to war. I was duped means I am a dupe. The victim defense. S. 205, the "Iraqi Scientists Immigration Act of 2003," introduced by Senator Joe the Fumbler Biden on January 23, 2003. S. 205 passed the Senate by unanimous consent on March 20 and was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary on March 24. This bill would provide up to 500 visas for workers in WMD programs and their families that are willing to and capable of providing information to the United States or the UN. Originally conceived of before the war, Senator Biden has suggested that the bill's authority could offer positive inducements to scientists, if they are needed, to locate Iraqi WMD and to "keep Iraqi weapons experts from selling their materials or knowledge to rogue states or terrorist groups." Uranium shipped to Montreal from Iraq in top secret mission July 5, 2008 Associated Press The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program, a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium, reached Montreal on Saturday to complete a top-secret U.S. operation. The removal of 550 metric tonnes of "yellowcake," the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment, included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a voyage across two oceans. The Iraqi government sold the yellowcake to a Canadian uranium producer, Cameco Corp., in a transaction the official described as worth "tens of millions of dollars." A Cameco spokesman, Lyle Krahn, said the yellowcake will be processed at facilities in Ontario for use in energy-producing reactors. "We are pleased … that we have taken [the yellowcake] from a volatile region into a stable area to produce clean electricity," Krahn said. U.S. and Iraqi forces have guarded the 9,300-hectare yellowcake site since its discovery. The deal culminated more than a year of intense diplomatic and military initiatives — kept hushed in fear of ambushes or attacks once the convoys were under way. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid their nuclear ambitions. Diplomats and military leaders first weighed the idea of shipping the yellowcake overland to Kuwait's port on the Persian Gulf. Such a route, however, would pass through Iraq's Shiite heartland and be within easy range of extremists. The ship also would need to clear the narrow Strait of Hormuz at the mouth of the Gulf, where U.S. and Iranian ships often come in close contact. Kuwaiti authorities, too, were reluctant to open their borders to the shipment despite top-level lobbying from Washington. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Barry Finn Date: 20 Dec 08 - 01:51 AM In hindsight there are plenty of us who were against the Iraq war from the start. Here's a Thread that takes you to a thread that links a bunch of the early thread about the Grand Iraq Mistake I can't believe that there's anyone left in American or in the world except for the Village Idiot that got US into the War that still believes it's not a mistake. "When will they ever learn?" Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: kendall Date: 20 Dec 08 - 08:09 AM It was all based on lies from Bush. He had intelligence that the congress didn't have, and he twisted it to show what he wanted them to believe. How were they to know he was lying? How many people would still be alive if the USA would just stay out of other countries business? We have started every war that we have ever been a part of and this latest is the most transparent of them all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 20 Dec 08 - 08:40 AM The USA stayed out of Rwanda's business. How did that work out? Who started the Korean war? Who started WW I and II? And you talk about twisting the facts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 20 Dec 08 - 08:52 AM Yeah, Kendall... Ever since WWII all of our wars have been motivated by either our greed for other folkls resources or geopolitics... I'm not saying there is ever a good war but there are wars where there is not other choice... Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, The Gulf War, Iraq (to some extent Afganistan) are all wars of choice... Now we have genocide in Zimbabwe and Darfur but I there are no resources in either of them to interest US so we just wringe our hands and say, "How terrible" and then go off to the mall... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 20 Dec 08 - 10:20 AM Ahhhh, just clicked on the threads and began reading "PART EIGHT" and... ...it's deja vu all over again... I found it interesting that the arguemnts by the anti-war folks were making are the same arguments that we are making today and the arguments by T & Co., inspite of what we now know, inspite of them changing their justification almost daily there for a while and inspite of upwards of a million Iraqi deaths, that these folks still don't have enough grace and humility to say, "We messed up."... One of those arguments that I have agin put forward is that "time is (was) on our side" 02Oct02 03:35pm... That is the part that Bush and T and bb got so very wrong... Had the inspectors been given a chance, rather than the "bum's rush" in Bush, T and bb's "mad-dash-to-attack-Iraq" then this war most certainly never would have occured... They wanted that war so bad that they could taste it... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: kendall Date: 20 Dec 08 - 12:45 PM Who started WW 1? as far as we were concerned, we got into it because the Germans torpedoed the Lusitania killing American civilians. They were warned not to enter a war zone and they went anyway. The ship was carrying munitions for England, and Germany took out ads in New York papers warning us that any ship entering British waters with munitions for England would be fair game. "If you know the dog bites" WW 2. Roosevelt ordered the Japanese out of China and Indochina. Then he stopped all exports to Japan. Finally, he froze all of Japans assets in American banks. From their point of view, we asked for it. Korea. Where the hell did we get the right to split Korea? What tore the gag off the bush" was when Dean Acheson, Truman's sec. of state said that there was nothing in that area of any interest to us. The North Koreans took that as a green light. The bombing of the towers was not an act of war, it was a criminal act that Iraq had NOTHING to do with. We haven't always fired the first shot as we did at Lexington and Concord, 1812, the Mexican war, the Spanish American war, etc. but we sure as hell made sure we were involved in every war we have ever been in. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Little Hawk Date: 20 Dec 08 - 12:58 PM "Who started WW I and II?" Well...that's a bit complicated. Let's start with WWI. It's a bit tricky saying who "started" that one, because it was triggered off by two sets of entangling alliances and what we would today term a terrorist assassination. The Serbs were attempting to separate from Austria-Hungary. (that's the sort of ethnically-driven argument that has been going on in the Balkans since time immemorial) The Austro-Hungarian government did not approve of Serbian secession from the empire (SURPRISE!)...when does a large empire or government EVER approve of some part of its territory seceding? Americans killed 500,000 of each other over such a dispute in the Civil War. A fanatical Serbian nationalist assassinated the Austrian Archduke, who I believe was the heir to the Austrian throne. This infuriated the Austrians and war became inevitable at that point...war between Serbia and Austria-Hungary, that is. One little problem! Russia had an alliance with the Serbs, that if anyone attacked them then Russia would declare war on that power. So.... 1. Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia 2. Russia declared war on Austria-Hungary A further little problem! Germany had a similar alliance with Austria-Hungary, so Germany declared war on Russia. And yet a further little problem! France and the UK had an alliance with Russia, so France and the UK declared war on Germany. Now....who is to blame for all that? They were all to blame as far as I can see. They all stupidly stumbled into a hideous world conflict and none of them could possibly have imagined how long it would last and how much suffering it would cause. You cannot blame any one country for starting that war, though it is always fashionable for the winners to blame the losers once it's over, right? (So I would assume you were somehow blaming Germany for the whole thing? Or was it someone else?) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: artbrooks Date: 20 Dec 08 - 01:31 PM LH, Serbia was an independent nation in 1914, having fought its own war of succession against the Turks a few years earlier. Historically, it was never part of the Austo-Hungarian Empire. I recommend Barbara Tuchman's book "The Guns of August" for a readable account of the beginnings of WW-1. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Riginslinger Date: 20 Dec 08 - 02:12 PM There's a program coming up on History International that might explain why Joe Lieberman and his friends in congress thought it was so important to invade Iraq. See Attached: Few people realize that the Baath party was actually formed upon the principles and organizational structure of the Nazi party. Iraq, because of its oil and hatred of Jews, was an important battleground between the Axis and Allied powers in World War II. Nazi propaganda was broadcast throughout Baghdad, and Iraqis often went on rampages against Jews throughout the war. One of the most ardent Nazi supporters during WWII was named Khairallah Talfah. Talfah was Saddam's uncle. After the war, many of the key Iraqi Nazi supporters, all of whom evaded prosecution, wound up involved in Saddam's rise to power. This special examines the key individuals of the Iraqi-Nazi connection, the little-known battle for Iraq in WWII, and the strange link to Saddam Hussein. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: kendall Date: 20 Dec 08 - 03:38 PM LH, I was concentrating only on the USA. We could have stayed out of it simply by not shipping munitions to England in a passenger ship and denying that we were doing it. History has proved that the Germans were right in sinking the Lusitania.(From their point of view) The fact that we wanted to get into it to support England is another matter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: michaelr Date: 20 Dec 08 - 03:43 PM Quote from bb: "it is the words and demonstrations of the Left against any action about Saddam that are the cause of the war" That has to be one of the most egregious lies I've yet seen on the subject. You war apologists have blood on your hands same as Bush and his henchmen. And Bobert -- the war was NOT a mistake, but a crime. Artbrooks -- those of us who care about justice will not "give it a rest", as you advocate. Would you have said the same to Simon Wiesenthal? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: DougR Date: 20 Dec 08 - 05:11 PM Uh, Bobert, what country's resources have been gained by the United States as a result of any wars since WW2? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 20 Dec 08 - 05:35 PM None, Dougie, because we have lost them all... Unless, of course you consider that little sham of a police action called Gulf I in which the US probably gained seom geopolitical advantage, got to shoot up a bunch of stuff that would necessite havinf to buy more of it from defenese contractors... The others, including, all went into the lost column... Maybe there's a coorelation... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: kendall Date: 20 Dec 08 - 07:26 PM We are addicted to war. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 20 Dec 08 - 07:44 PM That's about right, Capt'n... I mean, if we do the math we've been warin' with someone more years since WW II than we ain't... It's almost become a perpetual and endless war... And what is real scarey is that from Korea to Nam we had almost a decade of no war but in Ike's farwell address he warned US of the new boogie man: The Military Industrial Complex!!! Ike knew of what he spoke... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: kendall Date: 20 Dec 08 - 08:31 PM We dont listen to anyone; including Osama Bin Laden who has told us why they hate us, but we still choose to believe the moron and his crap about freedom. Bin Laden told his followers that the best way to beat America is to bankrupt us. The moron is helping him do that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: artbrooks Date: 20 Dec 08 - 08:36 PM Please feel free to tilt at all of the windmills you want, MichaelR. There is about the same chance of anyone in the Bush administration being indicted for anything, ever, as there is of any of them being extradited to the World Court anytime this millennium. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 20 Dec 08 - 08:45 PM Well, Art... Four years ago what were the chances of a black man becoming president... There is always hope... Yeah, I understand that Bush can pardon everyone else but the only person after Jan. 20 who can pardon Bush will be President Obama... Will that happen??? I donno... I hope not... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Riginslinger Date: 20 Dec 08 - 09:09 PM I thought Bush could pardon himself. I read that someplace. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 20 Dec 08 - 09:16 PM Don't think so, Rigs... I think that is waht impeachment is all about... But I could be wrong... No matter, if there was ever a guy in neded of a pardon, it's Bush... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Riginslinger Date: 20 Dec 08 - 09:54 PM Yeah, I guess that's right. A president certainly couldn't pardon himself around an impeachment. But all an impreachment does is remove him from office, doesn't it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Little Hawk Date: 20 Dec 08 - 10:15 PM Thanks for the correction about Serbia, Art. You are correct. In any case, it was an argument between the Serbs and the Austro-Hungarians that started the misadventure called WWI. kendall - Yes, the USA could have stayed out of WWI. I suspect they went in for a variety of reasons (realpolitik being what it is), but there was no single reason pressing enough, in my opinion, that they had to go in. It was an option, but it was certainly not a necessity, from the American point of view. Perhaps the US government was concerned about the influence it could bring to bear after the war by using its power to help bring about an Allied victory...and the influence it might lose in the postwar scene by not taking part in that victory. I don't know what was in their minds. All powers in time of war sink ships like the Lusitania by submarine attack whenever they get the chance to. That's what war is like. The British knew the risk that the liner was running, the passengers knew it too, and they decided to take that risk. They gambled and lost. If it had been a German or Austrian liner that was sunk by a British submarine, you wouldn't have heard nearly as much about it, then or now...because the winners always get a monopoly on moral outrage, don't they? (at least for a few decades immediately after a war) *** Everybody ends up killing many innocent people during a war. Why? Well, in order to do significant material damage to the opposing side, that's why. It always looks like a good idea at the time. No submarine captain in any navy will let a giant enemy ship pass by during wartime and not attempt to sink it. *** |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 20 Dec 08 - 10:53 PM Bush is passing the torch to Obama, who approves of the additional troops for Afganistan now being talked about. Obama estimates 10,000 more. Gates will place 7000 more early in 2009, and Gen. McKiernan in Afganistan is asking for 20,000 more. NATO has 34,000 troops there and Obama is asking for more. How soon will depend on the drawdown in Iraq. The UK also has promised more troops. Probably be 2011 before all (nearly all) troops leave Iraq, and much later for Afganistan. Gates says, "This is a long fight and I think we're in it until we are successful. ...... How many years that is and how many troops that is I think nobody knows at this point." I agree that Iraq was a mistake, but now salvage operations will have to continue. Afganistan was probably a worse mistake, but too late to cry over it. Millions of Pushtun support the biblical age culture that the Taliban is fighting for. Obama will continue the policies, so no peace in that area for a long time. Impeachment? What rubbish! -to quote the late Benazir Bhutto. A waste of time to talk about it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: artbrooks Date: 20 Dec 08 - 10:55 PM Unfortunately, Bobert, while he has made many really stupid decisions, and done much that many people, including me, consider to be far beyond the realm of reasonableness, it is unlikely that Bush has actually broken any laws. I'm sure that there are those who will disagree, at length, but breaking a law means the willful violation of a specific section of the United States Code, and he (and his cohorts) have a large number of very talented attorneys who have, I'm certain, ensured that they have not done so. The International Criminal Court has no jurisdiction. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: michaelr Date: 20 Dec 08 - 11:25 PM Art, you did not answer my question: Would you have said "give it a rest" to Simon Wiesenthal? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Riginslinger Date: 20 Dec 08 - 11:27 PM I would have! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: artbrooks Date: 20 Dec 08 - 11:52 PM MichaelR, my comment was addressed to those who feel it necessary to engage in fruitless discussions. There is no similarity with the activities of Mr. Wiesenthal. Please feel free to read my response to Bobert. Wiesenthal was after people who had committed crimes in their own nations, and anyone he captured or located was extradited to that nation or to some other nation who had legal jurisdiction. Bush has committed no crime punishable under any legal framework, whether you, or I, or anyone else likes it or not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 21 Dec 08 - 01:24 AM I think that is a very problematic proposition, Art. He has falsified his reports to Congress and the people, violated his oath, and violated the Constitution and the Geneva Convention on spurious grounds. And there may well be other crimes behind the scenes, given his intimacy with both the oil industry and the Saudis. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 21 Dec 08 - 01:45 AM "We have started every war that we have ever been a part of" The above statement is (check one) _____________ true _____________ false _____________ a twisting of the facts to suit one's agenda. In WW I Austria was the first country to declare war, on Yugoslavia. On August 4, 1914, German troops invaded Luxembourg and Belgium. WW II started September 1 1939 when Hitler declared war on Poland. December 11, 1941 Germany Declared War on America.December 11, 1941. North Korea invaded South Korea June 25 1950. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 21 Dec 08 - 02:07 AM michaelr said Artbrooks -- those of us who care about justice will not "give it a rest", as you advocate. Would you have said the same to Simon Wiesenthal? Wiesenthal did important work in the time relevant to WWII. But yes, "give it a rest" definitely needs to be the message to the government of Israel that has, ironically and tragically, duplicated the ghettos in which Jews were situated during that war. Look at Gaza, look at the Palestinian refugee camps. The Jews did that to the Palestinians. "A child learns what it lives" is more than the first line of a poem on baby formula cans. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: michaelr Date: 21 Dec 08 - 02:34 AM "Bush has committed no crime punishable under any legal framework" That is wishful thinking, not fact. Vincent Bugliosi has laid out the applicable framework quite convincingly. Whether any US attorneys will have the guts to pursue it is another question. My point is that justice and ethics do not cater to political convenience. If something is wrong, it is wrong, mo matter what 21st century America thinks people can get away with. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: akenaton Date: 21 Dec 08 - 05:35 AM We've not always seen eye to eye in the past SRS, but your last post was spot on in my book.....Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: kendall Date: 21 Dec 08 - 08:21 AM Sawzaw, re read my post. We did not start WW 1 in Europe. We DID start our involvement in it. |
|
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. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 24 Dec 08 - 08:21 AM Like I said during Bush's mad-dash-to-attack-Iraq, if he was such a bad man then why didn't the Bush adminustration just assasinate him??? (But, Bobert... That would have been illegal...) Oh, killing upwards of a million Iraqis, many of them kids and moms and old people was okay but, horrors, don't kill Saddam??? (But, Bobert... The US had no way of getting to him to kill him...) Oh, but Dan Rather had no problems getting himself and a camera crew into his office... I don't buy line of Bush/Cheney/Wolfowitz/Perle/Rice Defense anymore than I'd buy a bridge to nowhere... It's got more holes in it than swiss cheeeze... The reality on the ground on January 27, 2003 was that this war was not called for... Period!!! B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 24 Dec 08 - 08:44 AM I disagree with your opinion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: kendall Date: 24 Dec 08 - 08:50 AM I was speaking from his point of view. According to him, the Kurds had tried to overthrow him, so he hit them...hard. When did he cease being our pal? Was it shortly after he used the gas on the Kurds? the gas that the Reagan gang supplied him with? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 24 Dec 08 - 09:39 AM Kendall, And Hitler felt it was all the Jews fault, so he was ok to (legally) kill them, and the gypsies, homosexuals, and handicapped. As long as he felt it was ok, why should we have bothered him??? But FDR wanted to steal ( something) from him, and revitilize the economy, so... 27 million dead. Bush was a piker, compared to FDR. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Riginslinger Date: 24 Dec 08 - 10:01 AM "But FDR wanted to steal ( something) from him, and revitilize the economy, so... 27 million dead..." Okay, I'll bite. What was it that FDR wanted to steal from Hitler? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 24 Dec 08 - 10:05 AM Don't know, but why else would he back the British? We don't care about other people, you know. After all, we went into Iraq only to steal the oil ( that we did not take) Bobert said so, so it must be true. And check when the Great Depression ended- it only got worse under FDR, until we got into war- THAT was what brought us out of it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: kendall Date: 24 Dec 08 - 10:30 AM It got worse because the republicans fought him tooth and nail, and he lacked the balls to really bear down and take control. Of course, when he slapped a tax on undistributed profits in 1936, that diidn't help. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: kendall Date: 24 Dec 08 - 11:39 AM FDR has been called the greatest president of the 20th century, but, he lost a lot of my respect when I learned that he refused to allow a shipload of Jews who were fleeing the Nazis to land here. He was getting reports from Europe on what Hitler was doing and he didn't want to hear it so he finally told his reporters to stop giving him the reports. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 24 Dec 08 - 01:08 PM Of course you "disagree with mu opinion", bruce... You did then as well... You were looking for justifications for war and I was looking for ways to avoid it and now that this much blood has been spent you have not other choice to go to your grave defending this stupid war... If you allowed yourself to admit that it was wrong then you'd have to face the guilt of having been such a strong supporter... You are in a real pickle of your own making, bruce... So is Bush and everyone else who will also take their stubborness to the grave... Historians will get this right... I feel for all of you... BTW, I don't have a clue about blaming the invasion of those of us who demostrated against the war... That is the most twisted illogic that U have heard to date regarding this stupid war... I mean, one would have to have given one's mind over, much like the brownshirts did for Hitler, to believe such utter and rediculous crap... B!~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Barry Finn Date: 24 Dec 08 - 01:42 PM Look, Bush was wrong no matter who you compare him to. He lied to the people, he lied to Congress, he lied to the world, he wanted his war & he got it, a real disaster. As the Grand Uniter he split the country, he force fed US a fear mongering policy, he took away loads of our civil & human rights, he trashed the Bill of Rights, a good percentage of the Amendments & pissed on our Constitution. He led a policy of torture & established a new form of prisoner treatment call "Extreme Rendition" in defience of the Geneva Conventions, he restarted the centuries old crusades of the West against the East to regain the "Oily Land" & his quest for "Oily Grail" has not only killed mass amounts of people, he's prevented peace from coming to the Mid East & therefore the world. His war has cost US in part the economic disater we're in now. Oh, I thought it was the Banks & mortgages that caused that? Ya, but if we had back the billions he's thrown into the desert sands would we be in as bad a shape as we are now? Bush's war wasn't a mistake, a mistake is when you add up figures & you did it wrong, a mistake is when you forget & call someone by a wrong name, a mistake is when you forget to pay a bill on time. This was a tragedy, a once in a century disaster, a life time seditious act, a international calamity & a national catasrophe & worst it was on purpose & he only needed the help of a few traitors to pull it off. Obama, when he gets into office, should line him & his henchmen in front of a firing squad after they've been made to confess by the use of waterboarding, a sport that they condoned. A 'MISTAKE', you have to be kidding!!!! Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 24 Dec 08 - 02:01 PM Hear, hear, Barry... Couldn't have said it better myself... But then again, bb can sgrug off what you say as just your "opinion"... Ans seems that the newest twist is blaming the anti0war folks for the war... Yeah, that takes a major leap from reality into the abyss but that is apparently the garbafe that has been cooked up by the war-mongersto protect them from having to accept "personal responsibilty" for their support... Tell ya' what, Barry... This stupid war has buried the phrase "personal responsibilty" from their collective vocabularies... They dare not utter it now... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 24 Dec 08 - 02:05 PM Bobert, We disagree. Shall I state that now that this much blood has been spent you have not other choice to go to your grave defending your actions aginst Bush that caused this war? If you allowed yourself to admit that it was wrong then you'd have to face the guilt of having been such a strong supporter of Saddam, encouraging him to refuse to comply with the UNR.... ? In my opinion, MY statement is true: I have seen no reason to think otherwise in all your stated opinions. As long as you refuse to consider that others may hold different opinions and have reason to do so, you will never be able to persuade other to even consider that YOUR opinion has any basis in reality. Stating you are right and others are wrong is not indicative of a reasoning person. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 24 Dec 08 - 02:07 PM "newest twist "????? Further evidence that you do not bother to even read what anyone you disagree with has said- I have stated this for quite a while. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 24 Dec 08 - 03:37 PM Oh, you can take it to the bank that I'm readin' it, bruce... Posted by: beardedbruce 24 Dec 08 08:17am "Bobert You are in denial that your support of the protesters helped cause the war you wanted to prevent." These are your words, bb, and I'm sure everyone of us protesters and supporters of protesters would consider this to be a "new twist" by the pro-war folks here as to why Bush went against all logic on the ground and ordered the invasion anyway... I mean, until today I had never had that lame excuse for the war added to the the long list of other lame excuses... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Barry Finn Date: 24 Dec 08 - 03:41 PM Believe what ever you want but Bush pushed for ths war, he lied about our reasons for starting it (We did start it, when you're in a fight it the guy who throws the first punch who started it, no matter what he said about your mother), he pushed in every way possible to get it going & he did it without any consent form anyone or any BODY, as he said he'll go it alone if need be. When someone has a gun on you, you don't goad them by saying "go ahead & shoot", it doesn't matter we shot even if we were goaded. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 24 Dec 08 - 04:20 PM Kendall: In plain English you stated "How many people would still be alive if the USA would just stay out of other countries business? We have started every war that we have ever been a part of and this latest is the most transparent of them all. I have stated that America did NOT start every war we have ever been in but you keep changing your statement to hide it incorrectness. Also I have asked how that courese of action worked for Rwanda. And I have asked if America should stay out of Sudan's business. It is realtive to your statement. Do you have an answer? To answer your question about how many people would be alive, I think more people are alive because we acted than would be alive if we had not acted. That is a difficult if not impossible thing to prove except by examples on individual actions. I ask your opinion on Rwanda and Sudan as examples. Are there more people alive in Kosovo because America got involved or do you think we should have butted out and let the chips fall? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 24 Dec 08 - 04:28 PM Iraq shows torture tools used by Saddam's sonAssociated Press BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Torture equipment used by Saddam Hussein's slain son, Odai, to punish under performing Iraqi athletes was displayed Saturday at a Baghdad sports stadium in advance of the opening of the Olympics next month in Athens. Journalists were shown medieval-style torture equipment, including an "iron maiden-like" casket with metal spikes fixed to the inside that athletes had been forced into and chain whips with steel barbs the size of tennis balls attached to the end. "During the old regime, Odai was looking for results and he wanted winners. He didn't like second place," Talib Mutan, an Iraqi Olympics Committee official, told Associated Press Television News. "If the athletes didn't come in first, they were punished. And he would punish the people around the athletes, their managers and coaches included," Mutan said. Odai, who ran the Olympic committee while his father ruled Iraq, and his younger brother Qusai were killed in a fierce gunbattle with U.S. forces a year ago in the northern city of Mosul. Mutan said athletes who earned Odai's wrath were tortured in various ways, through beatings, sleep deprivation and being forced to walk barefoot over hot asphalt during Iraq's searing summer. The official said suggestions had been made to display the torture equipment in a museum, but there had been no final decision. The International Olympic Committee reinstated Iraq's national Olympic committee in February after it was suspended following the fall of Saddam's regime in 2003, enabling Iraqi athletes to compete at this year's Summer Games. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1090765982807_13?hub=World |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 24 Dec 08 - 07:26 PM No one on our side is sayin' that Saddam was saint, Sawz, so please don't beat that drum... The "Saddam is a bad man" excu7se holds no more validity than the rest of the boneheaded excuses, including the new one that my friend, bb, has added to the list of boneheaded excuses... There is no excuse that you guys can come up with that will stand the test of time with the historians... This war was wrong... It was evil... It was imperalistic... It was colonialistic... It was un-American... It was illegeal... It was based on lies, lies and more lies... Your side will not turn this back on the folks who tried to stop it... It's your war... Not Barry Finn's... Not Amos's... Nor CarolC's... Not Jack the Sailor's... Not Kendall's... Not katlaughin's... Not LarryOBU's... Not Little Hawk's... Not Big Mick's... Not Frank's... Not mine... Not, not and not... It is not on our consciences.... But it very much on those who not only lacked the courage to stand up to Bush but who even now continue to try to spin their way out... Jesus sais that there is nothing hidden that one day won't be found and no secrets that one day won't be common knowledge and Jesus hit the nail on the head with you and yer buddies... There is no place you can hide... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: kendall Date: 24 Dec 08 - 07:57 PM Sawzaw, I majored in American history at the U of M. I answered your questions and you simply refuse to understand. I think you owe me an apology for questioning my manhood and morality, and until I get it, I have nothing more to say to you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 24 Dec 08 - 08:08 PM Welcome to Sawz world, Capt'n...This is his MO... Hw was the same when he was Old Guy... Didn't change when he bacame Dickey and hasn'r changed this time either... The onlt thing that changes is his handle other than that, he doesn't change, he just gets more so... He won't apologize... He won't admit that he is wrong... This is his nature... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: kendall Date: 25 Dec 08 - 03:54 AM No one else seems to be having trouble understanding what I said; can he really be that thick? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 25 Dec 08 - 10:52 AM Bobert, "Oh, you can take it to the bank that I'm readin' it, bruce..." "I mean, until today I had never had that lame excuse for the war " But the point is that I made THIS POINT a number of times in the PAST, starting in 2003. You obviously have NOT been reading whta has been written, if you think this is a new idea, or that had not posted it before. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,beardedbtruce Date: 25 Dec 08 - 12:04 PM Bobert, I am glad you know what Jesus said- perhaps you recall "Judge not,..."? But it very much on those who not only lacked the courage to stand up for Bush and what was right but who even now continue to try to spin the facts... Jesus said that there is nothing hidden that one day won't be found and no secrets that one day won't be common knowledge and Jesus hit the nail on the head with you and yer buddies... There is no place you can hide... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 25 Dec 08 - 12:31 PM Old Testamnet thinking... Jesus overturned the tables of the moneychangers in the temple because He "judged" them to be disrespecting the temple... It is my "belief" that Jesus wants us to stand up when we see things are wrong and this war was wrong... Jesus, if He were of the flesh during the mad-dash days would have been in those demonstrations and would have been on the internet trying to bring His voice of reason to bear on those who were supportive of this senseless, immoral and unChristain war... So I stand behind the two quotes, bb... I'm not judging you, or Sawz or Teribus to be bad people... But I am judging your support for this killing spree... And I very much feel that, yeah, if there is a Heaven and it reserves for folks who tried to be righteous that folks who supported this war are going to have a very difficult time with St. Peter if in this life these folks haven't asked for forgivenss for this support... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 25 Dec 08 - 12:45 PM Bobert, It is my "belief" that Jesus wants us to stand up when we see things are wrong and to allow Saddam to contuinue to violate the UNR was wrong. "But I am judging your support for this killing spree... " You ARE judgeing: In my honet opinion, what I support is the right thing, and what you support had the result of causing the war and more deaths than needed. Should * I * have acted in a way that I consider wrong? Yet you claim I will not go to heavan- Much as many claim that those who do not follow their narrow, limited views are condemend |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 25 Dec 08 - 12:49 PM And I very much feel that, yeah, if there is a Heaven and it reserves for folks who tried to be righteous that folks who supported Saddam in not complying with the UNR are going to have a very difficult time with St. Peter if in this life these folks haven't asked for forgivenss for this support... So I guess I will see you all in Hell. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 25 Dec 08 - 01:01 PM Bull, bb... Bull!!! Had you and Bush listened to us you two wouldn't have all this blood on your hands... Blaming folks who tried to stp this war is nothing but a defense mechanism on your part... It makes no more sense than blaming victims of crimes for the crimes... But if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy to continue down this road of denial, projection and transference then have it... The folks on our side know who stood up for humanity and it wasn't your side... Period... You can parrot your mythology about how the anti-war folks are the ones responsible for the war as long as you like... It just such 100% unalter bull that it doesn't deserve any further comment from me... So, deny away... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 25 Dec 08 - 01:03 PM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 25 Dec 08 - 01:06 PM Jawohl, Herr Ubermench! You seem to be missing the point- YOU are the one in denial. Had you and your anti-Bush friends listened to us you wouldn't have all this blood on your hands... Blaming folks who tried to have Saddam comply with the UNR instead of forcing a war is nothing but a defense mechanism on your part... It makes no more sense than blaming victims of crimes for the crimes... But if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy to continue down this road of denial, projection and transference then have it... The folks on our side know who stood up for humanity and it wasn't your side... Period... You can parrot your mythology about how the Bush folks are the ones responsible for the war as long as you like... It just such 100% unalter bull that it doesn't deserve any further comment from me... So, deny away... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: michaelr Date: 25 Dec 08 - 02:31 PM Give it up, Bobert. There's no point in arguing with an idiot. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,Amos Date: 25 Dec 08 - 03:18 PM Bruce: I think you really need to rethink your perspective on this issue. Hundreds of thousands of wrongful deaths is no matter to be stuck in rightness about. It is a glaring, colossal offense, no matter how rationalized it is made. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 25 Dec 08 - 03:51 PM Amos, You are correct. Those wrongful deaths are a horrible thing, and if the "popular" view ( as presented by demonstrations and news reports)had not been that Saddam did not need to comply, he probably would have left ( or complied) and those deaths would not have occurred. The support I see here for Saddam not complying is a glaring, colossal offense, no matter how rationalized it is made. The stated purpose of those who caused this war, by that support (peace), does not match the actual effect of their actions. Others may disagree, but I have to support what I believe is the moral, correct path- as I see it. I have been shown nothing here to alter that opinion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 25 Dec 08 - 04:14 PM Like michael said, Amos... There is no way to break thru... bb has his head in the sand and has concocked the most unbelievable rationalization that anyone could and he's going to ride that rationalization to the grave... He couldn't care less about the inspectors of that Iraq was letting them inspect anywhere they wanted and was cooperating with the inspectors... To hell with inspectors is purdy much his opionion... No, it isn't rational thinking... Nor is his mythology that anti-war folks caused the war... It is flat earth thinking... Or not thinking... Or, danged if I know what it is, other than mythology... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 25 Dec 08 - 04:37 PM "He couldn't care less about the inspectors of that Iraq was letting them inspect anywhere they wanted and was cooperating with the inspectors..." Except they were not, according to Blix. He was still not getting the active cooperation, according to the Jan 27 report YOU quoted: Too bad you never read the rest of it. My concience is clear- but I do not know how you live with all the dead that Saddam caused, because you supported not enforcing the sanctions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: kendall Date: 25 Dec 08 - 04:53 PM BB if you want to go back to the VERY beginning, we had no right to invade Iraq the FIRST time! We have made the Middle East filthy rich by buying their oil. Why can't they settle their own disputes? You are using our anti war stand after Saddam refused to comply with the UN orders. We invaded him, ordered him to not fly over his own country, continued inspections of his country, including his palaces, for 7 years for what? OIL. Let's start at the beginning. Our Ambassador appointed by George H.W. Bush told Saddam that we didn't care what he did over there, so he invaded Kuwait. While our military were fighting the Iraqi invaders, their own young men were cruising the streets of Cairo trying to pick up chicks! We got sucked into another damned war. Those reports of Iraqui soldiers stealing incubation units from Kuwait, and dumping babies out of them in the process was just more propaganda. The woman who reported that admitted later that it was not true. Personally, I don't give a rats ass who invaded who over there as long as they leave Israel alone. I'm sick to death of my leaders spending us into the poor house bombing women and children while our own children go without medical care. That is MY idea of barbaric! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 25 Dec 08 - 04:56 PM Well, Sawzaw, I tried to explain but they seem unwilling to even consider reality. There is no way to break thru... Bobert has his head in the sand and has concocked the most unbelievable rationalization that anyone could and he's going to ride that rationalization to the grave... A pity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Greg F. Date: 25 Dec 08 - 05:29 PM ...bb has his head in the sand... I take exception to this- not true. He has his head up his arse! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 25 Dec 08 - 05:40 PM No, bb... You missed the the part where Blix said "the *****most***** important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect..." Exactly what superceeds the word "most"??? That ain't cherry pickin'... If the man said "most" then he most likely meant, ahhhh, "most".... I have read and reread Blix's report and found no reason why Blix didn't mean "most" or where Blix reported conflicting information about his team being able to conduct it's work... That, quite simply, is why Bush was wrong in his "The Decider" decsion to pull the plug on Blix's team... The only "pity" here is for bb and the other 2/3rds of the Axis of Evil, T and Sawz... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Don Firth Date: 25 Dec 08 - 05:51 PM ". . . but they seem unwilling to even consider reality." Am I right in that BB is blaming anti-war demonstrators for the war in Iraq? [Cue theme from The Twilight Zone. . . .] Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 25 Dec 08 - 06:09 PM So, "most" is "all" ?? If I owed you $10 dollars, you woyuld obviously settle for $6 repid- that is "most" anyway. "anywhere they wanted " Is not most, it is all. And they would have to know where- which was NOT the intent of the inspectors. Greg F: I take exception to assholes who do not know how to discuss differences, but attack the person they disagree with. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 25 Dec 08 - 06:40 PM I'm with you, Don... Me thinks that bb has a screw loose... He is beginning to sound like one of those guys who stands on the corner with a sign that reads, "Repent, the End is Near"... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Barry Finn Date: 26 Dec 08 - 01:04 AM You don't put a bullet in the head of the schoolyard bully, no matter what the reason, unless you can prove he's put a gun to your hear. We pulled the gun, pulled the trigger & killed the bastard, even though he was the bully we are guilty of murder, mass murder! We refused to find other soul-tions, we refused to take trhe time to work out other alteratives, (sorry, the whole inspection/resolution stuff was all a play by the powers that dictated their own will), we didn't bother to even clear the dishes off the table, we stormed in & raised hell. We (those in the rest of the world) begged for some more time for other ways, we begged for more input, we begged formore intellegence on the situation but we were told to "fuck off"! We went in & killed civilians, bombed hospitals & places of religious practices, all this illegal aggression was against the Geneva Conventions,. We are the quilty party, Sadam was guilty of plenty but we are by far worst for the shooting of the schoolyard bully. You can condon all of our actions you want by saying that Sadam was bad & he was but you cannot condon our reaction for him not abiding by our will for the mass murder we commited against the people of his nation. They did not attack US, they did not threaten US, they did not pose a threat to US, they did nopt posses WMD's, they were not capable of hurting US but we didn't even bother to find out we rain hell on those that were only trying to survive & we killed them instead & did nothing but become the schoolyard bully ourselves. We destroyed a nation & gave back nothing in comparison to what we took away, we caused the collapse of a culture & allowed it to be raped & ransacked (also against the Geneva Conventions), provided not respute nor aid to those we mained & uprooted, we put them out in the desert sand. We didn't even think of the casualities of war or battle , we didn't have the forethought or foresight to care for the missplaced or injured or to those that would knowingly perish with out the basic life necessessities like water, food, medicine, shelter, we went in like Qurantrel went into Lawrance, Kansas (he had his excuses too, except he was on the losing side) guns blazing, open fire on innocent civilians, we hit Bagdad like it was a piece of shit, saturation bombing like the Nazi's over England, "Shock & Awe". What was disquisting was many Americans were rooting for the death & destruction we rained down over a people that did nothing against US at all!!! We didn't save them, we brought them misrey, suffering & death & in the process we lost our souls & to say that those of US who tried to stop this & were against this is likening US to the one who stands in front of a gun only to stop an innocent from being killed & then blaming US for the deaths that you let this same killer loose on the public to shoot others. WE did not pull the trigger, we did not let loose a serial killer, we did not give him the gun, we were not in any danger. It's to late to say "I thought we were in danger", it's to late to say we killed in ignorance, it's to late to say this was a mistake. We did not do enough to before we took action, we failed ourselves & the world & most of all the Iraqi people. There is no excuse for what we did & we dragged others into it, our great shame, we will not live this down for a great long time & we will pay with more than our souls. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: kendall Date: 26 Dec 08 - 08:32 AM Well said, Barry. Fellas, let's watch the comments such as ..."Assholes" you are very close to a personal attack and you know they are not permitted here. Remember "The first one who raises his voice has already lost the argument" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 26 Dec 08 - 04:55 PM Barry, I disagree with your assessment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 26 Dec 08 - 05:09 PM Yes, well said, Barry... This entire episode has been sickening... And the worst part is that the people who pulled this evil war won't be "brought to justice"... Bush deserves nothin' less than life imprisonment... But in a way, he's gotten that... I mean, other than a few die-hard fringers like bb, T and Sawz, Bush surely knows how bad he screwed up... Now the fringers want to pin the war on the anti-war folks??? That is sick logic... They say that it was the anti-war folks fault that Saddam didn't comply with UNR1441... We tried to tell them during the mad-dash days that asking Saddam to prove he didn't have something was flawed thinking... Now history has shown that sein' as there were no creepy WMDs that Saddam could never have made the fringers happy because he would have had to prove he didn't have something... I challenged the fringers then to show how one goes about proving one doesn't have something... They had no answers then and they have no answers today... This is proff positive that the Iraq war was a mistake in judegment on Bush and his fringers here in Mudville... In other words, the grounds for the war were and are bogus... You are entirely correct, Barry, that the US will never be exonerated for this war... It is a black eye that we will wear for a long time... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 26 Dec 08 - 05:13 PM Bobert, You missed most of the discussion. Saddam did NOT have to prove he did not have WMD. He had to prove that the WMD programs that he previously had had been stopped and the prohibited materials disposed of. He did not prove that. As long as you keep lying about it, and sayiong that the UN wanted hime to prove something other than the points in UNR1441, you will always be ignored, and whatever validity your arguements maight possibly have will be concealed by your obvious ignorance of the situation. Hardly the way to convince anyone you have a valid point. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 26 Dec 08 - 05:45 PM Again, bb, you ask the impossible... Prove you have stopped... Prove you don't have... Prove you are not thinking... Prove all kinds of negatives... This was a puzzle with no solution... Like I sdaid then and say now, you can't prove that you ain't doing something short of folks "inspecting" (novel concept) to see if you actually are doing or not soing something... You and yer guys presented the Rubix Cube from Hell, the one with no solution, and excpeted Saddam to find a solution??? Give me a break... Prove to me, bb, without me inspecting that the socks you have on right now at blue... This is the exactly analogy of what you and the right wing fringe radicals expected of Saddam... And for the record, it isn't me who is "lieing" about anything here... History has allready shown who the lairs were and it wasn't our side... Might of fact, just about everything I predicted would occur in Iraq in the mad-dash days was proved to be correct and just about everything that you and yer right winged war mongers prdeicted has been shown to be wrong... So, I'd be real carefull about going down "Lairs Lane" again... We had a very bad round of that last time you got frustrated and thought that by screaming and insinuating that I was a lair that your side would be vindicated... It didn't happen then and I won't let you pull stunt on me/us again... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: freda underhill Date: 26 Dec 08 - 06:31 PM It's amazing how hard people try to polish a pile of shit. Here's a reality check for any retrospectively wise neocon looking for debate on a wet afternoon.. Ten myths about Iraq 2008 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 26 Dec 08 - 07:13 PM Bobert- read my lips: He had to prove that the WMD programs that he previously had had been stopped and the prohibited materials disposed of. He did not prove that. If he had dismantled the programs, there would have been evidence- please read Blix of Jan 27th. You keep ignoring what Blix states, unless it agrees with what you want to believe. "The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi air force between 1983 and 1998, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tons. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for. "The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at the storage depot, 170 kilometers southwest of Baghdad, was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the rockets must have been moved here in the past few years at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding. Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve, but rather points to the issue of several thousand of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for. The finding of the rockets shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate. " Blix "Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 liters of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction. There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared and that at least some of this was retained over the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was indeed destroyed in 1991. As I reported to the council on the 19th of December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kilos, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as reported in Iraq's submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999. As a part of its 7 December 2002 declaration Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate, as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered. In the letter of 24th of January this year to the president of the Security Council, Iraq's foreign minister stated that, I quote, "All imported quantities of growth media were declared." This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 liters of concentrated anthrax. " Blix "These missiles might well represent prima facie cases of proscribed systems. The test ranges in excess of 150 kilometers are significant, but some further technical considerations need to be made before we reach a conclusion on this issue. In the meantime, we have asked Iraq to cease flight tests of both missiles. In addition, Iraq has refurbished its missile production infrastructure. In particular, Iraq reconstituted a number of casting chambers which had previously been destroyed under UNSCOM's supervision. They had been used in the production of solid fuel missiles. Whatever missile system these chambers are intended for, they could produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 kilometers. Also associated with these missiles and related developments is the import which has been taking place during the last two years of a number of items despite the sanctions, including as late as December 2002. Foremost among these is import of 300 rockets engines which may be used for the Al-Samud II. Iraq has also declared the recent import of chemicals used in propellants, test instrumentation and guidance and control system. These items may well be for proscribed purposes; that is yet to be determined. What is clear is that they were illegally brought into Iraq; that is, Iraq or some company in Iraq circumvented the restrictions imposed by various resolutions. " Blix |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 26 Dec 08 - 07:23 PM How many times are going to pull out that Rubix Cube from Hell... Tell ya' what, bb... Lets just get dwon to brass tacks here and I'll put you in the exact trick bag that you and yer war-hungry righties put Saddam and the rest of the world... Tell me what color socks you owned in 1998... And when you do, I'm going to shoot yer argument into a million pieces... So what color socks did you own in 1998??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: kendall Date: 26 Dec 08 - 07:39 PM As I understand it, Saddam wanted the world to believe he still had WMDs to keep Iran from invading Iraq.It was a huge bluff that didn't work. Bush wanted war and Bush got war. period. The solution is so simple. We should simply stay the hell out of other people's business! We gave them reason to hate us, so now we hate them for not knuckling under to us. They have been killing each other for hundreds of years and what we did was try to break up a dog fight. No one with brains does that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 26 Dec 08 - 07:44 PM Brains, Capt'n??? Herein lies the rub... Yo, bb... What color socks do you own in 1998??? Oh, this is gonna be fun... Put the world in trick bag will ya'... Get ready to be right where Saddam was in 2002 and early 2003 and then maybe you'll understand what the heck we're talkin' about here... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 26 Dec 08 - 07:49 PM Bobert, In 1998 I had black sox and blue sox. I still have them. If they were inventoried then ( as Saddam's material was, except for what he illegally added ( which you claim he did not) they would still be accountable, and I would show them to you. Since I have shown that I still have the same sox as I did then, I meet the Bobert Nations Regulation. But so what? Saddam HAD material and programs. Saddam was given the chance to show that he had stopped those programs, and destroyed the material, OR that he had not done so and would turn it over to the UN. He failed to do either of those things. THAT is the violation. He failed to comply witrh UNR 1441, his last chance to show complience with the ceasefire agreement. He had 12 years to comply, and chose not to, with the encouragement of people like youi. Shame. shame, shame on you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 26 Dec 08 - 08:24 PM Great, bruce... First of all, fu*k yer little shame game 'cause now were are gonna put you in the trick bag that you and Bush put Saddam inin order to justify killing a million people Welcome to the Rubix Cube from Hell... Please kindly answer the following: 1. You *say* that in 1998 you had both black and blue socks and you say that you still have them... Can you offer any proff that these socks are the same socks that you owned in 1998??? 2. Did you have any other black or blue socks that have since been disposed of and if so, can you offer any proff of where they were went??? I fyou threw them in the trash, where would they ahve been taken and can you prove that they were taken there??? 3. We think you may have also had a pair of white socks in 1998... Did you??? If you didn't can you prove that you didn't have any white socks in 1998??? 4. We also have learned that yer neighbor gace y6ou a pair of brown socks in 1998... Do you still have them??? If not, where are they??? Can you prove where they are or how you disposed of these brown socks??? 5. How many pairs of black socks did you have in 1998??? And of that number do you still have them all??? If so, please provide evidence that you did not dispose of any of them since 1998... If, however, you still have all the black socks that you had in 1998 then can you prove that all of these socks are the very same socks that owned in 1998 and can you prove that some have been replaced... I mean, let's get real here, bruce... I could ask a thousand more questions like these... Bottom line is that you can't even prove that you even owned any socks in 1998... I mean, like ***prove***... Oh yeah, you stated that you had these socks but you can't prove that you had them... Fair enough??? I mean, lets gets real here... You wanted Saddam to answer questions that you can't answer here... The Iraqis went thru the Rubix Cube from Hell questions and did what you have done here... They swnt back over a thousand pages of documents in trying to prove the impossible... But, if you think this is fun, bb, just answer the 5 sample Rubix Cube from Hell questions I have asked and then we can take it to the next level and then the next and sooner or later, reagrdless of your responses in trying to answer impossible questions, I'm just gonna say, "I don't believe you" and bomb you and yer neighbors.... But, hey, answer away... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 26 Dec 08 - 08:37 PM Wrong again, Bobert. The UN inventoried what he had previously- he was KNOWN to have it at that time. The items are ones that are accounted for- Do you lose a house or building? And as for the shame game, it seems that you have no problem sitting in judgement on others that they should meet your expectations and not thier own- yet you seem upset that others would dare treat you as you do them. Ubermench, indeed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 26 Dec 08 - 09:09 PM (This will be my final post to bb on this thread...) You won't answer the socks question becasue you are smart enough to know a check-mate coming when you see one... You are in the exact situation as Saddam found himself in late 2002 and early 2003... At least he was man enough to send over a thousand pages of answers... You??? Just what I expected... Zip, Nada, Zero... Just more huff 'n puff... No proof... No answers... Just proclamations... Jesus tells us it's okay to stand up to evil... He taught us in the case of the prostite to turn away sinners who would stone a woman to death... He turned over the tables of the money changers in the tmeple... Judge ye' not, is not the words of Jesus... They are Old Testament where stuff like the Iraq War could easily be justified... It is unChristain... You are unChristain... Is that a judegement??? Well, yeah, it is... A million people cannot be slaughtered and Christains not speak up and do what they can to debunk the rationalizations of those who perpertrated these acts... I do not speak from pride... I speak from humanity, bruce... Your mythology has absolutely consumed the better side of your soul and you are lost... So very lost... You need to take some time and allow God to speak to you... He is trying to break thru all that interference that you broadcast... This isn't a war here... You owe it to yourself because carrying this much blood is not good on any level... Yeah, I know that you have done what you can to try to hold your position because of pride... The Bible talks about pride...I would hate to be you right now... I think that if I had to live with the mythology that you have surrounded yourself with that it would be intolerable... Hey, it's okay, bruce, to just take a day off from reacting here on this thread... It won't go away... It isn't like a tennis match... I am so very sorry to have to go to these lenghts to give you every opportunity to rethink your position... I feel like this has become a chess match and I am saddened to know that I have you in check-mate and so I just try to play it out as if I didn't know that... I am sorry, my friend, but you have taken a very wrong turn along the way and you are so very lost... Maybe yer goal is to just die before the historians come forth with the "final judegement" on this war and it's human costs... So here is my advice... Leave this thread alone... You have nothin' to gain here... Take a couple days off... Think about God... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 26 Dec 08 - 09:19 PM Sorry, Bobert. I disagree with your view. IMHO, to have not forced Saddam to comply would have been the greater evil, and caused far more death of innocents in the long run. I make no claim to know your soul, and why you disagree with me: How can you judge me when you refuse to even try to understand what I have been saying? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: freda underhill Date: 27 Dec 08 - 03:19 AM bb, why my Jewish friends seem to support the invasion of Iraq is that Saddam had been sabre-rattling against Israel. Some months before the invasion, retired four-star US Army General and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark acknowledged in an interview: "Those who favor this attack [by the US against Iraq] now will tell you candidly, and privately, that it is probably true that Saddam Hussein is no threat to the United States. But they are afraid at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel." Bush and Condoleeza Rice have also acknowledged the importance of protecting Israel from an Iraqi strike. The US invasion of Iraq has cost many tens of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. Around the world, it has generated unmatched distrust and hostility toward the US. In Arab and Muslim countries, it has fueled intense hatred of the United States, and has brought many new recruits to the ranks of anti-Western terrorists. Iraq is now a major training ground for extremists and is implicated in the major bombings in Madrid, London, and Glasgow. Whether Israel has been made safer by this is highly unlikely. freda |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: akenaton Date: 27 Dec 08 - 03:54 AM Hey Bob....All this soul searchin' on the Les thread must be bearin' fruit! That was a lovely post, thought provoking and very "Christian" in the best sense of the word.....and that's not meant as a slight against Bruce either!...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: akenaton Date: 27 Dec 08 - 03:57 AM and bloody well written........full of passion!! Try writin' one to P/vine....:0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: kendall Date: 27 Dec 08 - 06:56 AM BB, I don't want to get into a pissing match with anyone, but what I don't understand is why do you insist on starting in the middle? I repeat, we had no business invading Iraq in the first place. All the crap flows from there, not from his supposed refusal to comply with the UN resolutions. He was ordered to get rid of his WMDs. He did. He sent them to Syria, but he could not let Iran know that he was without them. Iraq was never a threat to us until we invaded them. Were they a threat to Israel? Doubtful. Israel has proved in the past that they are not to be messed with, and they don't need no "steenking" permission to take out a threat to their existence. If you cross the Bush mafia you are branded a traitor or a homo, even if you are a loyal republican. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 29 Dec 08 - 06:20 AM Kendall, "He was ordered to get rid of his WMDs. He did. He sent them to Syria," So you are even willing to admit he had them? THAT will get you in more trouble with the anti-bushites than "cross(ing) the Bush mafia". "but what I don't understand is why do you insist on starting in the middle?" I started with the invasion by Iraq of Kuwait, and the ceasefire terms of that conflict- which Saddam did not comply with for at least 12 years- and when given a "LAST AND FINAL" chance to do so, did not- according to the Blix reports from Novemeber 2002 through January 2003. If you call that the middle, let me know where I should start- the 1921 treaty that created Iraq ( breaking up the Ottoman Empire after WW I), perhaps? "Iraq was never a threat to us until we invaded them. " I disagree. IGNORING the threat to our allies ( NOT just Israel, but all of those we have treaty obligations with) Saddam had already threatened the US, and had both the means (IRBMs with WMD warheads(chemical) that could have been launched from ships outside of US waters) and had continued combat operations against US forces that were trying to enforce the ceasefire ( check how many fights the "No-fly zone patrol craft were in). I object strongly to the idea that Bobert can pass moral judgement upon me, for my support for what I think to be the correct action, yet complains when I give him back the same. I know he believes himself to be correct- but if that is sufficent, Hitler thought the same. So who is he to decide FOR OTHERS what they should think, especially when he makes no attempt to understand the basis for those decisions that others make as to what to support? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: kendall Date: 29 Dec 08 - 09:18 AM Of course he had WMDs. He used them on the Kurds just because they were plotting to take him out. Ok, we have to start somewhere, how about when the Actor supplied him with the gas he used to kill Kurds? He was our fair haired boy until Bush 1 and his Ambassador told Saddam that we didn't care what he did over there. He saw Kuwait as a part of Iraq that he wanted back, and he had the green light to take it. Just like when Dean Acheson told the North Koreans that there was nothing in SE Asia that we cared about, they took that as a green light to reunite Korea by invading the south. Voltaire was right. I'm not going to stick my nose into your difference of opinion with Bobert, but I do need to say that personal attacks will end the discussion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,Beardedbruce Date: 29 Dec 08 - 09:26 AM "but I do need to say that personal attacks will end the discussion. " And who started them???? I can be safely told how evil and bloody I am, but cannot reply??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: kendall Date: 29 Dec 08 - 11:09 AM I didn't name any names. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Greg F. Date: 29 Dec 08 - 12:48 PM And who started them???? Waaaah!!! But MOMMY! He hit me First!!!! Or maybe this was intended as an allegory for the Israeli-Palestinian situation? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 07 Jan 09 - 09:00 PM Kendall: I appologize for questioning your manhood and morality. Now please reinforce your morality and manhood by giving direct answers to a few questions namely: Should America have intervened in Rwanda or was staying out of their business the right thing to do? Should America stay out of Sudan's business or should we but out? "How many people would still be alive if the USA would just stay out of other countries business?" And also how "We have started every war that we have ever been a part of and this latest is the most transparent of them all" How did America start WWI WWII and the Korean war? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 07 Jan 09 - 09:32 PM Mr Bobert: Do you believe that the WMDS that your revered Democrat heroes swore existed was the only reason for the Iraq war? If Wmds were the only reason to go to war and it turned out that there were no WMDs you might have a leg to stand on but even that leg would be so wobbly and weak that you need prop it up with unsubstantiated claims that intelligence was cooked up LBJ style. He said She said in a book they are pedaling don't feed the bulldog. Even your own shiny new VP, Joe the Fumbler, who, as chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, knew more about the intelligence than anybody in congress voted for bill and he even appropiated money to pay off snitches to rat Saddam's WMDs. A rather elaborate hoax wouldn't you say? Was this Congressperson duped by GWB's cooked up intelligence when he made this statement?: "Mr. President, we should all hope for a genuine diplomatic solution to this stand-off, but no one should doubt our resolve to use force if it becomes necessary. We have little choice in this matter. Important principles and vital national interests are at stake. First and foremost, an Iraq left free to develop weapons of mass destruction would pose a grave threat to our national security. The current regime in Iraq has repeatedly demonstrated its aggressive tendencies toward its neighbors. It has also displayed a callous willingness to use chemical weapons to achieve its aims." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: kendall Date: 07 Jan 09 - 09:46 PM You are still not listening! When you took to nit picking I was forced to clarify my statements. Forget my original post and listen to this: America did not start WW 1, WW2 or Korea. This is what we DID do. WW1 we shipped munitions to England aboard the Lusitania after stern warnings from Germany that any ships doing so would be sunk. We set ourselves up to get into it with Germany. WW2. Roosevelt stopped all shipments to Japan. He ordered them out of Indo China, then, the final straw, he froze their assets in this country. That they could not tolerate. They would rather die than lose face. We did not fire the first shot, but we sure as hell asked for it! Korea. We had troops in South Korea after WW2. Why? When Dean Acheson stated that there was nothing in that area that we cared about, the North Koreans decided to reunify Korea by force and they invaded on the 25th of June, 1950. We didn't have to be in harm's way, but, we were, by our own will. I did not address Rowanda , Darfur or Sudan. All I can say about that is, there is no way that we can be the world's Policeman, nor should we. President Washington warned us about foreign entanglements, and President Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex. Did we listen? Even if we had the means to stop the killing around the world by imposing our will on everyone, where would we get the right? Now, Sawzaw, if this is still not enough for you, that's just too bad. I'm out of here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 07 Jan 09 - 10:27 PM Ok you have revised your war statement. Was it wrong to ship munitions to England? Should we have been afraid to do so and intimidated by a dictator? Keep in mind that the beloved FDR was lying his ass of to the American public about being involved. Why did "Roosevelt stopped all shipments to Japan. He ordered them out of Indo China, then, the final straw, he froze their assets in this country."? Does it have anything to do with standing up to dictators? Weren't we telling Japan to stay out of China's business? What happens when tyrants and dictators are ignored and left to conquer weaker countries? Do they get sated after a while and quit? Or do we eventually become the weaker country and a target for conquest? We had troops in South Korea after WW2. Why? Because of a UN commitment and obligation to defend South Korea. Is that not in your history books? As for Darfur and Rwanda which are fully on topic even if you did not mention them, all you need to do is answer yes or no. Was not getting involved in Rwanda was the right thing to do? Is staying out of Sudan's business the right thing to do? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 08 Jan 09 - 01:43 AM Iraq a mistake Bobert?? If it was then the only person who made a mistake with regard to Iraq was Saddam Hussein. From the perspective of the United States of America their decisions and actions taken between September 2002 and March 2003 were fully justifiable and correct. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 08 Jan 09 - 06:39 PM How about the mi8llion Iraqis that went down with Saddam, T??? Seems they didn't do too well either... Yo, Saws... Any post to me that begins with insinuating that I revere Democrats is bogus and I don't read any further... If you want to attack me start out with something that isn't pure unaltered mythoogy and I might read on... But beginning yer post with a lie ani't gonna interest me one bit... BTW, go back and read what I was sayin' during the mad-dash-to-Iraq and you'll see I had no more love for Dems then than do I now... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: kendall Date: 08 Jan 09 - 08:05 PM Let's just stop feeding the trolls, Bobert.They just want a row. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 08 Jan 09 - 08:22 PM Well, Capt'n... Lets you and me meet up with T and Sawz behind the barn fir a little good ol' fashioned fist fight... You can pick which one you want... Don't much matter to me which one I get but I'd like to start with Sawz and then maybe do a switch-a-roo... B;~) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 08 Jan 09 - 08:47 PM Dese guys dey got haids like Coco-nut, Capting!! Det all green and hard!! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 08 Jan 09 - 09:15 PM Yeah, Amos is right... Go low... B;~) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 08 Jan 09 - 11:35 PM This whole thread is a Bobert troll for Tbus. Now Mr Kendall the history teacher wants to claim someone else is trolling so he does not have to answer the "tough" questions about what he said. Hey, I like history, teach me and fill in the missing information. Or maybe you can write some that supports your statements. Maybe you can answer this easy question: Should dictators be stood up to or should they be left alone to gain power? Bobert: You must revere Democrats they way you try to cover for them and shift all the blame to Bush. Were they stupid or something? Were there any other reasons for the war? Would you prefer that Hussein was still there, running the country? And why stop at mi8llion Iraqis? Why not mi16llion Iraqis? Just keep blowing the number up until you prove your point? You are the first person I have seen that is so touchy and defensive that he wants to beat up someone for asking him questions about what he himself stated. Agree with Bobert or suffer. Are questions really that threatening? You put on your ballerina slippers and tutu and try to dance around questions about your "facts" and when that don't work, you want to do some violence on the guy that asks the questions. Truth never hurt anybody, it just deflates their ego. You can point out my mythoogy any time you want. But back up the guy that says America should not get involved countries business. Yeah, leave him alone and threaten the guy that questions him about it. As for Amos, he does not have the intestinal fortitude to state whether America has been cut off from it's suppliers or not but he knows all about coconuts, the area he has real expertise in. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 09 Jan 09 - 02:09 AM Just to put your 1 million dead Iraqis into context Bobert. The Second World War saw the first ever use of strategic air power. The allies predominantly the US and the UK built up vast fleets of heavy strategic bombers. RAF Bomber Command flew sorties against Germany from 1939 until May 1945, the US 8th & 15th Air Forces from about 1943 until May 1945. According to German figures all this bombing resulted in the deaths of just under 600,000 Germans. Now are you trying to tell me the US in Iraq killed almost double that figure in less than 2 months??? Sorry I don't buy it. Bobert, you have no arguements, facts or figures to back up your ridiculous contentions. When confronted with substantive fact you resort first to personal attack and now as evidenced on this thread threats of physical attack. What a sorry piece of work you are. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Gervase Date: 09 Jan 09 - 02:47 AM So, how many Iraqis have died. And is that an acceptable figure? If regime change is a legitimate use of power (and where is the international law that says it is?), then why not North Korea, Zimbabwe, Venezuela or any other country to which the USA takes a dislike? Given the lack of hard evidence even at the time, what was so special about Iraq - other than the fact that the PNAC and other neo-cons had already marked Saddam's dance card before 9/11 and saw it as a heaven-sent opportunity to try out a shiny new policy that would bring an end to the world's problems and see the USA emerge as the once and future hyperpower? I'm sorry chaps, but your arguments are not persuasive, and your 'facts' are as subjective and selective as those of any flat-earther, creationist or holocaust denier, or indeed anyone clinging to an untenable position. Still, it's nice to know that the world is now a safer place! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Jan 09 - 07:07 AM "any other country to which the USA takes a dislike?" How about violation of the "last and final " UNR to comply with the cease-fire terms that IRAQ signed up to? Hardly "any other country" That is like saying that it is wrong to put someone in jail ( or execute them) after they are found guilty because it means you might jail or kill "any other" person, regardless of their actions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Gervase Date: 09 Jan 09 - 08:10 AM How naughty. The USA has refused to accept the current verification protocol for the Biological Weapons Convention beacause it "does not suit US interests". Israel has so far declined to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention. Israel is also in breach of numerous UN resolutions (including this week's 1860, which the US did not veto). So, your point is? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 09 Jan 09 - 08:13 AM No other "Last and final" chance UNR is involved, nor have those nations BEEN IN VIOLATION of a signed agreement for 12 years. Refusal to SIGN a treaty is a lot different than signing and then refusing to comply. Capiche? So, what the hell is YOUR point? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Gervase Date: 09 Jan 09 - 09:01 AM My point is that you're making a lot of noise, flinging posts around like a mad woman's piss, but not really advancing your cause. In the opinion of most, the war was an illegal and costly mistake which has made the world less safe and cost too high a price. Your point, from what I can ascertain, is that all of that is irrelevant because you can Google enough material to suit your minority viewpoint. Well congratulations. I remember the first time I learned how to use a search engine. Fun, isn't it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 09 Jan 09 - 09:05 AM Sawz: AMerica has not been cut off from its oil suppliers. As for intestinal fortitude, do you have enough to state that starting wars and causing the deaths of thousands of people is wrong? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Jan 09 - 09:13 AM "Your point, from what I can ascertain, is that all of that is irrelevant because you can Google enough material to suit your minority viewpoint." You ascertain incorrectly. IMO, the world is now a safer place, we had reasonable justification for our actions, and the war was as legal as any war can be. Yes, it was costly- but a single WMD in the wrong hands would be orders of magnitude more costly. Amos: We did not start the war ( Saddam invaded Kuwait) but we did finish it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Gervase Date: 09 Jan 09 - 10:18 AM Legal? The use of force by a state is prohibited by Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter. The only exceptions are with Security Council authorisation or in self-defence against an armed attack by another state under Article 51. The was no authorisation, and self-defence is not an issue. Kofi Annan has said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal." Lord Goldsmith, the UK's Attorney General, advised that the war would probably be illegal for several reasons including the lack of a Security Council resolution, although he appears to have hurriedly changed his mind when it became clear that the invasion would go ahead regardless of the legal situation. Richard Perle, no dove, has stated that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone." In your opinion the world is a safer place. I think you'll find yourself in rather a minority there. To quote from an MoD-commissioned briefing paper, "The war in Iraq ... has acted as a recruiting sergeant for extremists across the Muslim world ... Iraq has served to radicalise an already disillusioned youth and al-Qaeda has given them the will, intent, purpose and ideology to act." The US National Intelligence Estimates concluded, "The Iraq conflict has become the cause celebre for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement." The Institute for Strategic Studies calls the war, "a potent global recruitment pretext" for jihadists and says that the invasion "galvanised" al-Qaeda and "perversely inspired insurgent violence" there. David Low, the US national intelligence officer for transnational threats, said the war in Iraq provided terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills... There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries." In the House of Commons in October 2003, before the invasion, Tony Blair himself said, "The assessment I received was that the greatest terrorist threat to Western interests came from al-Qaeda and related groups, and that this threat would be heightened by military action against Iraq...When I took the decision that military action would be required to ensure that Iraq complied with United Nations Security Council Resolutions, I had to weigh all the factors, including the possible short term risk of increased terrorism, against the longer term risks of rogue states developing weapons of mass destruction." And we know all about the WMDs now, don't we? We won't talk about individual elements of the war and occupation, like Abu Ghraib. But suffice it to say that Bush's 'hearts and minds' doctrine is a little shaky. I could go on, but I doubt you'd listen. we did finish it A little premature aren't we? Mission not quite accomplished yet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: pdq Date: 09 Jan 09 - 10:29 AM "Lets you and me meet up with T and Sawz behind the barn fir a little good ol' fashioned fist fight... You can pick which one you want... ~ Bobert Way over the line. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Jan 09 - 10:48 AM legal. The CEASEFIRE was being violated. UNR1441 was Saddam's last chance to comply- and the UN states that he did not. ( though there were numerous earlier violations, the failure to comply with the "LAST AND FINAL" chance to comply with the cease-fire was in and of itself sufficient to allow combat operations.) Cease fire is now null and void. WAR resumes, as authorised in 1992 by the UN. Saddam is no longer attacking or threatening UN authorized forces. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Gervase Date: 09 Jan 09 - 11:13 AM Bruce, you can blather on about the war being legal until the cows come home, but it is only your opinion, and caries no more weight than your belief that the moon is made of green cheese. Greater minds even than yours are firmly of the opinion that the war was illegal. To refresh your memory on what happened... 1441 was only passed unanimously because members were assured that there would not automatically be military action if Iraq failed to heed it. The US ambassador to the UN stated: "This resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12." The Uk ambassador to the UN also told the Security Council, " If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities." When it became clear that the US and UK would not get nine out of the 15 votes need to carry the day they abandoned their 'second resolution' plan. By which time, of course, the war was already in the later stages of planning. The war may have been, for you, desirable (funny how some people get their jollies, isn't it?), but it is rash to claim that it was either legal nor prudent. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Jan 09 - 11:22 AM Gervase, you can blather on about the war being illegal until the cows come home, but it is only your opinion, and caries no more weight than YOUR belief that the moon is made of green cheese. As Data Manager for Clementine, I know better. The moon is NOT green cheese. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Gervase Date: 09 Jan 09 - 12:04 PM Ah, so you are a man with privileged access to arcane knowledge. Was this how you were able confidently to predict a McCain landslide? I can see that I will have to bow to your greater knowledge on international law and on matters military as well. Tell me one thing, though - does it ever get lonely, being the only person in a column of troops who is in step? But, gosh, to think that a post on the internet has changed someone's mind! Is this a first? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 09 Jan 09 - 01:15 PM "In the opinion of most, the war was an illegal and costly mistake which has made the world less safe and cost too high a price." – Gervase Just to point out that just because that happens to be the opinion of most (It may, or may not be) does not necessarily make it true, or fact. The threat posed by Iraq under Saddam Hussein to the United States of America, her allies in the middle-east and elsewhere and the interests of the United States of America and her allies, was not something invented and dreamt up by George W. Bush or any other member of his administration. The Head of State of any country does not require permission from anybody to act in the best interests of their nation's security, especially not such a weak and vacillating an organization as the United Nations. "In your opinion the world is a safer place. I think you'll find yourself in rather a minority there." – Gervase. Again only BB's opinion, but one shared after careful and independent studies by the University of Uppsala in Sweden and the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. Now let's have a look at some of those quotations you saw fit to post: ""The war in Iraq ... has acted as a recruiting sergeant for extremists across the Muslim world ... Iraq has served to radicalise an already disillusioned youth and al-Qaeda has given them the will, intent, purpose and ideology to act."" – MOD Briefing Paper "The Iraq conflict has become the cause celebre for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement." - US National Intelligence Estimates "a potent global recruitment pretext" for jihadists and says that the invasion "galvanised" al-Qaeda and "perversely inspired insurgent violence" there." - Institute for Strategic Studies "the war in Iraq provided terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills... There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries." - David Low, the US national intelligence officer for transnational threats. "In the House of Commons in October 2003, before the invasion, Tony Blair himself said, "The assessment I received was that the greatest terrorist threat to Western interests came from al-Qaeda and related groups, and that this threat would be heightened by military action against Iraq...When I took the decision that military action would be required to ensure that Iraq complied with United Nations Security Council Resolutions, I had to weigh all the factors, including the possible short term risk of increased terrorism, against the longer term risks of rogue states developing weapons of mass destruction." And we know all about the WMDs now, don't we?" I note that you have only provided a date, albeit an incorrect one, for Blair (Well surely that must have been October 2002 as by the October 2003 the invasion was all done and dusted.) Now take a look at what came of those dire predictions Gervase: • Heard anything of Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq lately?? • Heard anything of Al-Qaeda full stop lately?? • In Iraq the Islamic Jihadists were drawn into fighting battles not of their choosing and they have died in their thousands • In Afghanistan the Taleban have died in their thousands and are viewing the prospect of annihilation if they continue to confront the forces ranged against them The quote and prediction above from David Low was made on the premise that the Jihadists would be victorious – they weren't, they died in places like Fallujah and other places in Anbar and Diyalla Provinces. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: pdq Date: 09 Jan 09 - 01:30 PM In addition, both Iraq and Afghanistan had elections that were more fair and honest that several of our "united" states: New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Missouri and Louisiana. Also, the recent attempt to install Al Frankenfraud in the US Senate suggests that Minnesota is part of that club too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Jan 09 - 01:33 PM "Was this how you were able confidently to predict a McCain landslide?" Care to show any such prediction on my part? Making up things does not prove your point- it proves you have no respect for the truth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 09 Jan 09 - 04:21 PM Gervase, I find it interesting that the war-mongers her have steered this thread away from my original premise that the war was unnesessary because Hanz Bliz had inspectors on the fround in Iraq and that Hanz Blix stated on January 27th to the UN that the Iraqis were cooperating with those inspectors in letting them inspect where-ever the inspectors wanted... That alone shreaded any justification for the invasion... And you are right... Isreal is in violation of UN resolutions as we speak... pdq, Get a sense of humor... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Jan 09 - 04:32 PM Bobert, I have already shown that Hans Blix DID NOT SAY that Saddam was acting in a way that would lead to a resolution of the problem. Do I have to go over the whole thing again???? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 09 Jan 09 - 05:30 PM BB looks like you better had - Bobert has a problem with reading in as much as he doesn't seem to be capable of it. If memory serves me correctly Dr. Hans Blix reported something to the tune that the co-operation required was a two part process and that while Iraqi Authorities seemed to be co-operating fully on one part they were still not co-operating on the other. This led him on to complain that UNMOVIC's mission in Iraq was not one of hide and seek. Bobert of course does not want to hear or read any of this because it does not tally with the phenomenon known as the "BOBERT FACT", which can be anything that Bobert choses to spout. Examples of Bobert Facts: - The heads of Saddam's sons being displayed on sticks on the lawn of the White House. - 3000 Patriot missiles per day raining down on Baghdad. - 1 million Iraqi civilians have been killed, when ever the source he quotes clearly states that theirs is only an estimation of how many MAY HAVE DIED. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Gervase Date: 09 Jan 09 - 05:31 PM BB, 27th October: Took a quick count of signs from Sterling Va to the Beltway ( at MD/VA border: 25 McCain 12 Obama I counted "clusters of more than one sign obviously in the same yard as 1 sign each cluster- 2 clusters for McCain, one for Obama As good as the polls, I guess- showing a landslide for McCain! Tongue in cheek, maybe, but there you go! And Teribus - had anyone any reliable linkage between Al Queda and Saddam before the war? No, thought not. And since the war there have been plenty of incidents around which the name Al Queda has been muttered. However, it would probably pay you (and most journalists) to look at Al Queda. It is not a constitutional body, with a defined 'head' and operational arm. The name in Arabic simply means 'the base'; by and large it operates on a disparate basis, inspiring rather than micromanaging incidents. The London and Madrid bombers, for example were not, of themselves 'Al Queda', yet they were inspired by Al Queda, and the figureheads of the movement were happy to claim credit for the attacks. And Low's prediction is certainly true - there is a clear jihadist connection between Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq, with plenty of young hotheads packing the borders at the height of the war desperate to take up arms against the 'infidels'. Most of those were thankfully unsuccessful in getting a tour in Iraq, but do you really think they've now gone back home and taken up origami and macrame? And, if if you want dates for Low, Perle, the MoD report and the others I could dig them out. You could, of course, Google them yourself if it makes such a difference. Do report back. And Afghanistan is not proving to be a walk in the park. Annihilation may be some way off. As you're keen on Canadian punditry what of Richard Blanchette? Or, closer to home, Mark Carleton-Smith. Yet again the phrase 'lions led by donkeys' comes to mind. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 09 Jan 09 - 05:32 PM You ain't shown jack, bb,... All you have done is your usual blow-hard act thinking that if you posted enough stuff that you would blow the House-of-Truth down... You are jsut a war mongin' word twister... I have quoted Blix... You have not addressed that but changed the topic to Blix did not say "that Saddam was acting in a way (blah, blah, blah...)"... That is a Mckey Mouse argument... You just pick ***un-"Quotes"*** out of thin air and expect everyone to dance at yer feet like you are some great knower of all that is true... You are just a belligerant blowhard who is too friggin; proud and partisan to admit that you are wrong... You have never addressed the fact the Blix said in his report that the cooperation was the """"most important"""" part of the report... Why??? Because it doesn't support yout narrow little minority view so you just invent stuff that sounds fluffy and then say that Blix didn't say exactly that??? You must think that everyone here is a friggin' retard??? I see thru yer little junior high school tricks and so does everyone else... Grow up... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Gervase Date: 09 Jan 09 - 05:40 PM And 200. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: kendall Date: 09 Jan 09 - 08:45 PM Sawzaw, old saying, "Never argue with someone whose opinion you don't respect." Now, if I gave a rat's ass what you think I might stick around, But you obviously don't understand plain English and I've wasted enough of my time trying to explain to you what is historical fact. You have a computer, look it up.You won't get the argument you seem to enjoy, but you might learn something. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 09 Jan 09 - 09:05 PM Welcome to the world of Sawz, Capt'n... This is the way the boy/girl is... But seein' as he/she used to be "Old Guy" here I'd bet he/she is a he... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 10 Jan 09 - 12:56 AM Gervase: Now that Mr Kendall has flaked out on answering the tough question about Rwanda, maybe you can answer this one because it relates to what you and he said: So, how many Rwandans have died because The USA stayed out of that nations business? And is that an acceptable figure? Amos: I am glad you finally fessed up to the fact that the truth you "bring" is not always the truth. To be to fair, I don't think you would have presented it if you had read through the post but you seem to be in such a rush to post piles of negative bullshit as if volume makes up for accuracy. Anyhoo, starting wars and causing the deaths of thousands of people is wrong in some instances such as Hitler and the Japs did. However in some circumstances it is not wrong such as in Kosovo and the Balkans. Do you think Saddam Hussein should have been left alone when he invaded and occupied Kuwait? Do you think the US should have stayed out of that nations business? Bobert: Still dancin' and not a single answer out of you. This thread is another one of your stink bombs and when the stink blows back on you, all ya got left is personal attacks to prop up your shaky arguments and strange ideas. Got any input on Kuwait or Rwanda or are personal attacks your forté? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 10 Jan 09 - 04:53 AM Why did there have to be a linkage between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein Gervase?? With regard to the security of the United States of America, both Al-Qaeda and Saddam's Iraq were two completely seperate issues. Since the war Al-Qaeda has had many mentions and since 11th September, 2001 to date thay have got fewer and fewer. Because of their handling of their "Jihad" in Iraq, where in an "infidel rich" target environment, they were seen to baulk at attacking armed "infidel invaders" and instead killed thousands of fellow muslims in an attempt to foment a civil war in Iraq - That Gervase did not go down too well in the "muslim world". Even Al-Qaeda's No.2 admitted defeat in Iraq. Ah yes all those Jihadists clustered on the borders - well Gervase, most of them died, figures stand at between 30 to 40 thousand of them so far. Afghanistan Gervase, I think 2009 and 2010 and going to bring very torrid times for the Taleban. Remember that road transportation exercise that ISAF undertook a couple of months ago to transport the components of the third turbine to the Kajaki Dam. The Taleban lost 250 men attacking the decoy convoy, injuries to ISAF amounted to one man with a broken hand he got while freeing a vehicle that become bogged down. Oh Carlton-Smith was perfectly correct in that there is no military victory to be had in Afghanistan - but that is as true for the Taleban as it is for ISAF and the Afghan Government forces. At the moment ISAF and the Afghan Security Forces stand a damn sight better chance of lasting the course until the Taleban realise that. The second round of free elections are coming up in both Iraq and in Afghanistan, let's see how they go. As to how things would have been better if the US had stayed at home: - Going on his average Saddam would have killed 617,580 Iraqi's possibly more (see below). - Libya would now have a nuclear weapon. - Syria would still be occupying Lebanon and be well on its way to acquiring a nuclear weapon capability. - The Second Iran/Iraq war would now be in its third year. This would be the only way Saddam had of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, or a nuclear weapons capability. - World oil prices would have gone through the roof at the start of the conflict between Iraq and Iran because of loss of supply from the the middle-east region. - Terror attacks upon western european countries and the USA would have continued with growing intensity as the co-operation between intelligence and law enforcement agencies round the world would have remained at pre-911 levels. - Dr.A.Q.Khan's network would have remained undetected and would still be in business. - The opportunity for an international terrorist group to acquire, or be supplied with, WMD, or WMD technology would be five or six times what it is now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 24 Jan 09 - 12:59 PM Tough questions sure knock the wind out of the Liberal blowhards. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 24 Jan 09 - 04:48 PM The tough questions here are the ones I asked when I started this thread and to date none of you war-mongers have come close to answering... Why??? Because it would reveal that you were (and still are), ahhhhh... ...wrong!!! B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 25 Jan 09 - 01:01 PM Bobert: In the opening of this stink bomb troll of a thread, the only thing that even resembles a question was: "Why Bush felt he had to invade will be up to armchair historians and psycologists but the fact did not warrent this war..." You answered your own question. Suppose you answer this question: What were the reasons for going to war? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 25 Jan 09 - 02:20 PM Currently: BAGDHAD – The Iraqi Oil Ministry says the country's oil exports in December reached 56.2 million barrels. It says that's a 3.4 million barrel increase from previous month although revenues dropped due to the slide in global oil prices. Sunday's statement shows revenues fell to about $1.943 billion from $2.299 billion in November. Iraq's oil was sold at an average price of about $34.57 per barrel, down from the previous month price of $43.54 a barrel. It was purchased by 23 international oil companies. The statement says 43.4 million barrels were exported through the Persian Gulf, while 12.8 million barrels were exported via Turkey's port of Ceyhan. Iraq has the world's third largest oil reserves with 115 billion barrels. Previously: • Iraq is actually exporting food, even though it says its people are malnourished. Coalition ships enforcing the UN sanctions against Iraq recently diverted the ship M/V MINIMARE containing 2,000 metric tons of rice and other material being exported from Iraq for hard currency instead of being used to support the Iraqi people. • Baby milk sold to Iraq through the oil-for-food program has been found in markets throughout the Gulf, demonstrating that the Iraqi regime is depriving its people of much-needed goods in order to make an illicit profit. • Kuwaiti authorities recently seized a shipment coming out of Iraq carrying, among other items, baby powder, baby bottles, and other nursing materials for resale overseas. Saddam Hussein's priorities are clear. If given control of Iraq's resources, Saddam Hussein would use them to rearm and threaten the region, not to improve the lot of the Iraqi people. There is ample proof that lifting sanctions would offer the Iraqi people no relief from neglect at the hands of their government • Sanctions prevent Saddam from spending money on rearmament, but do not stop him from spending money on food and medicine for Iraqis. • Saddam's priorities are clear: palaces for himself, prisons for his people, and weapons to destroy Iraq's citizens and its neighbors. He has built 48 palaces for himself since the Gulf War. He would not use Iraq's resources to improve the lives of Iraqis. Saddam Hussein would use them to rearm and threaten the region. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 25 Jan 09 - 02:47 PM That last assertion is not supported by the data you have presented, Sawz. That is obvious. But, the rest os good. Obviously, the reason for the invasion was to curtail the threat of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, according to all the PR from the Bush Administration. That there were none, and that the CIA realized there were none, and half the country figured there were none, leads to the suspicion that the pretext was either fraudulent or intensely stupid. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Nickhere Date: 25 Jan 09 - 09:29 PM LH, my post here is coming in very late after yours about the Lusitania. I just thought you might be interested to know that I was reading an article some time last year (can't remember when right now, but i cut out the piece and kept it somewhere). There has always been some controversy over whether or not the Lusitania was merely a civilian liner. Some claimed it was being used to transport munitions and the Germans knew this somehow. In support of that claim was the fact it sank so rapidly after two large explosions tore open its hull (one might have been the torpedo, the other munitions exploding). It sank in about 20 minutes if I'm not mistaken. There was no real proof though until last year when a salvage team went down and among other things they found thousands upon thousands of rounds of ammunition, some of it still boxed up. They brought some samples to the surface. The ammunition turned out to be .303 calibre made by the Remington company. This is significant as Remington was (and is?) a US arms manufacturer, but the .303 round was not popular in the USA (I don't think it was used there at all, actually. There was a 30-30 but that was a totally different round and not interchangeable with the .303). On the other hand the .303 was the standard round of the British army from about 1890 (Lee Metford rifles and later Lee Enfield) up to the 50s or 60s when the NATO 7.62mm took over. Since a lot of the ammunition would have blown up in the explosions that sank the liner, the recent find is probably only the tip of the original iceberg, so to speak. This would suggest that the Lusitania was carrying ammunition from the USA to Britain. The US and British authorities must have been aware of the risk to the civilian passengers involved in placing munitions on a civilian liner. They deliberately placed munitions among civilians on a civilian liner as a kind of camouflage - knowing the Germans would definitely have torpedoed any merchant ships thought to be carrying munitions. The fact it's taken 80 years or more for this story to be known in its entirety is a good reminder of why we should bear in mind "the first casualty in any war is the truth" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 25 Jan 09 - 11:07 PM Exactly what assertion was that Amos? And who was responsible for that assertion? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 25 Jan 09 - 11:08 PM LH, I was concentrating only on the USA. We could have stayed out of it simply by not shipping munitions to England in a passenger ship and denying that we were doing it. History has proved that the Germans were right in sinking the Lusitania.(From their point of view) The fact that we wanted to get into it to support England is another matter." – Kendall "There has always been some controversy over whether or not the Lusitania was merely a civilian liner. Some claimed it was being used to transport munitions and the Germans knew this somehow. In support of that claim was the fact it sank so rapidly after two large explosions tore open its hull (one might have been the torpedo, the other munitions exploding). It sank in about 20 minutes if I'm not mistaken. There was no real proof though until last year when a salvage team went down and among other things they found thousands upon thousands of rounds of ammunition, some of it still boxed up. They brought some samples to the surface." – Nickhere "Since a lot of the ammunition would have blown up in the explosions that sank the liner, the recent find is probably only the tip of the original iceberg, so to speak. This would suggest that the Lusitania was carrying ammunition from the USA to Britain. The US and British authorities must have been aware of the risk to the civilian passengers involved in placing munitions on a civilian liner. They deliberately placed munitions among civilians on a civilian liner as a kind of camouflage - knowing the Germans would definitely have torpedoed any merchant ships thought to be carrying munitions. The fact it's taken 80 years or more for this story to be known in its entirety is a good reminder of why we should bear in mind "the first casualty in any war is the truth" – Nickhere. None of the above is "new" – Look up the article in Wikipedia relating to the loss of the Lusitania, the "discovery" last year by the members of Cork Sub-Aqua Club of the ammunition merely confirms what was made public in 1915 when the vessel's manifest became public knowledge – 4.2 million .303 rounds plus some 3" fragmentation shells. The article also goes into the causes of the second explosion: - Ammunition exploding (Highly unlikely) - Coal dust explosion (Possible but unlikely) - Catastrophic failure in the vessel's high pressure steam System (Highly probable and most likely) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 25 Jan 09 - 11:40 PM Amos "facts": "The unilateral invasion of a non-combatant sovereign nation is a fact." Please explain the unilateral "fact" and the non combatant "fact" like a good fellow. I recall there were several countries involved in this invasion and that there was frequent combat with Iraq stretching over several years leading up to this invasion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 26 Jan 09 - 10:59 AM Sawz: Really? Frequent combat with Iraq? Are you making this up? Can you provide any substantiation? What specific combat? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Stringsinger Date: 26 Jan 09 - 02:29 PM Bobert, Hans Blix, Scott Ritter and others warned us. The biggest mistake is the ideology that "might makes right". It had to go wrong. Teribus as far as I can know is one of those ideologues that would not defend his position by going over to Iraq and fighting. He would prefer to be an armed-chair soldier. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 26 Jan 09 - 07:41 PM Alot easier to call up a slaughter from 3000 or more miles away... Lets see: George Bush- 5300 miles away Dick Cheney- 5300 miles away Teribus- 2700 miles away BB- 5300 miles away Saws- +- 5300 miles away Yup, seems like the chickhawks like their action at a safe distance... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 27 Jan 09 - 12:33 AM "Really? Frequent combat with Iraq? Are you making this up? Can you provide any substantiation?" "Operation Southern Watch was an operation conducted by Joint Task Force Southwest Asia (JTF-SWA) with the mission of monitoring and controlling airspace south of the 32nd Parallel (extended to the 33rd Parallel in 1996) in Iraq, following the 1991 Gulf War until the 2003 invasion of Iraq." As of May 22, 2000 it was reported that since Operation Desert Fox there had been 470 separate incidents of AAA or surface-to-air missile fire at Coalition aircraft and Iraqi aircraft had violated the southern no-fly zone 150 times.[8] Over the same time period, American aircraft had attacked Iraqi targets on 73 occasions |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 27 Jan 09 - 12:55 AM And in your jaded, bitter-minded worldview, Sawz, this makes Iraq an aggressor? This sort of thickheadedness has cost us over 4,000 American lives, pal. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 27 Jan 09 - 02:30 PM "Bobert, Hans Blix and Scott Ritter" Eh?? They all told us did they?? Ignoring Bobert because he's a complete and utter muppet, let's look at the other two. Exactly when did they tell us?? Did they tell us in 1998 when the Iraq of Saddam Hussein was identified by the Security and Intelligence Agencies of the United States of America as posing the greatest threat?? No they didn't Frank. In fact the very same Dr. Hans Blix and Scott Ritter contributed to UNSCOM's Final Report to The United Nations Security Council that was delivered in January 1999. It was the content of that report that itemised in great detail the proscribed WMD programmes and research and development being undertaken inside Iraq. Their report detailed the weaponised stocks of Chemical and Biological agents as well as the stockes of precursor chemicals and dual-use items present in Iraq. Their report detailed weapons and delivery systems. Did the good Dr Blix tell us in 2003? Ehm??? No he didn't, and I don't actually think that he has come out with a definite answer on this yet - I think he is verging on it, I think it goes to the tune of there might be but most likely there isn't anything and that Saddam Hussein did indeed destroy it all unilaterally - now that to me appears to be a man that is riding every horse in the race. The US search groups have only stated that they believe that it is highly unlikely that they will find anything - That is not the same thing as saying that there is nothing. One thing that is for certain now is that Iraq is no longer seeking WMD capability. Scott Ritter - Good old unbiased, impartial, objective Scott Ritter. Is that the Scott Ritter who was paid to produce a pro-Iraqi television programme?? Is that the Scott Ritter who had a book to sell?? As much as the chattering left puts their belief in the myth that there had to be one single issue that drove the situation, anyone who has actually done a bit of reading on the subject realises that there were a whole raft of reasons, all related to Iraqi non-compliance with the terms agreed and set down at Safwan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 27 Jan 09 - 06:27 PM There was no reason, and a whole raft of explanations, T. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 27 Jan 09 - 06:38 PM Fine, T... Why the Hell did the the UN send in inspectors??? Was that just a game??? I mean, lets get real here.... Thye world was told that Iraq had WMDs... It wasn't told of all these "other" reasons that you say existed... That's what they were told...Period!!! So Blix takes inspectors backinto Iraq... You following this, T??? Then Blix says that the Iraqis are letting the inspectors inspect where ever the inspectors want... Any argument yet, T??? Then Bush says, "Screw it, invade anyway..." That's the way it went down... No rerason to rewrite those facts on the ground 'cause we were all witnesses to them... Tell ya what, T-bird... Next time ya'll wnat to kill a million people hows about telling the truth as to why those million people need to be killed... Don't come back afterwards and say, "Well, we had other reasons"... That don't cut it... And that may land some of yer buds in war crimes courts... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Barry Finn Date: 27 Jan 09 - 07:48 PM We had plenty of reasons but we were only told one. WMD's!!! Tacked on to that reason was 9/11 when the nation was questioning the 1st reason, then after the 9/11 association/reason came a host of other reasons. To late , we were already in the shithouse by then! The other reasons weren't part of the picture until the WDM's conviently evaporated. Then came the other reasons Of course we now now that the were other reasons we wanted to get into Iraq & that those reasons were prior to 9/11 ever happening but those reasons were private & kept private. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 28 Jan 09 - 11:20 AM Two posts, one from Barry Finn (27 Jan 09 - 07:48 PM) and one from Bobert (27 Jan 09 - 06:38 PM), that make me wonder exactly what planet they were on over the period of time in question. But there again, I believe that irrespective of what either reads, they only ever isolate and take away the bits they want to, the bits that pander to their own particular bias. I'll respond to Barry's offering first: That Iraq, under the leadership of Saddam Hussein, was evaluated as potentially posing the greatest threat to the United States of America is undeniable, it is a matter of record, as is the fact that this evaluation was made public on the 17th January, 1998. The nature of the threat was clearly detailed and described as follows: 1. A regime that was hostile to the United States of America 2. A regime that possessed WMD, WMD material, WMD technology 3. A regime that had links to, sympathetic to and was a sponsor of an international terrorist organisation, or organisations that were hostile towards the United States of America 4. A regime that would be capable of passing WMD, WMD material, WMD technology to an international terrorist group that was hostile towards the United States of America. The template for this appraisal was formed on Iraq/Saddam's intransigence in complying with the terms of the Safwan Agreements and resulting UN Resolution requirements and his total lack of co-operation with the United Nations UNSCOM Inspectors. So here clearly was a nation governed by a regime that was hostile to the United States of America - that takes care of No. 1 above. It was known to have WMD, WMD material, WMD technology and had a proven track record of using them - that takes care of No. 2 above. Iraq under Saddam Hussein trained, financed and supported terrorist organisations based abroad to attack Israel - that takes care of No. 3 above. Would that regime then be willing and capable of passing on that technology, or capability to a terrorist group in order to attack the United States of America, harm its interests or its allies - You tell me, it is a judgement call, but fast forward to 11th September, 2001 and take note of the fact that Saddam Hussein was the only world leader who applauded the attacks carried out that day, then I don't think that Bill Clinton's security advisors had it wrong - That takes care of No. 4 above. Now add to all of that the 1993 attack on the World Trade Centre, which illustrated the vulnerability of the US to asymmetric attack. The Clinton administration was extremely ineffective in their response to this threat, there was no great effort made to involve the UN in enforcing Iraqi compliance to the disarmament programmes required under the terms of UN Resolutions 678 or 687, both of which have been in the public domain since being passed by the Security Council of the United Nations, so I am rather puzzled that Barry Finn attempts to tell us that those requirements were "secret" or kept "private" - They weren't Barry they were there for all the world to read, as were the arguments for "Regime Change in Iraq" outlined in Clinton's Iraq Bill passed in the summer of 1998 which placed regime change in Iraq as a cornerstone of official US foreign policy in the middle-east - Now then Barry don't try and tell me that that was kept "private", because it wasn't, again, it was out there for all the world to read and remember and take note of this Barry all this was is in 1998. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 28 Jan 09 - 11:33 AM OK, now for the other post, let's have a look at Bobert's cherry-picked and overly simplistic effort: There were two inspection campaigns, the first UNSCOM set up in accordance with the Safwan Agreements and the second UNMOVIC which replaced UNSCOM. I mention this because it is important that Bobert should realise what these "teams" were supposed to do: - UNSCOM which stands for United Nations Special Commission (present in Iraq intermittently from 1991 to 1998) - UNMOVIC which stands for United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (present in Iraq from December 2002 to March 2003) Bobert's first Question- first part: "Why the Hell did the UN send in inspectors?" The answer that Bobert is not going to pay the slightest attention to: The UNMOVIC Inspection teams were invited back into Iraq by Saddam Hussein to complete the work started by UNSCOM. As far as the United Nations were concerned, the Inspection teams went back into Iraq to monitor Iraqi disarmament and compliance with the terms of UNSC Resolution 1441, verify that that disarmament and compliance with the terms of UNSC resolution 1441 had been undertaken and to inspect sites associated with WMD programmes to verify that those programmes had in fact been shut down. Saddam's reasons for inviting those teams back into Iraq were completely different - If you doubt that, fast forward to Saddam's admission while in captivity that he did everything in his power to make the Iraqi people, the international community and his neighbouring states believe that Iraq still possessed chemical and biological weapons, was there any reason for him to say that to get the US off the hook? I can't see one, he'd already been tried, convicted an sentenced. Bobert's first Question - second part: "Was that just a game?" The answer that Bobert is not going to pay the slightest attention to: As far as Saddam Hussein was concerned it was just a game, a game that he had successfully played and won before, and one that he thought, and had been advised, that he could play and win again. It most certainly was not a game to the United Nations Security Council, or to the United States of America. And by all means "lets get real here.... The world was told that Iraq had WMDs" - Who by Bobert?? I'll give you the correct answer to that before you feel moved to start throwing "Bobert Facts" about. The world had been told by UNSCOM in January and in March 1999 that Iraq had WMD the status of which could not be confirmed. The world "wasn't told of all these "other" reasons that you say existed". Now that hardly flies does it Bobert. It was the "world" organisation, specifically the United Nations that wrote Resolutions 678, 687 and 1441 (remember that final, last, last chance) detailing to Iraq what was required for compliance. In fact the verbiage of 1441 goes into the detail of Iraq's non-compliance to all previous resolutions. So take it from me Bobert the "world" was fully aware of all the reasons, it doesn't surprise me for one nano-second that you personally were not. The good Doctor Hans Blix, Bobert, took the UNMOVIC Inspection Teams back into Iraq at Saddam Hussein's invitation purely and simply because the United States of America had made it pretty much understood that if he didn't the US were going to put boots on the ground and remove him - something that GWB's predecessor always fought shy off. Don't dress it up to anything different - the only reason the UN were invited back into Iraq was down entirely to the international pressure applied by George W. Bush. Period!!!! You following this, Bobert??? Bobert's second Question: "Then Blix says that the Iraqis are letting the inspectors inspect where ever the inspectors want...Any argument yet, T???" The answer that Bobert is not going to pay the slightest attention to: Only that you present the part of the story that suits your view. You cherry-pick a couple of statements and remarks made by Blix, promote their significance way out of proportion and ignore the context in which they were stated and omit what Dr Hans Blix went on to say. Let's take a look at what Dr Hans Blix actually did say Bobert: - "Resolution 1441 (2002) was adopted on 8 November last year and emphatically reaffirmed the demand on Iraq to cooperate. It required this cooperation to be immediate, unconditional and active." Remember those words Bobert - IMMEDIATE; UNCONDITIONAL; ACTIVE - "I turn now to the key requirement of cooperation and Iraq's response to it. Cooperation might be said to relate to both substance and process. It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, notably access. A similar decision is indispensable to provide cooperation on substance in order to bring the disarmament task to completion through the peaceful process of inspection and to bring the monitoring task on a firm course." Remember IMMEDIATE, UNCONDITIONAL & ACTIVE Bobert? Date is now 27th January, 2003, UNMOVIC went into Iraq early December 2002 and Iraq is deciding "in principle" to co-operate on matters relating to process?? Not quite what was required was it Bobert. By the bye Bobert "in principle" does not equate to "in fact". And they haven't got round to deciding "in principle" to co-operating on substance - True?? That is what the good Doctor said wasn't it?? You don't have to answer that Bobert it's there in black and white, attempt to argue otherwise you only succeed in making yourself out to be a complete and utter prat. - "I shall deal first with cooperation on process……..Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field……. In this updating I am bound, however, to register some problems. Firstly, relating to two kinds of air operations…….While we now have the technical capability to send a U-2 plane placed at our disposal for aerial imagery and for surveillance during inspections and have informed Iraq that we planned to do so, Iraq has refused to guarantee its safety, unless a number of conditions are fulfilled. As these conditions went beyond what is stipulated in resolution 1441 (2002) and what was practiced by UNSCOM and Iraq in the past, we note that Iraq is not so far complying with our request. Dr. Blix is registering problems in relation to the co-operation that Bobert states was flawless?? Go on Bobert have a read, that is what he is saying. Access, inspections, aerial reconnaissance, "Iraq has refused…..unless a number of conditions are fulfilled" - Hey Bobert what does the requirement "UNCONDITIONAL" mean to you? What part of it do you not understand?? Blix is quite clear on it though. - Cooperation on substance……..The substantive cooperation required relates above all to the obligation of Iraq to declare all programmes of weapons of mass destruction and either to present items and activities for elimination or else to provide evidence supporting the conclusion that nothing proscribed remains…………Paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002) states that this cooperation shall be "active". It is not enough to open doors. Inspection is not a game of "catch as catch can". Rather, as I noted, it is a process of verification for the purpose of creating confidence. It is not built upon the premise of trust. Rather, it is designed to lead to trust, if there is both openness to the inspectors and action to present them with items to destroy or credible evidence about the absence of any such items. So Dr. Blix is stating that there is not the level of co-operation on substance required. That UNMOVIC are not in Iraq to play games of "hide-and-seek". Not quite the picture that Bobert wants to hear about. Well he might not want to hear about it and he can deny it as much as he likes but it does not stop it from being truth, and the truth recorded in Dr Hans Blix's Report to the UN. Did Bush say - "Screw it, invade anyway..."?? Got a reference for that Bobert, or is this just another "Bobert Fact". UNSC Resolution 1441 stipulated that there would be serious consequences for any material breach of the terms of that Resolution. I think I noted seven such material breaches on the part of Saddam's regime. President Chirac and his Foreign Minister Villeneuve completely stalled any further action on the part of the UN and the President of the United States of America acted on the best available advice from his Security Advisors and did his job - he looked to the security of the United States of America and the protection of her interests. Oh and of course Bobert has to round it all up with the standard outburst of emotional crap: "Tell ya what, T-bird... Next time ya'll wnat to kill a million people hows about telling the truth as to why those million people need to be killed... Don't come back afterwards and say, "Well, we had other reasons"... That don't cut it..." But there haven't been one million people killed, and so far, Bobert, although asked to do so many, many times, hasn't been able to come up with any substantiation for this figure that he waves about like a flag. Since May 2003, the vast majority of Iraqi deaths have been the result of in-fighting between Iraqi groups and terrorist/insurgent attacks on the civilian population of Iraq. The number according to "Iraq Body Count" provides a maximum figure of 98,729 with deaths during the invasion of 10,079. Every single one of them documented, every incident recorded with details as to name of victim, cause of death and party responsible for those deaths. Bobert's million on the other hand was only ever a "Guestimate" of who might have died based on unverified batch sampling. Once again I will point out the obvious that "might have died" does not equate to "actually died". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 28 Jan 09 - 02:41 PM You keep jamming 1998 and 2002-3 as if nothing changed. What actually appears to have happened is that Iraq did disarm as far as WMD is concerned, and Saddam continued to put up a baloney pretense for the purposes of keeping Iran at bay, creating the impression without substance that they still existed. Those of too little wit were inclined to believe his baloney, especially when the Bush administration starting echoing the BS and magnifying it. But it was all BS. Some people saw that, and some did not. You clearly were among the latter, and have been erecting palisades of justification ever since. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Stringsinger Date: 28 Jan 09 - 02:54 PM Hi Teribus, Re; Scott and Blix "Did they tell us in 1998 when the Iraq of Saddam Hussein was identified by the Security and Intelligence Agencies of the United States of America as posing the greatest threat??" This is errant propaganda. Security and intelligent agencies knew very little about Iraq at the time and even today they know not much more. " It was the content of that report that itemised in great detail the proscribed WMD programmes and research and development being undertaken inside Iraq." The report was obviously based on little-known information at the time and if it existed as you say it did, then it has obviously been proven false. "Their report detailed the weaponised stocks of Chemical and Biological agents as well as the stockes of precursor chemicals and dual-use items present in Iraq. Their report detailed weapons and delivery systems." To that, I say, "Yellowcake, anyone?" "Did the good Dr Blix tell us in 2003?" Not many knew what was going on in 03. He wouldn't have known. Saddam was a paper tiger. He was put in place by the US as a deterrent to Iran. He was all talk and no substance as has been shown recently. Blix and Ritter finally realized that their findings were about to be propagandized by the Bush Administration and in their public statements reacted accordingly. "The US search groups have only stated that they believe that it is highly unlikely that they will find anything - That is not the same thing as saying that there is nothing." What US search groups? There are a lot of self-styled groups in the US that claim some kind of information. Many of them are puppets for Bush. "One thing that is for certain now is that Iraq is no longer seeking WMD capability." And it has been shown that Iraq never had that capability. It was smoke and mirrors. "Scott Ritter - Good old unbiased, impartial, objective Scott Ritter. Is that the Scott Ritter who was paid to produce a pro-Iraqi television programme??" What does pro-Iraqi mean? They don't even have an Iraq. He was never in favor of Saddam as your implication suggests. "As much as the chattering left puts their belief in the myth that there had to be one single issue that drove the situation, anyone who has actually done a bit of reading on the subject realises that there were a whole raft of reasons, all related to Iraqi non-compliance with the terms agreed and set down at Safwan." I disagree that the so-called left has any belief of the kind. Actually, reading right-wing propaganda does not constitute objective analysis of the situation. I think your description, "a bit of reading" is accurate. Certainly not a full report. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 28 Jan 09 - 06:40 PM No, T, as pwer usaul it is ****you**** who has cherry-picked the Blix Report to the UN... What exactly do you not undertsand about the term "The most important" as when Dr, Blix stated, and I quote, "The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect..." In most English grammer books "most" means "most"... So "most important point" means "most important point"... Nothing else... Not yer usual balh,blah, blah about stuff totally irrelevent to the fact on the ground as of January 27, 2003... Yer arguments, while long and teadious, don't add up to calling for the invasion... They deal with events other than what Dr. Blix actaully said was the "most impotant point" about his ionspection team... Not about "old business" but the reality as of the day of the report... Face it, ol' buddy, you ain't got anything in yer poker hand yet you continue to bet holding off the inevitable of having to admit that you are (and still are) wrong... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 28 Jan 09 - 07:06 PM Bobert your post of 28 Jan 09 - 06:40 PM was unnecessary after all I had said earlier- "The answer that Bobert is not going to pay the slightest attention to" Your post referred to above proves I was correct. Now Stringsingers post: Point 1: "Did they tell us in 1998 when the Iraq of Saddam Hussein was identified by the Security and Intelligence Agencies of the United States of America as posing the greatest threat??" This is errant propaganda. Security and intelligent agencies knew very little about Iraq at the time and even today they know not much more." - Stringsinger Well frank maybe your memory or your timeline has just slipped a bit. Now in 1998, and please excuse me and point it out if I have any of this wrong, the United Nations' UNSCOM Teams including Blix & Ritter had been working inside Iraq, albeit getting the run-around by Saddam and the lads for over six years. In 1998 Frank they knew a damn sight more about what was happening inside Iraq than they ever did in 2003, after UNSCOM left Iraq became an intelligence "Black-Hole", which is why all information relating to Iraq's WMD came from the final UNSCOM Reports of January and March 1999. Point 2: "" It was the content of that report that itemised in great detail the proscribed WMD programmes and research and development being undertaken inside Iraq." The report was obviously based on little-known information at the time and if it existed as you say it did, then it has obviously been proven false." Oh their reports were based on very good information Frank, very detailed information supplied by the Iraqi Government themselves, supplied by the manufacturing facilities within Iraq, supplied by foreign suppliers of equipment and materials. Only problem was Frank that there were discrepencies that the Iraqis could not explain away. Its all there in the UNSCOM Reports if you'd like to read them - or were the likes of Blix and Ritter and the rest of the UN Inspectors lying too?? Point 3: "Their report detailed the weaponised stocks of Chemical and Biological agents as well as the stockes of precursor chemicals and dual-use items present in Iraq. Their report detailed weapons and delivery systems." To that, I say, "Yellowcake, anyone?" Wrong year Frank the supposed attempt to buy Yellow Cake from Niger was after 1998. Incidently Yellow Cake was found in Iraq in 2003, as were chemical munitions, 384 Rocket motors and there was a proscribed missile development programme under way - The latter having been identified by British Intelligence who tipped off UNMOVIC. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 28 Jan 09 - 09:11 PM No, T... That's where you have it all wrong... One million people have been murdered because you and yer buds dismised not only the Bobert's of the world but also the words of Hans Blix... You, with the blood on your hands, will not minimalize this ****************************fact******************************!!! Do not try this game with me... Do not try this game with history and do not try this game with those who you, yes ******you****** who's lives have been snuffed out becasue you and yer war monging buddies got it so very... ..........................wrong...........................!!! And please spare me any more of yer crap... It is all lies and distortions... It is all about making be able to sleeep at night... You should never ever be able to sleep at night... Blix told you that things were going fine... You ignored him and ordered up the slaughter of a million people... You do not deserve to ever sleep again without the knowledge that you, yes you, are responsible... Now, get off of my cloud... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 28 Jan 09 - 09:16 PM The reason there was a precise itemized report by Iraq in 1998 is that they were cooperating with the requirement that they disarm. You continue to ignore the difference between that point in time and the 2002-3 time period, in order to make the invasion seem justified. This is simply bone-headed warmongering, not to put too fine a point on it. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Barry Finn Date: 28 Jan 09 - 09:55 PM Teribus, you say "That Iraq, under the leadership of Saddam Hussein was evaluated as potentially posing the greatest threat to the United States of America" Look at what happened, look at what transpired. What is & was fact & what was false are now well known. "Evaluatated"! That evaluation proved to be false! Concocked! Fabricated! We were lied to! We were spooked by the spooks & even they knew it was creepy! We were had! There's no need to go over this. And you ask what planet I'm on? Check yourself out & where you've been for the last 7yrs? Get your head out of the sand, get with the rest of the world, you'll keep the party line, long after the party drops it. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 29 Jan 09 - 04:46 AM "The reason there was a precise itemized report by Iraq in 1998 is that they were cooperating with the requirement that they disarm." - Amos Now that statement of yours Amos beggars belief. It is complete and utter hogwash and you know it. Iraq was co-operating?? So what was it that UNSCOM was complaining about to the United Nations Security Council?? What was the reason for "Desert Fox"?? Remember the complaints about the status of the 17 "Presidential Palaces" built by Saddam - the ones UNSCOM could not inspect - were they an example of all this Iraqi co-operation??. "You continue to ignore the difference between that point in time and the 2002-3 time period, in order to make the invasion seem justified." - Amos Eh, No Amos, I don't think so, quite the reverse in fact, go back and read exactly what I have said about what was known in 1998 compared to what was known in 2003 - something to do with their being an "intelligence Black-hole" in the region as far as the US was concerned (That came about thanks to "Peanut" Carter by the bye). By all means Barry let's - "Look at what happened, look at what transpired." - Where before there was uncertainty regarding Iraqi WMD and WMD programmes there is now none. That is what has happened, now is that good or bad. - Where before Iraq under Saddam Hussein acted as a state sponsor for international terrorism instigating trouble in the region, particularly in Israel. The terrorists in the region have now lost an important backer thereby increasing the prospects for peace in the region. That is what has happened, good or bad. - Libya unilaterally renounced and disbanded it's WMD programme, that is what happened. What transpired was the discovery of a hither to unknown, and extremely advanced, nuclear weapons programme. Now was that a good thing or a bad thing. - The secret, illegal and extremely dangerous activities of Dr.A.Q.Khan in the field of nuclear weapons proliferation were brought out into the open and shut down. That is what happened, that is what transpired, good or bad. - According to NIE reports Iran at least temporarily suspended its uranium enrichment programme in 2003. That is what happened and what transpired was that the IAEA got a glimpse of the scale of the secret nuclear programme of Iran. - North Korea was persuaded to resume six-party talks on nuclear abandonment. That is what transpired, what happened was that an agreement was reached and now all parties are working towards a mutually agreed solution. - Syria was ordered to leave the Lebanon by the UN and complied after occupying the country for 27 years. Syrian attempts at acquiring nuclear technology and weapons were stopped dead in their tracks. - "Al-Qaeda" as seen from the perspective of the "Muslim World" was exposed for condemnation by all for the way they conducted themselves in Iraq. Even Al-Qaeda's second in command admitted their total failure in Iraq. Now then Barry all the above came about because the US acted as it did - by taking on and dealing with a "rogue state" it seriously discouraged four others and they are listed above. Throughout the period since the invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam Hussein oil supplies from the region have flowed uninterrrupted and have in fact increased. Now what would have happened and what might have transpired if the US had not acted: - Iraq would have resumed its game of giving UNMOVIC the run-around until they were convinced to give Iraq the all clear. - UN sanctions on Iraq would have been withdrawn or just simply ignored. - Iraq would have them rearmed and Russian, China and France would be only too pleased to help them - Nothing would be known about the activities of Dr.A.Q.Khan furthering the likelyhood of even wider nuclear weapons proliferation - Libya would now have a nuclear weapon that nobody knew about, a weapon that was totally annonymous - sort of like a gun with all marks removed, a weapon that could not be traced. - Syria would still be present in Lebanon and would be actively pursuing the acquisition of nuclear weapons aided and abetted by Dr.A.Q.Khan and the North Koreans. - By now 2009 the second Iran/Iraq War would be in its third or fourth year. There is no way on earth that Saddam Hussein would have stood by and allowed the Iranian nuclear programme to advance as far as it has without doing something about it. The only course of action open to him would be to attack Iran, with the resulting closure or severe restrictions to oil supplies sailing through the Straits of Hormuz. - Iraq would have resumed WMD production and would still be sponsoring terrorist organisations. - Al-Qaeda would still be "dining-out" on the Kudos from 9/11, it would have got stronger and would now have numerous avenues to explore with regard to obtain a WMD for an attack or attacks on the US or Israel, especially from a source who had a weapon that nobody knew about. - Which way Pakistan might have jumped doesn't really bear thinking about. Don't know about you Barry but I know which picture looks better and is better for the entire planet - you may disagree. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 29 Jan 09 - 08:14 AM Oh Barry, correction to my previous mail under the section of what would have happened and what would have transpired if the US had not acted, where I stated: "- Iraq would have resumed its game of giving UNMOVIC the run-around until they were convinced to give Iraq the all clear." That of course is incorrect because had the US not acted there would have been no UNMOVIC, there would have been no return of weapons inspectors to Iraq, the missile development programme would have proceeded unchallenged, serving as the thin end of the wedge as a tester which would then be followed by other proscribed activities. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 29 Jan 09 - 02:15 PM Yes, Iraq was an agressor. What happened in Kuwait? "This sort of thickheadedness has cost us over 4,000 American lives, pal." During Clinton's "peace time" over 7000 American lives were lost in the military. What sort of thickheadedness caused that? Did you protest back then? No? Was it because you did not have a political axe to grind? Hey mr Blowhard Bobert, What were the reasons for going to war with Iraq? Here is one but it does not support your single minded accusation that WMDs were the reason: Iraq is actually exporting food, even though it says its people are malnourished. Coalition ships enforcing the UN sanctions against Iraq recently diverted the ship M/V MINIMARE containing 2,000 metric tons of rice and other material being exported from Iraq for hard currency instead of being used to support the Iraqi people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 29 Jan 09 - 02:36 PM So, Sawzall, you support a policy of unilaterally invading nations guilty of mismanagement? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 29 Jan 09 - 07:53 PM Yo, Sawz, First of all, don't call me "Blowhard Bobert" again 'er I'll hunt you down and extract a few of yer teeth... Got it??? Good... As to why we invaded Iraq??? Well, it had nuthin' to do with the reasons that were given, that much has been established... We invaded Iraq because the neo-cons convinced a less-than-curious George W that we needed to... He bought their story lock-stock-'n-barrel... The neo-cons look at the world as a big Monopoly board and they thought that if they could gain a real foothold somewhere in the Middle East that the US would have access to the oil there... Some folks would use the term "geo-political" for purdy much the same thing... The neo-cons were convinced that Iraq was ripe for a MCDonalds on every corner and would be the easiest of the Middle Eastern countries to have half a chance of of selling an invasion to the rest of the world... It didn't have to be Iraq for them... Iran would have made them happy, too, but the story wasn't there... Too many transitions and here they had Saddam, who had been in power for decades... And they had the Kuwait history... So Iraq was to them the perfect storm... Well, they got that part right... Iraq has been the perfect storm and bogged down out nation for at least a decade... So, that is why Bush ordered up a senseless war and a war that should get him the title of "Worst President Ever"... Okay, some folks would argue that Vietnam was as bad or worse and in terms of out losses it was worse... What makes Iraq worse than Vietnam is that Vietnam was a model of what not to do yet Bush, not known for his intellectual curiousity, didn't heed the lessons of Vietnam... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 29 Jan 09 - 08:21 PM "Well, it had nuthin' to do with the reasons that were given, that much has been established." By whom, when and where? They were enumerated long before GWB showed up on the scene. Bobert shifts his claim the "the war is lost" to "it was wrong". Bobert 20 Jul 07 Anyone else notice that every day the Bushites push back the date that ***The Surge*** will work??? Seems like it's been moved back twice this week from Septmeber to next summer??? At that rate, give the Bushites another week an' it will be sometime in the next century... Face it folks... The surge ain't gonna work... This is a civil war we are now in the middle of... We ain't gonna win this one... Might of fact, this is alike rootin' for the home team late in the 4th quarter and down by 4 touchdowns... Yeah, I think we can all relate... Yeah, we hope that we just get one more touchdown but understand that the game is lost... Iraq is lost... The folks sayin', "Oh geeze, we just can't afford to loose" won't change this very simple truth... Iraq is lost... Better just dig in, bite the bullet and make the most of it... So I would think the question at hand isn't about whether or not the war can be won but what to do now... That involves a major paradyme switch... There are things that a militarially defeated US can do... Lot's of them... BUt they can't do them until they give up this false hope that **the surge*** will bring victory, or stability... That won't happen... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 29 Jan 09 - 08:43 PM Sawz: The surge coincided with the awakening of the local tribes to the fact that Al Qeda was not their friend, and Bush's surge got a lot of credit for pacification that actually should be laid at the door of the locals. But even if Bobert's assessment was mistaken, it seems to me--since you have given your man so much endless slack for so many boneheaded misunderestimations and mistakes--that Bobert deserves a bit of slack as well. You're in Obama country, pal. That means re-unification and reaching across the grat Divide. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 30 Jan 09 - 04:33 PM Yeah, Obama country where Obama says we won and we are going to do as we please. All the while esposing bipartisanship and unification. Bobert likes to blurt out these absolute statements based on his own strange ideas of how things really are and when it starts looking like the statement was wrong, he gets all huffy and puffy and tries to dredfine his statement. I could be wrong on this but I believe anybody who thinks they are always right is arrogant. I merely point out the incorrectness in people's statements and I get stereotyped as some sort of monster that is always wrong. Ad hominem. Argument against the person instead of the factuality of what they have presented. Yes, I have been wrong on several occasions. I usually try to admit that I was wrong rather than bluster along and get hostile defending my mistaken ideas. Nobody is right all of the time and nobody is wrong all of the time. Things need to be considered on an individual basis. This is what I believe to be open minded thinking. And I always try to avoid telling people that they are stupid, just mistaken, unknowledgeable or unwilling to admit to truth. Did the surge work or was it the awakening that worked? I think the real heart if the matter is "Would the awakening have worked without the surge? If could be that the awakening would have worked on it's own but I don't think it would have. Nor would the surge have worked without the awakening. The Sunnis saw the light and finally got the determination but could they have defeated Al Quaeda alone? Was not arming them part of the surge? I think the chances are that if not for the surge, Iraq would still be a war zone. All in all I believe the surge was a positive thing but it has to be derided by those who made closed minded assertions that it will not work, It cannot work, it is all a lie etc. Likewise, those that were against the war and made absolute statements that the war is lost, we can't win etc, must now focus only on WMDs to assert that the war was wrong when in fact there was a plurality of reasons for the war that go back way before GWB. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 30 Jan 09 - 05:05 PM I haven't shifted anything since 2002, Sawz... The war was both wrong and lost... No shift... Both are true... The Surge itself didn't work... It wasn't more boots on the ground but an entire shift in strategy... It also didn't hurt that the "Anwar Awakening" was occuring at the same time as the Surge... But a couple things, other than the Anwar Awakeining cornerstone occured.... The US began making cash payments to Sunnis not to shoot at US and the US, under David Patreas, put our military in neigborgoods 24/7... Both were smart... But it was the Sunni's realizing that they didn't want al qeada in their country that was the biggie... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Stringsinger Date: 30 Jan 09 - 05:33 PM "Well frank maybe your memory or your timeline has just slipped a bit." Teribus, perhaps my memory is not as clear as you state but I'm not making things up like you are. "Now in 1998, and please excuse me and point it out if I have any of this wrong, the United Nations' UNSCOM Teams including Blix & Ritter had been working inside Iraq, albeit getting the run-around by Saddam and the lads for over six years." This is not true. The fact is that Saddam was put in place by the US. They overcame any "running around" that might have taken place and offered an objective appraisal of the situation. " In 1998 Frank they knew a damn sight more about what was happening inside Iraq than they ever did in 2003, after UNSCOM left Iraq became an intelligence "Black-Hole", which is why all information relating to Iraq's WMD came from the final UNSCOM Reports of January and March 1999." Yes and they determined that WMD's were not there. Plans for them may have been instituted by Saddam but the reality of achieving these goals were impossible. Point 2: "" It was the content of that report that itemised in great detail the proscribed WMD programmes and research and development being undertaken inside Iraq." Which proved to be nonsense. These were distorted beyond comprehension for political purposes by both Bush and his British lackey. The report was obviously based on little-known information at the time and if it existed as you say it did, then it has obviously been proven false." The reports said nothing about WMD's except that it was assumed that Saddam would like to have acquired them which he was unable to do. The UNSCOM Reports are open to interpretation. And we did know that Bush was lying. The Reports change from time to time anyway. Point 3: "Their report detailed the weaponised stocks of Chemical and Biological agents as well as the stockes of precursor chemicals and dual-use items present in Iraq. Their report detailed weapons and delivery systems." And these were determined to be false. "Wrong year Frank the supposed attempt to buy Yellow Cake from Niger was after 1998. Incidently Yellow Cake was found in Iraq in 2003, as were chemical munitions, 384 Rocket motors and there was a proscribed missile development programme under way - The latter having been identified by British Intelligence who tipped off UNMOVIC. This is a pointless argument. They were not officially found except by those who attempted to capitalize politically on this misinformation. The reports you suggest were manufactured for political consideration by those who favored the invasion of Iraq. The proscribed missile development program was not tenable. Yellow Cake was not found in Iraq. This is a lie that instituted an embarrassment for the Bush Administration. It was a forged claim by Italian operatives and used as a pretext for the invasion. Actually, the Bush Administration pulled out the UNSCOM inspectors because they wanted to invade Iraq in spite of the fact that Blix and Ritter stated that the Iraqis That fact is not hogwash. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 30 Jan 09 - 05:49 PM "The fact is that Saddam was put in place by the US." - Complete and utter MYTH "They (UNSCOM??) overcame any "running around" that might have taken place and offered an objective appraisal of the situation." - Yes they did Frank and delivered the Reports based upon that objective appraisal of the situation to the Security Council of the United Nations in January and in March 1999. From those reports based upon that objective appraisal came verbatum the detail contained in the dossier present to Parliament in September 2002, the UNSCOM Reports by the bye Frank are quoted as a reference. So UNSCOM were lying?? Why?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 30 Jan 09 - 08:54 PM "The US began making cash payments to Sunnis" Paying them $10 a day to fight al-Qaida was part of the surge. Bobert: It's been a while since you told one of those funny stories. Tell us again how wrong this is: The sudden burst of violence failed to dampen Iraq's election spirits, however, with mobile phones up and down the country beeping long into the night as various parties sent out mass text messages trying to win votes. The sectarian slaughter that consumed the country from 2004 to early 2007 has given way to poster wars. Interest in the polls has also broadened. Many Iraqis were too scared to participate in the last provincial election because of the violence. In any case, most Sunni Arabs boycotted them in protest at the US-led occupation. This time round the mood is more up-beat. Standing on a street corner in the market town of Baladruz in Diyala, Kisma Mohammed studied a patchwork of posters on a shop wall emblazoned with the faces of election hopefuls and party leaders "I will go and vote provided I am in good health," the 48-year-old housewife said. Like many fellow Sunni Arabs, she will be casting a ballot for the first time in her life. Two years ago Mrs Mohammed and her family moved to Baladruz from a nearby village because of the level of killings. Now, thanks to the transformed security situation and the participation of the Sunnis, turnout is expected to be as high as 70 per cent. "I ask you to go to the elections, men and women, to really take part in building Iraq," Mr al-Maliki told a rally last week of 2,000 supporters inside a football stadium, in the southern Iraqi city of Basra. The past Sunni boycott deprived Iraq's second-largest group of a balanced representation in the country's provincial councils. Instead, the majority Shia Arabs and Kurds, who were discriminated against under Saddam Hussein's regime, enjoyed a greater share of power, even in provinces with a relatively strong Sunni presence such as Diyala. Now the struggle is for space on shop fronts and blast walls, although Iraqi democracy is not without its dirty tricks. On one road into Baquba, Diyala's capital, a candidate's picture has been decapitated; graffiti has ruined another, while a third is in shreds. Parties are also wooing voters with phone cards and cash concealed in election paraphernalia. In an attempt to win favourable media coverage, the Government has even proposed offering free land to Iraqi journalists. One great fear is that Diyala, with its rich blend of Shia and Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmen - and once the hub of al-Qaeda activity in Iraq - will be hit by renewed violence, along with other flashpoints such as Mosul. To pre-empt the threat, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi police and soldiers voted earlier this week so that they can be on duty tomorrow. With US and British troops taking a backseat, it will mark a big test of Iraq's security capability. If they succeed in policing a peaceful election it could strengthen President Obama's resolve to pull all American combat forces out within 16 months. In Diyala the main election issues are typical of the country as a whole: the fight against corruption and a perceived failure by incumbent politicians to invest in projects to improve services. The Diyala council denies corruption allegations, but locals say running water and power are scarce, sewage is a problem and unemployment is high. At present the provincial council is headed by a Shia governor. Of its 41 seats, 14 belong to the Iraqi Islamic Party (IIP) - the only Sunni party to take part in the last election - while 20 are held by a coalition of Shia groups and 7 by Kurds. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 30 Jan 09 - 09:11 PM New York Times: "The surge, clearly, has worked, at least for now: violence, measured in the number of attacks against Americans and Iraqis each week, has dropped by 80 percent in the country since early 2007, according to figures the general provided. Civilian deaths, which peaked at more than 100 a day in late 2006, have also plunged. Car and suicide bombings, which stoked sectarian violence, have fallen from a total of 130 in March 2007 to fewer than 40 last month. In July, fewer Americans were killed in Iraq -- 13 -- than in any month since the war began. The result, now visible in the streets, is a calm unlike any the country has seen since the American invasion toppled Saddam Hussein in April 2003. The signs -- Iraqi families flooding into parks at sundown, merchants throwing open long-shuttered shops -- are stunning to anyone who witnessed the country's implosion in 2005 and 2006. " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 30 Jan 09 - 09:32 PM On February 16, 2008, Iraqi Defense Minister Abdel Qader Jassim Mohammed told reporters that the surge was "working very well" and that Iraq has a "pressing" need for troops to stay to secure Iraqi borders. He stated that "Results for 2007 prove that – Baghdad is good now". As the surge forces proceeded to clear entire towns and neighborhoods of terrorist groups, the Sunni Arab civilians were offered a deal. If they would establish a local security force, and stop future terrorist operations, the U.S. would provide weapons, training and cash. If the local guard force could not do the job, the U.S. and Iraqi troops would be back, and that could be very bad for the neighborhoods. This had been tried before in Sunni Arab areas, but not with complete success. This time around, there was a widespread attitude change among the Sunni Arabs. The feeling was that the whole terror campaign had been a failure, and the only way out now was to turn on the terrorists. It was always obvious that the Americans could go anywhere and kill terrorists. But now the Iraqi army and police, made up largely of Kurds and Shia Arabs, was also able to fight. This was something new, and the Sunni Arabs didn't want to be on the receiving end of more counter-terrorist operations carried out by Kurdish and Shia Arab troops. So far, the Sunni Arabs have 60,000 paid local guards, and another 12,000 volunteers. Many of these guys had previously worked for terrorist organizations. That's where the cash payments came in. U.S. intel knew that a lot of terrorism was carried out by men doing it for the cash, as much as because they wanted get the Americans out, and Sunni Arabs get back into power. The surge attacks began last April. By August, the Sunni Arab and al Qaeda terrorist organizations were broken and on the run. Their situation only got worse going into the Fall. The number of attacks plummeted, as did U.S. and Iraqi (military and civilian) casualties. Earlier in the year, 3,000 Iraqis (uniformed and civilian) were dying a month. Now it's about 500 a month. Another important, but less reported, aspect of the surge campaign, was the attention paid to Shia Arab militias. Several of these were supported by Iranian Shia radicals, who were encouraging, and sometimes paying, Iraqi Shia to kill Americans and Iraqi security forces. By late Summer, these Shia militias were getting a lot of attention. Leaders were being arrested, and terrorism supplies (bombs, weapons in general) were being confiscated. Names and biometric data was collected on members of the militias. These guys knew what they meant. They were no longer anonymous. Now the Americans knew who they were, and where they lived. That made many Shia Arab militiamen less enthusiastic about attacking anyone |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 30 Jan 09 - 09:50 PM Sep 6, 2008 Barack Obama said Thursday that the escalation of U.S. troops in Iraq, which he had opposed, has succeeded in reducing violence "beyond our wildest dreams." Maybe Bobert's dreams are wilder than Obama's wildest dreams |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 30 Jan 09 - 10:23 PM Bobert: This is just a sidebar. It is on the aljazeera.net website'a FOCUS: IRAQI ELECTIONS Timeline: Iraqi Elections For the first time since 2005, Iraqis are heading back to the polls to vote in new provincial elections that are likely to reshape the political landscape. Sunni Arabs, who boycotted the 2005 elections, are expected to make a strong showing. Here is a timeline of key political events that have shaped the Iraqi political process since US-led forces invaded Iraq in 2003........... Excerpt: May 20: Ahmed Chalabi, the one-time Pentagon favourite and a prime instigator of the Iraq invasion, has his Baghdad offices raided by US forces. This marks a turning point in relations. http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/iraq/2009/01/200912981139534809.html HMMMM I don't see Al Jazz beating up on GWB. Could it be that they don't know what is going on in their own part of the world? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 30 Jan 09 - 10:37 PM January 18, 2009 PETER BEINART IN THE WASHINGTON POST: Admit it: The Surge Worked. Okay, I admit it! Oh, wait, he's not talking about me: "It's time for Democrats to say so. During the campaign they rarely did for fear of jeopardizing Barack Obama's chances of winning the presidency. But today, the hesitation is less tactical than emotional." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 31 Jan 09 - 09:00 AM The only part aboout the surge that worked was the PR... "The Surge" was elevtaed to 9/11 status in terms of the PR that was put into it... To most folks who really are clueless abotu the complexities of the Iraq war "The Surge" was strictly about more "boots on the ground"... This is not the real story and it has been simplified for Bubba consumption... The real story doesn't fit on a bumper sticker so with the average Joe's attention span it's really a story that he can't or won't follow... The real story is about a shift in strategy away from our troops hiding in the Green Zone at night to setting up base camps in neighborhoods where they could get to know the people and have a presence at night... That could have been done without more boots on the ground... The rst of the story is the Anwar Awakeing which, of course, doesn't fit neatly into you "Surgers" bumper stricker length view of real events... And paying folks not to shoot at us was the 3rd leg of the stool... This is the real story but, like I said, by the time you tell it, most of America has gone back to watching sports or off to the mall... That's why the Dems just left it alone... Biden did try to tell the real story in his debate with Ms. Sarah but it was too long to hold the audience... So the Dems just did the expedient thing and recognized that the truth wouldn't fit on a bumper sticker and just relinquished the point... That's more a commentary on Joe Public than the realities opf the Surge... Historians will trump the PR people and one day there will be books expalining what happened but right now the PR folks are still riding in 1st place... But that doesn't make them right... Certain lies just have longer shelg lifes... The Surge is one of them... And in the words of Walter Cronkite, "That's the way it is..." B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 31 Jan 09 - 10:27 AM Washington post August 12, 2008 Peter Mansour: How The Surge Worked Given the divisive debate over the Iraq war, perhaps it was inevitable that the accomplishments of the recently concluded "surge" would become shrouded in the fog of 30-second sound bites. Too often we hear that the dramatic security improvement in Iraq is due not to the surge but to other, unrelated factors and that the positive developments of the past 18 months have been merely a coincidence. To realize how misleading these assertions are, one must understand that the "surge" was more than an infusion of reinforcements into Iraq. Of greater importance was the change in the way U.S. forces were employed starting in February 2007, when Gen. David Petraeus ordered them to position themselves with Iraqi forces out in neighborhoods. This repositioning was based on newly published counterinsurgency doctrine that emphasized the protection of the population and recognized that the only way to secure people is to live among them. To be sure, some units conducted effective counterinsurgency operations before the surge, including Col. H.R. McMaster's 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment in Tall Afar in 2005 and Col. Sean MacFarland's 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division, in Ramadi in 2006. More generally, however, the coalition approach before 2007 was focused on rapidly shifting security responsibilities to Iraqi forces. As sectarian violence spiraled out of control, it became increasingly evident that Iraqi forces were unable to prevent its spread. By the fall of 2006, it was clear that our strategy was failing, an assessment courageously stated by Gen. George Casey and U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad in their year-end review of the Joint Campaign Plan. The arrival of additional U.S. forces signaled renewed resolve. Sunni tribal leaders, having glimpsed the dismal future in store for their people under a regime controlled by al-Qaeda in Iraq and fearful of abandonment, were ready to throw in their lot with the coalition. The surge did not create the first of the tribal "awakenings," but it was the catalyst for their expansion and eventual success. The tribal revolt took off after the arrival of reinforcements and as U.S. and Iraqi units fought to make the Iraqi people secure. Over time, in areas where there were insufficient forces to provide security, U.S. commanders extended contracts to Sunni (and some Shiite) tribes that volunteered to stand up against al-Qaeda in Iraq. These payments ensured that tribesmen could feed their families until the economy recovered and services improved. Payments generally followed the commencement of tribal rebellions and were not, as some claim, their cause. As U.S. units established smaller outposts and destroyed al-Qaeda havens, the area under Iraqi and coalition control expanded. Security improved dramatically after the last surge units arrived and the Multi-National Corps-Iraq, under Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, commenced a relentless series of operations to drive insurgents out of their long-held sanctuaries. Improved security led to greater Iraqi confidence and lessened the need for, and acceptance of, Shiite militias that for too long held sway in many neighborhoods. When the Mahdi Army instigated a gun battle in Karbala last August that forced the cancellation of a major Shiite religious observance, the resulting public pressure compelled Moqtada al-Sadr to declare a unilateral cease-fire. Without the improved security conditions created by the surge, this cease-fire would not have been declared; nor could it have been observed, because the militia would still have been needed to protect Shiite communities from terrorist attacks. The increase in U.S. forces, moreover, was dwarfed by the concurrent expansion of Iraqi forces by more than 140,000 troops. Over time, Iraqi units grew more capable and increasingly took the lead in providing security, backed by coalition advisers, ground forces, intelligence and air power. Operations this spring in Basra, Baghdad, Mosul and elsewhere -- though not always smooth -- have demonstrated the growing effectiveness of the Iraqi army. Without the change in strategy and additional forces provided by the surge, the effort to improve the capabilities of Iraqi forces would have died stillborn, swallowed by the sectarian violence that was ripping Iraq apart by the end of 2006. The Iraq war is not over, but our war effort is on a firmer foundation. In the end, the Iraqis, appropriately, will determine their future. The surge has created the space and time for the competition for power and resources in Iraq to play out in the political realm, with words instead of bombs. Success is not guaranteed, but such an outcome would be a fitting tribute to the sacrifices of the men and women of Multi-National Force-Iraq and their ongoing efforts, along with their Iraqi partners, to turn around a war that was nearly lost less than two years ago. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 31 Jan 09 - 10:29 AM Mishawaka surgeon discusses his view of Iraq What he saw there changed his life, he says. January 26. 2009 Oral surgeon Russell Linman has no qualms about being blunt during his lectures about the war in Iraq. He shows people pictures of amputees and of soldiers' faces before he did his best to reconstruct them. "It gives people a better idea of what is going on over there," Linman said. Linman, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel, served in a military hospital in Balad, north of Baghdad, from May to September 2005. Linman, 47, was with other surgeons in the 332nd Expeditionary Medical Group. His job was to perform major reconstructive surgery, specializing in serious facial injuries. What he saw changed his life forever, he said. Linman, who works in Mishawaka, has lectured almost a dozen times on his experiences in Iraq. His next lecture will be at 8 p.m. Tuesday at the VFW at 1750 W. Plymouth St. in Bremen. The speech is open to the public. Linman recently sat down with Tribune staff writer Tom Moor and talked about what it was like to serve in Iraq........................ Q: What do you try and teach people during your lecture? A: I try and show people war has changed, because it's a terror-based war. There's not two combatant armies going against each other. I don't know what it was like in Vietnam, but I think what's going on over there is quite a bit different. Soldiers have better armor now, so there's not as many casualties. I never felt like I was going to die, although mortars were coming in. I felt I had good support in the U.S. compared to other wars. ... I feel like people are somewhat misled about what's going on over there. The surge, I was in support for it to begin with, and it worked. http://www.southbendtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090126/News01/901260305 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 31 Jan 09 - 10:55 AM USA Today January 22, 2009: ......At the time, sectarian violence was raging. American troops were dying at a rate of about 100 a month. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., declared the war lost. Obama and other Democrats favored a timetable for withdrawal as a way, they said, to force warring Sunnis and Shiites to make peace. President Bush rejected that approach and went in the other direction, surging more troops in Iraq and deploying them in neighborhoods. The surge, along with the turning of many Sunni groups against the insurgency, produced a dramatic reduction in casualties and violence. After refusing at first to state the obvious — that the surge worked — Obama acknowledged that it had succeeded beyond expectations. By the first presidential debate, his promise to "remove" troops had become to "reduce" them. Now that he's president, Obama has to do what's best for the nation. In the case of Iraq, that means disengaging in a way that preserves hard-won gains and vital U.S. interests. If the cost of a stable Iraq involves narrowing the definition of "combat" troops and leaving thousands as "trainers" or "advisers," it is a price worth paying. Ironically, Bush's surge made it far more likely that Obama's drawdown will be able to proceed on the new president's 16-month timeline. So, too, will an agreement already made between Iraq and the U.S. for a pullout of troops on a longer schedule, by the end of 2011. Iraq is on an apparent path to greater stability. Provincial elections are scheduled for the end of this month, national elections for later in the year.......... First withdrawal. Then reduce the number of troops. Then withdrawal in 16 months. Then withdrawal in 3 years. Then????????? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 31 Jan 09 - 11:14 AM David Quinn Friday January 23 2009 The surge worked, and he was one of the very few who supported it. Barack Obama opposed it. John McCain, to his credit, also supported it |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Stringsinger Date: 31 Jan 09 - 01:03 PM It's amazing how the military mindset has controlled the debate on Iraq by distorting the facts, promulgating their ideologies and beating their chests. The truth is that Bush lied us into Iraq, murdered our troops, inculcated torture and belongs in the dock of the World Court for treason. Sometimes the bagpipe becomes a windbag. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 31 Jan 09 - 02:28 PM Sawz: The assertion that the surge was successful is like a doctor bragging that amputating the leg stopped the gangrene, not mentioning that it was the doctor who had caused the gangrene infection in the first place. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 31 Jan 09 - 06:44 PM Amos, when the details of the election come in remember this: - Highest ever voter turn out in the USA was 64% - No MNF Troops were used in the patroling or policing of voting stations - This is the third free democratic election that the Iraqi People have been able to participate in thanks entirely to GWB. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 31 Jan 09 - 06:57 PM Teribus: I concur; it is the one bright spot in the whole mess of Bush's foreign policy. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: robomatic Date: 31 Jan 09 - 07:03 PM Wow, I want to mark this occasion of agreement. Now, let's see how long it lasts after our troops are out of there and the issue of Kursish sovereignty comes to the fore. I can't wait to see how folks here line up on it. I predict it will depend on whether folks identify the Kurds with Israelis, a dispossed people taking what once was theirs for their own no matter what the world thinks, or whether they will identify the Kurds as palestinians, a folk uprooted from their homes and villages by interlopers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 31 Jan 09 - 07:54 PM Oh, fir sure, roboz... Like I said, historians will sort out the Surge-Lie and the future will sort out a bunch of the other Bush-Lies... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Stringsinger Date: 01 Feb 09 - 04:06 PM The voter turnout in Iraq was a quagmire with hundreds of candidates. It afforded no legitimate consensus and was manipulated by the Bush Administration in the same was as was done in the Ukraine. True democracy has a hands-off policy by foreign powers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 01 Feb 09 - 04:51 PM True democracy is also dependent on an informed electorate... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 01 Feb 09 - 06:00 PM I suppose Stringsinger you preferred it as it was before when the electorate turned up and received their pre-arked voting forms. So there was confusion. Not surprising its only the third time that they have ever done this, thanks to GWB. 51% turn out for "local" elections. That's not too bad compared to most countries. Tell us Stringsinger and Bobert what was the percentage poll turn out for your last elections?? Most important of all was the increase in the Sunni vote. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 02 Feb 09 - 03:00 AM True democracy is also dependent on an informed electorate... If only those ignorant Arabs knew as much about their own country as you do. They do have a free press now, and access to all the international news agencies via satellite. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 02 Feb 09 - 08:00 AM Define free... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 02 Feb 09 - 09:19 AM As in they can print what they like without politicians interfering. A bit like our press. Do you want me to define international news agencies, satellites and the internet? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 02 Feb 09 - 11:37 AM "Define free.." - Bobert The freedom to throw shoes at visiting heads of State without being immediately executed |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Stringsinger Date: 02 Feb 09 - 12:44 PM Teribus, you have ignored that the man in question was practically beaten to death for his "infraction". This is not freedom. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 02 Feb 09 - 04:23 PM We don't have a fee press right here in the good 'ol US of A... What we have is a press perfectly willing to the the master's bidding... It no surprise that Governor Blagovitch tried to get some editiorial writers fired for sayin' bad stuff about him... That what politicans think they can get away with... Why would he think that??? (Geeze, Bobert... He might have been the only politican who ever tried to use his power to influnece the press??? Ya' ever think about that???) Well, yeah, right after I bought that "bridge to nowhere"... I mean, lets get real... The governemnt does influence the press.... What story wazs it that the Bush administration pushed the New York Times around over??? IT will come to me... But closer to home... Right after 9/11 the Bush administration scared the heck outta the Washington Post so bad that Post just went ahead an reported what the Bushite's wanted... I mean, day after day, week after week... Then a year and half later (on page A-17) the Washington Post printed a story which admitted to having not doen the hard work on questioning the Bush run-up-to-war... The Post said that it had fallen into a "culture"... What the Hell does "culture" mean??? So I wrote the Post and asked them what they had done to correct a situation where they could be swept into a "culture" again... That was 4 years ago and I'm still waiting for their answer... Then we read that part of the money for the Iraq war goes into paying writers in Iraq to write and publish propaganda??? Like what's that all about??? LIke I said, there ain't no free press... That is a mirage... A complete fairy tale... Don't Bogart that joint, my friend... Pass it over to me... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 02 Feb 09 - 04:51 PM Does that make you too ill-informed to vote? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 02 Feb 09 - 05:40 PM Now now Frank don't exaggerate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 03 Feb 09 - 07:43 AM Typical Bobert response... "First of all, don't call me "Blowhard Bobert" again 'er I'll hunt you down and extract a few of yer teeth... Got it??? Good..." I guess failure to accept Bobert's opinions, unproven and un-substantiated, is reason enough to warrent physical threats. I would think that threats of physical attack over mere words would definitely prove that Bobert does not have the right to exist. Or does he only apply such to others, and not to the Ubermensch, himslf? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 03 Feb 09 - 08:24 AM Ain't no place fir name-callin', bb... If I can argue a point without resorting to it then others can, as well... Okay, I teasingly will refer to groups of people as knotheads but I don't go personalizing... Like if I called you "Blowhard Bruce" that would be out-of-bounds... Sawz knew that when he personalized his attack... Even you know the difference, bb, as you have quit that "liar" phase you were going thru... Far as can see that personalizing with the "Blowhard Bobert" is a form of cyber-bullying... I don't take kindly to folks trying to bully me here any more than I do in the real world and as I have done with you when you were going thru yer "liar" phase I stood up[ to Sawz little attempt to cyber bully me here... Ya' see, if I didn't call him on it then he would have thought it was perfectly okay to just persoanliz the discussion from here out so rather that try to get the toothpaste back in the tube I nipped it in the bud before it gained traction... See the various "bullying" threads... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 03 Feb 09 - 10:04 AM And I only call people who are lying "liars" When they stop being liars, I stop calling them that. So physical threats are ok, whenever you go over the line towards others???? Just want to be sure I understand what YOU are saying here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 03 Feb 09 - 11:52 AM As reported in the Guardian no less: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/03/comment-iraq-elections |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 03 Feb 09 - 06:37 PM Yeah, bb, physical threats are okay when you have a cyber-bully thinking that jus' because when they write what they write they are doing it from the satety of their own home... Bullying and name calling are forms of violence and, hey, in martial arts you don't go looking for fights but you are allowed to defend yourself... You wouldn't like it if I persoanlized the discussion here and started calling you "Blowhard Bruce"... That would be disrespectfull... There are lines here in cyber world, especially here in a site devoted to folk music, that should never be crossed... You croosed it the first time you called me a "liar" and Sawx crossed it when he thought he could just get by callin' me Blowhard Bobert"... I won't allow either of those rude behaviors to go un-challenged... If you can't argue/debate an issue without resorting to cyber bullying/violence then you have a problem... Especially here... There are plenty of other places in cyber world where that's all folks do but... ... not here... It disrespects Mudcat... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 03 Feb 09 - 10:31 PM I never called you a liar Bobert but how many times have you called someone else a liar? The term was used because you refused to answer. And exactly what does blowhard mean? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Feb 09 - 07:19 AM Bobert, "You croosed it the first time you called me a "liar"" When you choose to make a statement that you cannot support with facts, repeating it after being informed it is not true ( and given sources for that assessment) and persist in telling us we must accept it because you say so, even when the "Bobert Fact" is physically impossible, YOU ARE TELLING A LIE. (Yelling intended, since you seem to think you are God, and have problems hearing what you do not agree with. That makes you a liar in THAT circumstance: False statement pointed out, sources given as to it being false, and you continueing to insist that it must be so because you want it to be. "hey, in martial arts you don't go looking for fights but you are allowed to defend yourself..." Except that you do not allow others to defend themselves from your false statements and accusations, without making physical threats against them. As for calling names, you seem quite happy doing so yourself. Better look at that 2x4 in your own eye, friend. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 04 Feb 09 - 11:26 AM Hey Bobert, here's the latest on your "source" for the one million dead Iraqi civilians - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7869317.stm Even the guy who came out with the article never mentioned one million - "the Lancet medical journal in 2006 that 650,000 civilians had died since 2003." BBC item also goes on: "The AAPOR's executive council said in a statement carried by the Associated Press news agency: "When asked to provide several basic facts about this research, Burnham refused." It said it wanted to know the wording of questions asked and instructions and explanations given to respondents. "Dr Burnham provided only partial information and explicitly refused to provide complete information about the basic elements of his research," said Mary Losch, chair of the association's standards committee. She added that Dr Burnham's refusal to co-operate "violates the fundamental standards of science, seriously undermines open public debate on critical issues and undermines the credibility of all survey and public opinion research." Hey Bobert guess what?? One million Iraqi's HAVE NOT BEEN killed. Next time you trot out that complete and utter falsehood without substantive proof there will be someone else crossing that line and calling you a liar. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Feb 09 - 11:35 AM Actually, T, I would cut Bobert slack on that- 650,000 does round up to 1 million... But as fro 4 million Palestinian refugees in 1948 ( greater than the ENTIRE population (including Jews) of Palestine, including the West Bank) and the non-existant "nuclear bunker buster" being given to Israel, Bobert has a long way before I can accept anything he says as true without reliable source information. Except when he talks about the Blues, of course. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 04 Feb 09 - 05:43 PM No, T, that is not my source... My source is http;//www.justforiegnpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html ...which has the death count at well over a million now... BTW, I don't recall mentioning "4 million Palestianian refugees in 1948"... I do recalll the bunker buster bomb and am not convinced that the US didn't spike it with a little nuclear material... Yeah, I know the "official" version is that the plan was scrapped... But the Bush administration wasn't the most forcoming in telling the truth so... ...who knows... We do know that it was "officially" talked about... What else... Oh yeah... Thanks, bb, for them nice words about my knowledge of blues... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 04 Feb 09 - 07:08 PM Now we got this from Bobert: "No, T, that is not my source... My source is http;//www.justforiegnpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html ...which has the death count at well over a million now..." Now the source that was mentioned in the link that I provided contained the following - "the Lancet medical journal in 2006 that 650,000 civilians had died since 2003." This is what Bobert's source says in its opening lines: "The number is shocking and sobering. It is at least 10 times greater than most estimates cited in the US media, yet it is based on a scientific study of violent Iraqi deaths caused by the U.S.-led invasion of March 2003. That study, published in prestigious medical journal The Lancet, estimated that over 600,000 Iraqis had been killed as a result of the invasion as of July 2006." Yet Bobert states that the figures given in the Lancet article, figures that were taken from the John Hopkins Study are not his source. While Bobert's source clearly states that their figures are based on the same incorrect and incomplete study that lacks all credibility that John Hopkins had published in the Lancet. http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html Same study Bobert, ONE MILLION IRAQIS HAVE NOT BEEN KILLED. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 04 Feb 09 - 07:26 PM First of all, I recognize that the Lancet study is probably a little high at 1.3 million but I also doubt very much the figures that the propagandists (governemnt) are putting out... Whereas it does really matter to every family memeber who has lost a loved one lets just for one minute take the propagandists numbers... If we do that then the new story is 130,000 Iraqis have been killed for nothing... Does that make you any happier, T??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 05 Feb 09 - 01:39 AM You doing a bit of research and coming out with the truth for once and checking your facts would make me happy Bobert. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 05 Feb 09 - 07:58 AM This from the guy who bought every dnaged kie that Bush abd Blair told him??? LOL, T... You are the one who has been proven to be on the wrong side of history and thr truth... You cannnot dodge that reality... Too many folk here *have* been paying attention... You must think that evryone here was born last night... Denial, denial, denial... Shame on you for continuing to rationalize supporting this war... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 05 Feb 09 - 05:24 PM Bobert I can assure you that I have never a single dnaged kie in my life let alone every dnaged kie. Not knowing what, or how big a dnaged kie is, I wouldn't know if I had enough space to keep them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 06 Feb 09 - 01:35 AM Now, don't gey me wrong. Some is purdy cool, ahhh,, like Amos, Little Hawk, Bee-Dubya, Kendall, Jerry Rassmussen, Nicole, CarolC and JtS, but most of collectively add up to a big ol, ahhhh, snore! Except the big jerks like Teribus, troll and DougR, who think that George Junior is God.... Enough, let me go on over there, light a stink bomb and skeee-adddle. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 06 Feb 09 - 07:49 AM You go right ahead, Sawz... Light one fir me, too, while yer at it... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: TIA Date: 06 Feb 09 - 12:45 PM From a March 2008 Guardian Article on exactly this controversy (meaning Lancet vs. IBC vs. ORB vs. WHOI et. al.): "The controversy will clearly run and run, probably long after the Iraq war eventually ends. One thing is certain, and it provides no comfort for Bush, Blair and other occupation supporters. They continue to claim that, whatever errors may have been committed since the invasion, the judgment of history will be that the toppling of a brutal dictatorship was an unmitigated benefit. That alone means the invasion was a blessing for the people of Iraq. Alas for Bush and Blair, most statisticians do not support their case. Nor can any journalist or other independent witness who has seen the pain of the bereaved still living in post-invasion Iraq or the millions who have escaped to Jordan and Syria. Estimates of the Iraqi deaths caused by Saddam's regime amount to a maximum of one million over a 35-year period (100,000 Kurds in the Anfal campaign in the 1980s; 400,000 in the war against Iran; 100,000 Shias in the suppressed uprising of 1991; and an unknown number executed in his prisons and torture chambers). Averaged over his time in power, the annual rate does not exceed 29,000. Only the conservatively calculated Iraq Body Count death toll credits the occupation with an average annual rate that is less than that - some 18,000 deaths in the five years so far. Every other source, from the WHO to the surveys of Iraqi households, puts the average well above the Saddam-era figure. Those who claim Saddam's toppling made life safer for Iraqis have a lot of explaining to do." full article with discussion of the merits and flaws of the various counts is here a lot of 'splainin' to do..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 06 Feb 09 - 01:03 PM Now let's see using your figures TIA in 24 years Saddam killed 1 million. In six years the strategic bombing of Germany resulted in just under 600,000 deaths. This involved the worlds first ever fleets of strategic bombers numbering hundreds in individual raids on Germany dropping thousands of tons of bombs. We are now asked to believe that in three years the US killed 1,000,000 with far fewer aircraft and about 1/100th of the forces available to Eisenhower?? Somehow those sums just do not add up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 06 Feb 09 - 01:30 PM Bobert brags about lighting stink bombs like this thread, calls people jerks, and accuses others of being a troll. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Stringsinger Date: 06 Feb 09 - 04:04 PM There are no accurate figures available on the slaughter of Iraqis. This has been grossly bandied about for political reasons. Bushies were inconsistent in their reporting. We just do not know. We do know this, though. There have been too many losses. There is no democracy in Iraq or any other reason to justify this slaughter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 06 Feb 09 - 04:13 PM You must really be bored, Sawz... Thanks fir the link, TIA... And right you are, Stringz... There is no justification now that we know the real truth... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 06 Feb 09 - 10:22 PM Acyually, there is a partial democracy in Iraq, a sort of tribal/cultist/thugee democracy. Better than what they had. But at the price? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 07 Feb 09 - 10:36 PM 1) Without question, Iraq was a nation that provided "safe haven" for terrorists with "global reach". Among them were terrormaster Abu Nidal, Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the conspirators in the 1993 WTC bombing, "Khala Khadr al-Salahat, the man who reputedly made the bomb for the Libyans that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over...Scotland,"Abu Abbas, mastermind of the October 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking and murder of Leon Klinghoffer," & "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, formerly the director of an al Qaeda training base in Afghanistan" who is now believed to be leading Al-Qaeda's forces in Iraq. Quite frankly, any war on terrorism that didn't tackle that nest of vipers would have been a war in name only. 2) As George Bush has said many times, the war on terrorism CANNOT BE WON without stopping rogue nations from supporting terrorist groups. Since we had more than a decade of experience that showed it was impossible to reason with Saddam, it was clear that war was the only way to stop him from supporting terrorists. In other words, as long as Saddam Hussein remained in power, the war on terrorism would have been unwinnable. 3) As Vladimir Putin revealed, Russian intelligence believed Saddam was planning terrorist attacks inside the US, "I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received...information that official organs of Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations." Because George Bush acted, we may have been spared Iraqi terrorist attacks here in the United States. 4) One of the likely reasons that we've seen such a decrease in Palestinian terrorist attacks in Israel is because Saddam is no longer around to pay the families of suicide bombers $25,000 per homicide bombing. How many buses and pizza parlors full of Israeli women and children would have been blown into chunks by now if John Kerry had his way and Saddam were left in power? 5) While Iraq has not been implicated in the 9/11 attacks, Iraq has had ties to Al-Qaeda for more than a decade. The evidence of this is irrefutable and the people who are denying it are doing so for political purposes. Here are just a couple of quotes that prove what I'm saying... "(Abu Musab al) Zarqawi was said to have received medical treatment in Baghdad in May and June of 2002 after being wounded in Afghanistan during the war. His leg was amputated, U.S. officials say, by a surgeon in Iraq. Before the war, Secretary of State Colin Powell pointed to Zarqawi's al Qaeda-affiliated group that he said was operating inside Baghdad, as evidence of ties between al Qaeda and Iraq." -- Today, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who was in Iraq before the war began, is leading terrorist attacks against the Coalition and Iraqi people. "Credible reporting states that al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs." -- CIA Director George Tenet in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee on October 7, 2002 6) Because we're fighting in the Middle-East, terrorists who might otherwise be coming to America to kill civilians are coming into Iraq to fight our troops. George Bush prefers it that way. He'd rather have the best trained soldiers ever to walk the planet fighting the terrorists in Iraq rather than here at home. If John Kerry had his way, we might have civilians being attacked by those same terrorists in the streets of New York, LA, or Chicago. Which makes more sense; soldiers fighting the terrorists in Iraq or civilians being attacked by them here in the US? 7) Even though the Deulfer report has revealed there were no stockpiles of WMD in Iraq, it also says that they were waiting for an opportunity to produce them, "ISG has no evidence that IIS Directorate of Criminology (M16) scientists were producing CW or BW agents in these laboratories. However, sources indicate that M16 was planning to produce several CW agents including sulfur mustard, nitrogen mustard, and Sarin." What the Deulfer report is saying echoes what the man Deulfer replaced, David Kay, said earlier, "Even those senior officials we have interviewed who claim no direct knowledge of any on-going prohibited activities readily acknowledge that Saddam intended to resume these programs whenever the external restrictions were removed." Weren't we better off taking Saddam out when he didn't have WMDs than waiting until he did have them in stock? 8) Iraq was not completely free of WMDs. "10 or 12 sarin and mustard gas shells" have been found. Furthermore, it's of course possible that there are more we haven't found yet. There was also plenty of radioactive material Saddam could have given to terrorists to make a dirty bomb. So did Saddam Hussein have the capability of giving WMDs to terrorists? Yes, he did. Apparently, John Kerry has no problem with that. 9) Because we invaded Iraq, nations like Iran and North Korea cannot blithely disregard the idea that we will attack them and they'll be much more likely to make a deal with us, just as Libya did. As Mark Steyn said, "You don't invade Iraq in order to invade everywhere else, you invade Iraq so you don't have to invade everywhere else." 10) Obviously Saddam had such poor judgement that it was dangerous to allow him to stay in power. Just look at this quote... "It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world....He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel. ...We should not go to war because these things are in his past, but we should be prepared to go to war because of what they tell us about the future." You know who said that back on 10/09/02? John Kerry. He was right the first time. 11) By taking out Saddam Hussein, we freed more than 25 million Iraqis and are helping them towards Democracy. This is no small thing given that Democrats justified military intervention in places like Bosnia and Haiti SOLELY on humanitarian grounds. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 08 Feb 09 - 08:27 AM Why not just assasinate him, Sawz??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 08 Feb 09 - 11:36 AM The Promise In Iraq's Rebirth The Washington Post February 7, 2009; Page A13 By Samir Sumaida'ie Iraq's ambassador to the United States. When the United States went into Iraq in 2003, Americans had a very limited understanding of the country. Political pundits tended to reduce Iraq to neat categories: an oppressed Shiite majority; a Sunni minority linked to Saddam Hussein's regime; and the Kurds, who had no interest in remaining in Iraq. The strife between these supposedly monolithic communities was often portrayed as permanent and violent. Much has happened since 2003. Iraq has emerged as a complex and sophisticated society with layers of identity and a diversity of loyalties and interests, all of which are in a dynamic state of change as the country makes an untidy yet fundamental transition from absolute dictatorship, through occupation and violence, to the beginning of a functioning parliamentary democracy. The significance of the recent local elections must be understood within the context of this transition and change. What these elections reveal is far more than the relative strength or popularity of the various political players -- though this is important and should be studied carefully. These elections have shown that, finally, those who refused to accept the new order and were determined to defeat it by rendering the country ungovernable through violence have come to realize that they have lost; that the political process is the only game in town and that it is in their best interest to play by the new rules. ad_icon Those who had descended upon Iraq to defeat the United States through terrorism, initially finding favor and support from the "rejectionists," have themselves been rejected by the Iraqi people. Their strategy to ignite a sectarian civil war has failed. And though they still pose a threat to security, those extremist Islamists were comprehensively and strategically defeated in a Muslim country, a development of profound significance. The elements in Iraq who thought that they could dominate and create a new form of dictatorship with the trappings of democracy have discovered that they must accept the principles of power sharing. Furthermore, the elections have proved wrong those who had claimed that Iraqis could not comprehend democracy and therefore could not abide by its rules. The world watched as millions of ordinary Iraqis, proudly displaying their purple forefingers, declared their desire to choose their leaders, and the leaders themselves demonstrated their ability to make adjustments and compromises.This is not to say that Iraq has finally and irrevocably arrived at a perfect form of democracy. Far from it. Iraq is still beset by daunting external and internal challenges. It does, however, mean that after defeating the extremists and terrorists among its people and demonstrating a repulsion for sectarianism and a will to stay united, Iraq is set to consolidate all that it has achieved, with considerable help from the United States and others. At the most critical junctures of this transition, Iraqis have demonstrated their independence and unity. This has given them more confidence in their future. Those who thought that they could dominate Iraq from outside, directly or by proxy, surely have realized that their influence will always be limited. Looking ahead, the exact speed with which American troops are withdrawn must be determined by joint consultations between the political and military leaders of both countries within the parameters of the status-of-forces agreement. But the continued engagement of the United States in Iraq will be vital to ensuring that what has been achieved is not jeopardized, though the emphasis will inevitably shift from military issues to economic and diplomatic matters. Our nations have mutual interests in Iraq's future. The success of Iraq would be an outstanding success of American foreign policy. If Iraq succeeds, it has the potential to become one of the most important assets and allies of the United States. This is the beginning of a new era in our relationship, one that opens the way to a flourishing economic, cultural, political and diplomatic partnership that augurs well for the future. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 08 Feb 09 - 11:55 AM Bobert: Assuming that you are referring to Saddam Hussein: In 1976, President Gerald R. Ford issued Executive Order 11905 to clarify U.S. foreign-intelligence activities. In a section of the order labeled "Restrictions on Intelligence Activities," Ford concisely but explicitly outlawed political assassination: 5(g) Prohibition on Assassination. No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination. Since 1976, every U.S. president has upheld Ford's prohibition on assassinations. In 1978, President Jimmy Carter issued an executive order with the chief purpose of reshaping the intelligence structure. In Section 2-305 of that order, Carter reaffirmed the U.S. prohibition on assassination. In 1981, President Reagan, through Executive Order 12333, reiterated the assassination prohibition: 2.11 No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination. Reagan was the last president to address the topic of political assassination. Because no subsequent executive order or piece of legislation has repealed the prohibition, it remains in effect. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Stringsinger Date: 08 Feb 09 - 03:07 PM There is a lot of misinformation being bandied about here which obscures the problem with Iraq. They don't want the US there. The US is an occupier. Although there are a handful of so-called terrorist leaders in many countries, terrorism is not as major a problem as poverty, corruption in government, overarching militarism and the malfeasance of the defense industry including the introduction of mercenaries such as Blackwater. Triple Canopy and other "privatized" organizations. Saddam was placed in command by the US as a reaction to Iran. The US set him up and knocked down. I question the veracity of long-winded statements which in themselves require hours of rebuttal. Blanketing the issue with these pompous pronouncements do not promote a healthy discussion of this issue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 08 Feb 09 - 04:19 PM So Iraq is a complex and layered society??? Duhhh??? Is that a surprise to anyone... It has been for hundreds of years and was doing okay until colonialists thought that it needed their intervention... As to executive orders... Are you really telling me it's okay to invade a soveriegn nation, kill upwards of a million people but noy okay to kill just one guy, Sawz??? Think about just how narrow minded that sounds... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 08 Feb 09 - 04:24 PM Sounds like a pompous statement to me. Trite. You can always present some correct information. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 08 Feb 09 - 06:37 PM It takes a very twisted imagination to think that it's okay to kill a million people rather than just one... Like who gives a flying fig about a 20 year old presidential order is those are the 2 choices... Choice A: Follow a 20 year old presidential order, kill a million people, then kill Saddam or... Choice B: Just kill Saddam and call it a day... Ya' know, Sawz, you would make a lousy military leader because you have no ability to use common sense... You remind me of my brother-in-law who was also narrow minded and had no common sense... He was a career Army officer who did everything by the book... He was apssed over for promotions all his life becasue of it... You should read about Stonewall Jackson... Thqat was aman who would have fully understood the arguments that those4 of us on this side have repeatedly made... The book ain't gonna give you all the answersw... It didn't for my brother-in-law, it ain't for T and it ain't for you... You can live yer life by an instruction manual if you like but keep this in mind: The mind is like a parachute, it's only works if it is open... But you go ahead a stick with yer petty little presdiential order from Jerry Ford if that makes you fell any less guilty about the million Iraqis you and yers have murdered... Yes, you... You hand is in it as deep as Bush's becuase you refuse to admit that you were (and are) wrong... Blix gave you and Bush an out but you were too steeoed in pride and dogma to take it... Very sad for you... Very sad, indeed... There is no revisionism here to turn the chicken shit into chicken salad... You have chosen to cast your lot with people who historians will one day mention with Magabe and Hitler... Like I said....Very sad for you... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 09 Feb 09 - 04:37 AM Assassinating Saddam Hussein would have accomplished nothing in terms of improving the lot of the people of Iraq, or of increasing security in the region as a whole. As like Assad's succession in Syria, Saddam would have been replaced by one, or other of his sons, who potentially were a damn sight worse than their father. Saddam Hussein could only ever been killed in the manner he actually was. Saddam Hussein had to be removed from power - which he was Put on trial in an Iraqi Court to answer the charges against him - which he was Executed in accordance with Iraqi Law - which he was. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Barry Finn Date: 09 Feb 09 - 09:15 AM Ha, Ha, Ha! He was dethroned by an invading military force, the country was thrown into upheaval, he was tried & hung in Kangroo style & fashion. How barbaric of us to think we had cause & right, anymore than if Spain, France, Russia invading US becasue they were tired of US being the "One & Only" superpower calling all the shots. Iragqi law is nothing more that the will of the occupyer. Iraqi court, of our "pick & choosing". Load up the bases, here we go again. It wasn't a great place to live but we wanted him in power & we put him there, then we didn't want him in power so we took him out. We had no right to be manipulating nations to our will in the first place. They were the most educated nation of peoples in the mid-east & we came in & blew them back into the stone age & blew their asses off in the process too. Are we proud yet, are we having fun yet, are we fucking broke yet??????? Nothing could ever give US the right, we should all be ashamed of what our nation did. But some will forever continue to rationalize it by saying we brought peace & democracy to the masses. We reigned hell on them, in the name of financial power, balance & gain. Who do you think you/we are fooling???? Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 09 Feb 09 - 09:58 AM "It wasn't a great place to live but we wanted him in power & we put him there,...." That Barry is a lie and you know it. However if you do believe it to be true perhaps you can provide some detail by way of substantiation "we wanted him in power & we put him there" - I take it the "we" is the USA. Now why did the US want Saddam in power in 1979?? And exactly how did the USA go about putting him in there?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: TIA Date: 09 Feb 09 - 10:36 AM Teribus - "my figures" ? ? ? Read more carefully please. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 09 Feb 09 - 10:53 AM Your figures TIA = the ones that you posted in order to make your point regarding there being a lot of explaining to be done. During Saddam's 24 year period in office he killed on average between 154 and 282 people every day depending on what statistics include. For anyone to attempt to say that the US has been responsible for the same number, if not more, in one quarter of the time is ludicrous. The IBC web-site has a very good appraisal and evaluation of the John Hopkins Study figures that were published in the Lancet - basically rips it to bits - It doesn't surprise me for one second that the man responsible for the John Hopkins Study is not all that keen on full transparency. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Stringsinger Date: 09 Feb 09 - 12:47 PM The US has over the years done it's share of killing to eclipse what Saddam has done. Hiroshima, Nagasaki etc. etc. Saddam was a gangster. But what America has done in terms of killing innocents exceeds that of Saddam. If you evaluate the history of comparing the US and Iraq in terms of taking human lives, it is absurd to think that Iraq has done more of this. Once again, the barrage of "factoids" that are exhibited as some kind of proof in an attempt to overwhelm specific rebuttals of their nonsense is a ploy used by think tanks. I wonder which think tank some of you are swimming in? Stngsngr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Barry Finn Date: 09 Feb 09 - 04:57 PM That kind of thinking would give nations cause to contemplate reign change in the US? Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 09 Feb 09 - 05:18 PM And the problem with the "154 to 282" people killed every day by Saddam is, at best, dubious... Now if Amnesty International was saying this in 2001 it would have some level of crdibility but there are so many governmental agncies and so-called non-profits with axes to gring that these numbers are most likely as the bogus excuses that ya'll have given to justify this immoral and illegal war... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Folkiedave Date: 09 Feb 09 - 05:30 PM It doesn't surprise me for one second that the man responsible for the John Hopkins Study is not all that keen on full transparency. Whereas the US Government has always been in favour of full transparency. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 09 Feb 09 - 11:15 PM Bobert: How come you blast Bush and claim he has broken the law and needs to be impeached but he should have violated presidential executive orders? You have him in a no win situation. No matter what he did, it was wrong according to you. I agree, it would have been better to assassinate the SOB but it would not be Kosher and it would lead to all kind of liberal whining, crying and sucking snot about imperialisim. Yeah, I agree too many people got killed but to let the situation continue would eventually cost more lives to be lost later on. Why in the hell didn't Clinton really go after UBL in Afghanistan and get the bastard then? Or for that matter, why didn't Bush I keep after Saddam when he had him on the run? Either action would have saved many more lives down the road. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 10 Feb 09 - 12:54 AM "The US has over the years done it's share of killing to eclipse what Saddam has done. Hiroshima, Nagasaki etc. etc. Saddam was a gangster. But what America has done in terms of killing innocents exceeds that of Saddam." - Stringsinger Oh I don't think so Frank, even including Hiroshima and Nagasaki which were acts of war in time of war and perfectly justifiable. I note that in addressing the killing of innocents you omit to give mention to the worst offenders since the end of the Second World War - Now why is that Frank?? The FOIA applies to the US Government Folkiedave it doesn't to the man who did the study for John Hopkins. The study including its timing for release was entirely politically motivated and fortunately was so ridiculous and at odds with information coming out of Iraq at the time that it failed to help Kerry in the 2004 Presidential Election. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 10 Feb 09 - 07:52 AM Neither Hioshima nor Nagasaki were justified... They were not "acts of war"... They were terrrorism as it's worst because they were intended to kill civilians along with everything else... The US could have dropped the bomb off the coast of Japan as a demonstartion of it's "new weapon" and that would have had the same effect in terms of ending the war... As for the numbers of folks killed every day by Saddame that T and others stand by??? Consider the source... Propaganda is just that... After a while folks like T actually beleieve what Hitler referred to as the "Big Lie"... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 10 Feb 09 - 11:26 AM "Neither Hioshima nor Nagasaki were justified..." Now this is a very easy thing for Bobert to trot out in February 2009. Might have had a slightly different slant on it had he been a serving member of the USMC bobbing about off the coast of Japan on an assault transport in 1945. But then I would doubt very much that Bobert would ever have placed himself in that situation - he prefers to enjoy to the full the freedoms that other people fight for on his behalf. "The US could have dropped the bomb off the coast of Japan as a demonstartion of it's "new weapon" and that would have had the same effect in terms of ending the war..." Pure speculation Bobert and as such irrelevant and pointless. I could suggest that Hirohito and Tojo could have been sent photographs of the test firing with a 78rpm gramaphone recording of the sound the explosion made and that would have had the same effect - I don't believe it for one minute, but it doesn't stop me suggesting it, like I said irrelevant and pointless. Well shall we just take look at how Saddam's "average" daily figures for his 24 year reign of terror are derived Bobert. - How about official Iraqi records Bobert? You see when Saddam, or his sons said they wanted somebody killed the person they ordered to do it had to prove it, otherwise he might suffer the same fate. that propaganda Bobert?? - How about excavation of mass graves Bobert?? Were they all make believe Bobert?? - How about official battle casualty figures Bobert, I take it that they were all made up as well. - How about corroborated eye-witness accounts Bobert - All made up?? Now when someone tells me that so-and-so was arrested and there is a report of that arrest and paperwork stating that so-and-so entered into custody then I would tend to believe that so-and-so was indeed arrested. When the same someone tells me that they received notification that so-and-so was executed, and that eye-witnesses come forward who had seen so-and-so taken out to be executed, and further eye-witnesses state that they were so-and-so's executioners and indicate where so-and-so's body was disposed of and that on excavating that site so-and-so along with thousands of others are discovered - Then Bobert I would tend to believe that yes so-and-so has been executed on the orders of Saddam Hussein - No lie, big, or otherwise, about it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 10 Feb 09 - 01:44 PM "The US could have dropped the bomb off the coast of Japan as a demonstartion" Timeline for Bobert: On July 26, 1945, Truman and other allied leaders issued The Potsdam Declaration outlining terms of surrender for Japan. It was presented as an ultimatum and stated that without a surrender, the Allies would attack Japan, resulting in "the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland". Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki declared at a press conference that the Potsdam Declaration was no more than a rehash of the Cairo Declaration and that the government intended to ignore it. The statement was taken by both Japanese and foreign papers as a clear rejection of the declaration. No surrender. On 4 August 1945, American aircraft dropped leaflets on Hiroshima warning the citizens to expect terrible destruction to be visited upon their city because Japan had refused to surrender. Although many civilians had already been evacuated to the country, this warning was largely ignored. On August 6, the first atomic bomb was dropped on this city. At Hiroshima, 60,000 Japanese died and a similar number were injured. Still no surrender. Three days later, when the first atomic bomb had still evoked no response from Japan, a second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, a port with naval installations. The primary target on this day had been the city of Kokura where a huge army arsenal was located. Thick clouds over Kokura forced diversion of the B-29 with the second bomb to Nagasaki. At Nagasaki, 36,000 were killed and about 60,000 wounded. Japan Surrendered. PS: 80,000 people died in one conventional bomb attack on Tokyo on the night of 8/9 March 1945 than in Hiroshima the bombing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Stringsinger Date: 10 Feb 09 - 04:32 PM The above are not necessarily the correct facts of the situation. First of all, the rationale for using the atomic bomb was that Japan would not surrender. This is not the whole story. Japan was due to surrender because they were not successful in repelling the US. It was Truman's propaganda that was trotted out in order to use the bomb. Even if Japan had said they wouldn't surrender, they would have had to eventually without the use of the bomb. The 80,000 figure listed above sounds like a false estimate. How would anyone know this? It has to be speculated not factual. Timelines are easily constructed without regard for the truth. Stringsinger. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 10 Feb 09 - 04:50 PM "80,000 people died in one conventional bomb attack on Tokyo on the night of 8/9 March 1945 (more) than in Hiroshima the bombing." - Sawzaw. to which we got this from Stringsinger: "The 80,000 figure listed above sounds like a false estimate. How would anyone know this? It has to be speculated not factual." Really Frank?? Now I just bet with the way you speak about Hiroshima and Nagasaki that you are one of the outraged and concerned citizens who vehemently declare the Dresden raid a "war crime" in which you will claim that 135,000 to 225,000 people were killed. Yet when German records are examined the toll was actually somewhere between 18,000 and 25,000. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: TIA Date: 10 Feb 09 - 06:08 PM I am not surprised that Teribus clings to the IBC. From the Guardian link above: "Only the conservatively calculated Iraq Body Count death toll credits the occupation with an average annual rate that is less than that - some 18,000 deaths in the five years so far. Every other source, from the WHO to the surveys of Iraqi households, puts the average well above the Saddam-era figure." So, if IBC has ripped the Lancet study to shreds (a matter of opinion), they still need to rip the Baltimore study, the WHOI study, the ORB study, and the director of the Baghdad morgue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 10 Feb 09 - 06:34 PM No, T... My thoughts on the 2 nuclear strikes is not "irrelevant or pointless"... That is what seperates caring people from thugs... It is very relevant to this discusssion... Some folk, like you and others here, think that killing lots of people is the way that conflicts are solved... That doesn't solve the conflict... It just worsenes the conflict... This is the same thinking that causes men to beat up or kill their wives... They don't understand how to solve conflict... It is relavent to talk about people differing philosophies... If we don't then we are doomed to repeat history... I'm glad to see that folks like you are now on the outside and in the minority... The world is safer without testeserone driven foriegn olicy and we've had quite enough to testesterone over the last 8 years, thank you... So it is not at all pointless or irrelevat to discuss these issues just because you say so... The world has quit listening to your types and is loking for a littler more sanity and humanity... You and yers are on the wrong side of history and on the wrong side of the here-an-now... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 10 Feb 09 - 06:42 PM Bobert: What side of this history are you on? OWI presses were turning out leaflets that revealed the special nature of Hiroshima's destruction and predicted similar fates for more Japanese cities in the absence of immediate acceptance of the terms of the Potsdam agreement. By 9 August, more than 5 million leaflets about the atom bomb had been released over major Japanese cities. The OWI radio station beamed a similar message to Japan every 15 minutes. Front side of OWI notice #2106,View the leaflet dubbed the "LeMay bombing leaflet," which was delivered to Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and 33 other Japanese cities on 1 August 1945. The Japanese text on the reverse side of the leaflet carried the following warning: "Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or friend. In the next few days, some or all of the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs. These cities contain military installations and workshops or factories which produce military goods. We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique which they are using to prolong this useless war. But, unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America's humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives. America is not fighting the Japanese people but is fighting the military clique which has enslaved the Japanese people. The peace which America will bring will free the people from the oppression of the military clique and mean the emergence of a new and better Japan. You can restore peace by demanding new and good leaders who will end the war. We cannot promise that only these cities will be among those attacked but some or all of them will be, so heed this warning and evacuate these cities immediately. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 10 Feb 09 - 06:52 PM Gregg Zoroya, USA TODAY More than 600,000 Iraqis have died by violence since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, according to a study released Wednesday by researchers at Johns Hopkins University. The figure is based on surveys of households throughout most of the country. It vastly exceeds estimates cited by the Iraqi government, the United Nations, aid and anti-war groups, and President Bush. The new estimate was immediately challenged by the Pentagon. Lt. Col. Mark Bellesteros, a Pentagon spokesman, said the Iraqi government "would be in a better position ... to provide more accurate information on deaths in Iraq." Frederick Jones, a spokesman for the National Security Council said "many experts" found that a 2004 study by the same group "wildly inflated the findings." That study said the war had caused 100,000 Iraqi deaths. "This study appears to be equally flawed," he said. The new study said the deaths have resulted from coalition military activity, crime and religious violence.The Iraqi government dismissed the Johns Hopkins estimate. The toll in the report "exceeds the reality in an unreasonable way" and the report "gives inflated numbers in a way that violates all rules of research and the precision required of research institutions," Iraq spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said in a statement. "These numbers are far from the truth," al-Dabbagh said. The Iraqi government has never given an official number of people killed since the U.S. invasion. Iraq's Health Ministry has estimated 50,000 violent deaths since the war began, through June. Last December, President Bush put the figure at 30,000. The Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank, estimated the death toll at 60,000. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 10 Feb 09 - 07:22 PM Bobert: This whole thread is one of your stink bombs. You don't believe 600,000 iraqis were killed yourself. You are just trolling and messing with Tbus. "I'd mess with em' and they'd get all upset" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 10 Feb 09 - 07:34 PM A study that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by the antiwar billionaire George Soros. Soros, 77, provided almost half the nearly $100,000 cost of the research, which appeared in The Lancet, the medical journal. Its claim was 10 times higher than consensus estimates of the number of war dead. The study, published in 2006, right before the election was hailed by antiwar campaigners as evidence of the scale of the disaster caused by the invasion, but Downing Street and President George Bush challenged its methodology. “The authors should have disclosed the [Soros] donation and for many people that would have been a disqualifying factor in terms of publishing the research,â€쳌 said Michael Spagat, economics professor at Royal Holloway, University of London. The Lancet study was commissioned by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and led by Les Roberts, an associate professor and epidemiologist at Columbia University. He reportedly opposed the war from the outset. His team surveyed 1,849 homes at 47 sites across Iraq, asking people about births, deaths and migration in their households. Professor John Tirman of MIT said this weekend that $46,000 of the approximate $100,000 cost of the study had come from Soros’s Open Society Institute. Roberts said this weekend: “In retrospect, it was probably unwise to have taken money that could have looked like it would result in a political slant." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 10 Feb 09 - 07:46 PM
-Joe Offer] |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 10 Feb 09 - 09:59 PM Hey Bobert: Your words matter, once you say something it is said and you have to live with it, You can't sneak away from it by accusing somebody else of being sneaky. Now in that big bad study you use like a bludgeon to bully Tbus with, what was the base line they used? Come to find out, they cherry picked their baseline from a short little period with very little extermination by the Saddam regime. That blows that study away, exposes their bias and subjective results. Tom Grey answers David Crow's request the empirical basis for his statement on the number of dead under Saddam Hussein. Here is an excerpt:"Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 10 Feb 09 - 10:20 PM Ahhhhh, didn't matter much that the Kurds were trying to take him out... But wait, fir an extra $2.95 (plus shipping and handling) you'll get documentation that the US government had promised the Kurds they would support them against Saddam... Hmmmmmmk???... Heck, the US even provided the bad gas that was used against the Kurds... Even rewarded Saddam ****afterwards**** with all kinds of booty, including a gold plated M-16 rifle... Hmmmmmmmmm???? You got it wrong, Sawz... But what is new here??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 10 Feb 09 - 10:42 PM 2.95 is purdy cheap compared to what Soros paid to get the results he wanted. And it made him and you both happy. Another day, another stink bomb. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 10 Feb 09 - 11:43 PM March 16 and 17, 1988, Iraq dropped poison gas on the Kurdish city of Halabja, then held by Iranian troops and Iraqi Kurdish guerrillas allied with Tehran; throughout the war, Iran had supplied the Iraqi Kurdish rebels with safe haven and other military support. The poison gas attack on the Iraqi town of Halabja was the largest-scale chemical weapons (CW) attack against a civilian population in modern times. It began early in the evening of March 16, when a group of eight aircraft began dropping chemical bombs, and the chemical bombardment continued all night. The Halabja attack involved multiple chemical agents, including mustard gas, and the nerve agents sarin, tabun and VX. Some sources have also pointed to the blood agent hydrogen cyanide. While the United States did not supply full-fledged chemical weapons to Iraq, it did approve private business sales of biological weapon precursors to Iraq, according to a 1994 report issued by the US Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, the Riegle Report. It should be noted that the report does not provide proof of U.S. involvement in Iraqi chemical weapons and that the gas attack was carried out by Mustard gas and not a biological weapon. In addition, there is no evidence that Iraq ever used biological weapons in combat during the war with Iran. Several European nations also participated in arming Iraq, specifically Germany. German chemical companies and German Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical protective gear manufacturers also supplied the Iraqi Army and Rustimiya Officers Academy. Stores of German chemicals and training materials were found in June 2003 by U.S. soldiers in east Baghdad. I see Bobert, You claim the US was selling gas to Saddam to use against the Kurds at the same time that the US was backing the Kurds against Saddam and the Kurdish town that was gassed was being held by Iranian forces abd Iraqi Kurdish guerrillas on the side of Iran. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh something don't add up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 11 Feb 09 - 02:42 AM Ah Bobert, see you've got to the stage of now completely ignoring the points put to counter your rather weak arguements and are now simpley attacking the persons calling them into question. Iraq Body Count - Reality Check relating to the figures given in the John Hopkins Study: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/reality-checks/ I'll go with IBC as they take the trouble to check and confirm. From the above link, Press Release 14 dated 16th October 2006: If the Lancet figures are correct then - "The Coalition has killed far more Iraqis in the last year than in earlier years containing the initial massive "Shock and Awe" invasion and the major assaults on Falluja." - Simply does not add up, no wonder the man who conducted the study does not want to let anybody know what questions were asked to get his figures. But some people like Bobert and TIA will swallow anything, without question as long as it suits their arguement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 11 Feb 09 - 07:58 AM Yer a stuck record, T.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 11 Feb 09 - 08:48 AM Just like the facts, logic, reason and common-sense Bobert - and they all tell me that 1,300,000 Iraqi civilians have not been killed by the US in Iraq since 20th March 2003. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: TIA Date: 11 Feb 09 - 10:34 AM Okay, now how about ORB, Baltimore, WHOI, etc.? IBC is still the outlier in the statistical sense. Not saying they are wrong or biased or anything of the sort. All measures in all sciences tend to fall on a bell curve of some sort. Seizing upon the outlier and ignoring the rest of the distribution is not good science or logic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 11 Feb 09 - 10:39 AM "Seizing upon the outlier and ignoring the rest of the distribution is not good science or logic. " EXACTLY. I have not insisted on the IBC ( I think when IBC was 100,000 I used 300,000 as the most likely number)- I HAVE commented that Bobert's selection (and insistance on regardless of the facts) of the Lancet report, the definite outlier,required a lot more justification than he ever offered. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 11 Feb 09 - 10:41 AM the previous numbers were in reference to the TOTAL number of Iraqis killed BY ALL SOURCES- NOT just US. But I notice no-one cares how many are killed by insurgents supported, supplied, and funded by Iran. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 11 Feb 09 - 11:57 AM What about them TIA?? Didn't you provide a link from a Guardian article that covered all of them, detailing their methodology and their weaknesses. Out of all of them only one actually concerned itself with reported and confirmed deaths, care to tell us which one it was TIA. That organisation TIA now accepts single source accounts, they did use to use this information before to help establish "low" and "high" figures. The figures were presented to the world to indicate civilian casualties, but with most they also tossed in combatants casualty figures as well. So you have reported now approximately is as follows: - Iraq Body Count at just under 100,000 "high" - deaths as reported and verified. - Iraq Ministry of Health 150,000 approx - deaths as reported. - WHOI 233,000 - batch sampled estimate. - John Hopkins 655,000 - batch sampled estimate. - Baltimore (John Hopkins II) 1,300,000 - batch sampled estimate. - ORB 1,400,000 - batch sampled estimate. Now throughout the period of the Second World War 1,380,000 German civilians died just under 600,000 died as a result of Allied Bombing. That equates to the "estimated" figures conjured up by the Baltimore Study and by ORB. Now in all seriousness are you attempting to tell the people on this forum that more civilians have been killed in Iraq since March 2003 than were killed in Germany during the Second World War?? For the actual combat phase of the invasion in 2003 something like 9,100 Iraqi troops were killed and approximately 7,200 civilians were killed. During this period the US forces could count on a maximum of 1663 aircraft of all types. During the Second World War the Western Allies had 14,133 Bombers available and they dropped 1,588,062 tons of bombs on Nazi Germany. As I said before the figures just simply don't add up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: TIA Date: 11 Feb 09 - 02:04 PM Are you truly saying that the "confirmed" deaths represent the total of true deaths? There are no unreported or undocumented (by IBC standards) deaths? That would be astounding. Here in the modern, information highway USA, there are still people unaccounted for after Hurricane Katrina. These would not be confirmed deaths to the IBC. I am not knocking them or their methodology opr their purpose, but you do have to realize what their numbers represent. They are not the true or actual number, they are an absolute indisputable minimum. The truth goes up from there. One can legitimately argue how high, and that is what the other studies are doing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 11 Feb 09 - 05:19 PM No TIA the only thing regarding numbers killed that I have ever said is that one million plus Iraqi's have not died. i.e. the John Hopkins Study; the Balmoral Study and the ORB figures are all batch sampled estimates - rubbish trotted out at optimum times in order to further a political agenda. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: TIA Date: 11 Feb 09 - 05:27 PM And you are citing the IBC count as the basis for your opinion, so please understand what it represents. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 11 Feb 09 - 05:37 PM Yeah, TIA... T thinks that only ***his*** facts are the real deal and anyone elses are bogus... The problem is that no one knows for sure exactly how many Iraqis have died... We do know that over 30,000 sorties (bombing missions) were flown and millions of rounds of various calibre ammunition were fired so it is very concievable that a lot of folks have been killed... But as long as T can keep us arguing over counting methodology the better for T because T never wants to stop arguing over academic stuff to have to look in the mirror and see that he is partly responsible for the deaths, be it one or be it a million... So T will keep this thing on a purely academic pedestrian level because that does not threaten T at all that way... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 11 Feb 09 - 05:38 PM site as a comparison because it shows the disparity between a reported and confirmed versus a batch sampled estimate. Obviously the truth lies somewhere in between, my bet is that it lies pretty much in line with the figures provided by the Iraqi Ministry of Health. IBC have just altered their method of counting to permit single source reporting of deaths and on retrospective investigation trialed it and found their previous figures were understimated by just under 13%. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 11 Feb 09 - 06:02 PM "The problem is that no one knows for sure exactly how many Iraqis have died... We do know that over 30,000 sorties (bombing missions) were flown and millions of rounds of various calibre ammunition were fired so it is very concievable that a lot of folks have been killed..." - Bobert. What was your source for the "over 30,000 sorties (bombing missions) were flown"?? Oh and I think we've been through in the past how a sortie or mission can be flown where no bombs or bullets are fired and no-one gets killed - obviously that still hasn't registered. OK then Bobert back to some very creditable, confirmed and authenticated figures: Between 1939 & 1945 Bobert did you know that 297,663 bombing sorties were flown over Germany by night and 66,851 were flown by day, making a grand total of 364,514 bomber sorties. In the course of flying those sorties Bobert 7,449 aircraft were lost by night and 876 were lost by day. In flying those 364,514 sorties against Nazi Germany a total of 1,588,062 tons of bombs were dropped causing something in the order of 600,000 German deaths. Are you seriously attempting to convince anybody that with less than 10% of the bombers available; flying at most 8% of the missions; in less than 1% of the time resulted in double the number of casualties inflicted on the Germans during the entire Second World War. In the words of John McEnroe - "You just cannot be serious!!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Folkiedave Date: 11 Feb 09 - 07:13 PM Teribus - the war has cost so far $600 billion dollars. What has it been spent on? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 11 Feb 09 - 08:41 PM The number of sorties was published in the Washington Post at least 5 years ago, T... and it was closer to 35,000 than 30,000... And please, can you keep up, man??? We ain't talkin' about WW II... We are talkin' about Iraq... A country about the size of Texas... Geeze... Get back on yer alzheimers meds... You keep driftin' off... B;~) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 11 Feb 09 - 11:04 PM Like I said Bobert the study was flawed and not accurate. It did not reflect the true death rate of the pre war era. You you have not been able to dodge that fact with your gold plated M16 urban legend that was actually a gold plated AK47 that was found in Iraq by US forces. You you have not been able to dodge the fact that It was other countries that sold the gas ingredients. You you have not been able to dodge the fact that the vast majority of those "Kurds that "Ahhhhh, were trying to take him out..", were unarmed grannies, babies, women and children that you characterize as some how doing something wrong which justified Saddam's genocide. Despite your smoke screen of all those urban legends that you claim are facts while you claim other people's facts are not true, your Boss Hogg Soros financed subjective study that you use like a bludgeon to bully other people with is flawed because the baseline was cherry picked from a certain period when Saddam was not exterminating his own people. Conspiracies and myths always trump facts for liberal Bush haters. It's like watching a documentary containing facts as compared to sitting down and watching a fictional thriller with a bowl of popcorn. or in your case, a bowl of something else that keeps the Mexican drug lords well financed so they can behead some more innocent people. The Hopkins researchers chose their "base-line" for pre-invasion Iraq carefully: January 1 2002 to March, 2003. They chose to characterize Ba’athist violence by a period during which the Kurds were sheltered by a U.S.-imposed no-fly zone in the north. They chose to calculate the "pre-war" death rate after the extermination of hundreds of thousands of Shi’a and Marsh Arabs in the South and Kurds in the north has occured. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 12 Feb 09 - 01:54 AM "The number of sorties was published in the Washington Post at least 5 years ago, T... and it was closer to 35,000 than 30,000..." - Bobert. Bobert how very unlke you to play down an important number like that. Five years ago you say, so that adjusts the comparison as follows: "with less than 10% of the bombers available; flying at most 9% of the missions; in less than 8 weeks managed to kill double the number of casualties inflicted on the Germans during the entire six years of the Second World War. In the words of John McEnroe - "You just cannot be serious!!" The numbers simply do not add up, to anyone gifted with a modicum of common-sense. No doubt Bobert you will continue to rant on about your one million dead Iraqis because one thing no-one could ever accuse you of would be your abundance of common-sense. Oh still looking for those "dnaged kies" you reckon I bought - do they taste good?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 12 Feb 09 - 01:29 PM Iraq's Good Example Jim Hoagland The Washington Post February 8, 2009; Page B07 A new Iraq is emerging from five years of American invasion and occupation, and at first glance it looks distressingly like the old Iraq: Its people are still bound by the barbed wire of suspicion and hatred as much as by any sense of common purpose and history. But the new Iraq is clearly a nation in ways that the old Iraq -- long considered by experts as an artificial creation that would fly apart under the pressure of outside intervention -- was not. It did not fly apart and has in fact undergone significant, positive mutations as a result of a soon-to-subside U.S. presence. The provincial elections held a week ago were far from perfect, and personal relationships among the country's Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds still range from malignant to murderous. In Anbar province, disgruntled Sunni sheiks didn't ask for recounts or fire their political consultants. They unleashed threats of new mayhem unless they were immediately declared the winners. Old habits die hard in Iraq, too. But by the standards of the past -- and of the rough neighborhood in which Iraqis still live -- the two general elections that Iraq has held in four years stand as paragons of progress and adaptation that others in the region should aim to emulate. That development should not be ignored or minimized, particularly as the United States and Europe wrestle with analogous problems that confront a newly besieged Afghanistan. Even more important than shifting troops from Iraq to Afghanistan may be shifting counterinsurgency lessons learned. ad_icon Another signpost suggests that Iraq is closer today to being a source of regional stability than it ever was in its pre-American era, when Saddam Hussein repeatedly threatened (and at times tried) to annihilate Iraq's Arab and Iranian neighbors as well as Israel. That signpost is the growing acceptance by the region's Sunni Arab regimes of the central Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whose Shiite-based State of Law coalition scored the biggest victories in the election results released Thursday. Just a few years ago, Jordan's leaders were ominously warning that they would not accept Iraq's becoming part of a "Shiite crescent" of subversion. Today, Amman leads the way in establishing improved diplomatic relations, economic cooperation and security ties with Baghdad. Abu Dhabi and other Gulf states, as well as Egypt, have also upgraded their relations with Iraq, as Maliki and his aides have established some distance from both the United States and Iran. "President Bush made many mistakes in occupying Iraq," one Arab official told me recently. "But he did the right thing in staying with the surge and giving the Iraqi government time to show it could sustain itself. The results of the past 18 months have persuaded many of us that Iraq's civilian government is here to stay, and it is time to cooperate" with Baghdad, rather than push for a return to domination of Iraq by the Sunni Arab minority. Saudi Arabia is the most notable holdout from this trend, in part, it seems, because of poor personal relations between Maliki and the royal family. But the Saudis should not feel comfortable in remaining isolated on this issue in the face of Maliki's solid electoral victories last week over his more religiously minded rivals in Iraq's southern provinces. A continuing argument here over whether the surge worked misses the significance of the broader, still-unfolding historical changes brought by the 2003 toppling of Saddam Hussein. The internalizing of Iraq's strife -- as horrible as that strife can be on any given day for Iraqis -- makes the region less of a global tinderbox than it was. That the country's Kurds no longer live under the threat of genocide directed from Baghdad and that the Shiites no longer have to submit to state-organized mass murder on a routine basis constitutes real progress for them and for humanity. For too long, Bush resisted letting the Iraqis find their own way -- however messy or even brutal -- to reconcile their differences. President Obama should reflect on that as he develops a new approach to the conflict in Afghanistan, another "new" country that looks very familiar as corruption, drug dealing and Taliban control mount. Reflect on this part of the Iraqi example as well, Mr. President: American power was able to shock Iraqis. But it did not awe them. They are returning quickly to old habits, to their own moral and social compasses. But they do not return unchanged by the experience. Nor do their neighbors. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 12 Feb 09 - 07:57 PM Define "The Surge", Sawz... You, T.... If yer gonna go quotin' folks at least say who the heck you are quotin'... Yer above post make no sense... None what so ever, mah man... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 12 Feb 09 - 11:43 PM Heres part of it Bobert, If you want to see all of it click here Iraqis Are in the Lead in Ensuring Success â€"U.S. in Support Role •Place the responsibility for success on the Iraqis •Recognize and expect that sectarian violence must be addressed by Iraqis •Encourage Iraqis to reach national reconciliation •Urge Iraqi Government to serve Iraqis in an impartial way The Primary Mission Is Helping Iraqis Provide Security to the Population •Help Iraqis provide greater levels of security in Baghdad in order to enable political and economic progress •Help Iraqis create the security environment in which political deals needed to sustain security gains can be made •Bolster Iraqi capabilities and transfer responsibility to able units as part of this effort Moderates Will Be Vigorously Supported in their Battle with Violent Extremists •Counter extremist portrayalof Iraq’s conflict as Sunni vs. Shi’a, rather than moderates vs. extremists •Recognize and act upon the reality that the United States has a national interest in seeing moderates succeed •Build and sustain strategic partnerships with moderate Shi’a, Sunnis, and Kurds We Will Diversify our Political and Economic Effort in Iraq to Achieve Our Goals •Increase attention to developments outside of the International Zone â€"emphasize flexibility •Help Iraqi provincial governments deliver to their constituents and interact with Baghdad •Extend the political and economic influence through the expansion of our civilian effort We Will Further Integrate Our Civil and Military Efforts •Harness all elements of national power; further augment joint civilian-military efforts throughout theater •Resource at levels that assume a resilient enemy and realistic assessment of Iraqi capacity over the next 12 months Embedding Our Iraq Strategy in a Regional Approach is Vital to Success •Iraq is a regional and international challenge •Intensify GOI and USG efforts to expand regional and international help, counter Iran and Syria meddling •Invigorate diplomatic efforts to improve the regional context We Must Maintain and Expand Our Capabilities for the Long War •Acknowledge that succeeding in Iraq is the immediate challenge, but it is not the last challenge •Ensure we have adequate national capabilities to fight the long war, on the military and civilian side •GOI leads outreach to insurgents; maintain outreach and keep door open for Sunni moderates |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 12 Feb 09 - 11:50 PM Cherry Street Fish Market Opens Doors Wednesday, 11 February 2009 FOB FALCON â€" For thousands of years, fishermen near the Ma Baynaa Al-Nahreen, the Land Between the Two Rivers, sold their catch to others to sustain their existence. Today, the Saydiyah Fish Market stands as a classic example of where Iraqi fishermen sell their wares to their neighbors from across Iraq. Senior Multi-National Division â€" Baghdad leaders attended the Saydiyah Fish Market’s ribbon-cutting ceremony with their Iraqi Security Forces partners, Feb. 9, to mark the re-opening of the market that fell to disrepair during the war. Muzhir Ali Salman, the General Cooperative Union chairman, welcomed the attendees to the market's compound along Cherry Street in the Saydiyah community of southern Baghdad. Muzhir thanked the Coalition forces for starting the project to rejuvenate the fish market and the commanders who worked on the project. "This is the main fish market in all of Iraq, not just Baghdad," he added. The fishermen sell their fish wholesale to the other provinces in Iraq as well as retail to the citizens of Baghdad, Muzhir explained. Brig. Gen. Faiswl Malikmhsen al-Talall, commander of the 5th Brigade, 2nd National Police Division, recognized the importance of the market and the eagerness of the community. "We thank Coalition forces for their contribution to this project. I appreciate the readiness of the people and their ideas to embrace progress," he said. The rebuilding of Iraq began after the security situation improved in the area due to the cooperation of everybody, said Faiswl, who used the ceremonial scissors to cut the ribbon at the entry into the compound. The fish market is not just important to Saydiyah, but it is significant to the rest of the city of Baghdad, said Sheik Abdulnazzaq, the Saydiyah Tribal Support Council chairman. The 1st BCT’s embedded Provincial Reconstruction Team displayed a tremendous effort using the co-ops in Baghdad and the neighborhood councils to come up with this fantastic opportunity, said Col. Ted Martin, commander, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, MND-B. "We are priming the pump to bring a better life back to the Cherry Street Market," said Martin, who hails from Jacksonville Beach, Fla. "The only reason we can do a project like this is because of the increase in security in Saydiyah. It was a hot spot for insurgent activity, but now all the sects get along to live together peacefully." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 13 Feb 09 - 07:48 AM Sawz, How would that list differ from pre-Surge objectives??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 13 Feb 09 - 09:57 AM "How would that list differ from pre-Surge objectives???" Now why would there have to be a difference Bobert?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 13 Feb 09 - 10:07 AM "How would that list differ from pre-Surge objectives???" If you would click the clicky, there are charts there that precisely compare the two. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 13 Feb 09 - 11:12 AM Amos: I happen to agree with Obama that the surge worked. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Stringsinger Date: 13 Feb 09 - 03:50 PM The surge has worked to keep the US in Iraq for at least ten to twenty more years. The big embassy that the US has built there is a joke. Anyone who thinks that the violence in Iraq is over is sadly mistaken. Obama has inherited an occupation that will be difficult to end. More American troops will die as a result. As to the Right-wing spin on this issue with a lot of phony proclamations by essentially biased "pundits", you can take them with a bushel of salt. More factoids and less reality. Stringsinger |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 13 Feb 09 - 06:26 PM Yer supposed definition of "the surge" is laughable, Sawz... It was written by the National Security Council and, frankly, is about as amatuerish as it was Bush propaganda... The reality is that the US was sold this bill of goods that only a surge in troop levels would tunr around a certain defeat in Iraq... That was bull... Troop levels went up and down from 2003 thru 2005 with little change on the ground... Hey, I'm not making this stuff up... That was the story... A book by Thomas Ricks entitled "The Gamble" goes into all the details of what really happened in Iraq that *temporarially* turned the tides of violence levels... And guess what, Sawz??? He doesn't talk about any of those generalized pablum talking points that you posted from the NSC's propaganda... What he does talk about are the same things that Joe Biden tried to talk about during his debate (ha) with Ms. Sarah... The problem is that "the surge" had nothing to do with increased troop levels... It was much more complex than that... The problem is that when the truth is told the story is too long to hold the average Joe's attention because the average Joe wnats his policy positions to fit neatly on a bumper sticker... Problem is that "the surge" and the decreased violence don't fit on a bumper sticker... You need to avail yourself, Sawz, of the real truth... One that involves the Anwar Awakening, the one where US troops were assigned to work neighborhoods 24/7, the one where Sunni leaders were paid off... Check the book out when it hits yer local library... It would do you a world of good to opperate from a truth position ratehr than a fairy tale position of what the Bush War machine has poon fed you... BTW, Ricks ain't no flaming liberal so don't even go there... Yeah, not that he has put out a book that dispells the mythology there will be Bush mythology peddleres who will say so but that what they always do... Read the facts, Sawz... Leave the mythology alone... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Stringsinger Date: 13 Feb 09 - 07:17 PM Again, Iraq was Bush's idea. He an Cheney and Rumsfeld. Blair was Bush's patsy. This was not about National Security or revenge for 911. It was because Bush wanted his "political capital". He wanted to flex his Commander-in-Chief muscles and as a result, showed his complete incompetence for the job. Anything other than this is just spin. Stringsinger |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 13 Feb 09 - 07:38 PM exactly... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Barry Finn Date: 13 Feb 09 - 07:42 PM The "Surge" didn't work what work was we paid the Iraqi's to spot fighting amongst themselves & that's the only way "we can keep any semblance of peace"! We will be able to pull out our combat troops but we will be there "keeping the peace" a lot longer than we've been at war. We will continue to piss money into Iraq like "Niagara Fails". We will probably spend as much on health care for vets over their lifetime as we have spent on the war. We will pay for "Bush's Blunder" for generations & still we will only be paying off the interest & at a high % rate to boot. We will have lost any respect in the region for who knows how long & the blood we let there will fertilize a crop that will that will forever be bitter to our tastes. This was not just a mistake, it was a failure in human development, a disaster in humanity. Not only was it a failure to communicate, it was akin to spitting in the eye of God. We were landscape engineers designers planning a graveyard in order to raise a new crop of terrorists. "This was a good thing"? You must be mad! And now we will commit to the same mistakes in Afganistain. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 13 Feb 09 - 08:23 PM Question for all you who think that Iraq was a mistake, How do you think the second Iran v Iraq war would be going now?? My reckoning is that it would now be in its third or fourth year. Who do you think would be winning and what would the price of middle-east oil be per barrel? (currently around $34 per barrel). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 13 Feb 09 - 08:48 PM What??? The Iraq war was about oil??? What a surprise... I never thought of that, T... Not... You Bozo... That's what we tried to tell you a long time ago and all we got was alot, Imean alot, of UN Resoultion 1441 and all that usaul crapola but... ...Hey, welcome on board, mate... Now yer seeing the real deal... Glory days... Stop the presses!!!! T finally gets it!!! One down, two to go.... Hey, bb 'n Sawz... Yer boy just come over to the side of truth!!! Better jump quick while we are still acceptin' new members to "The Truth"... Man, glad to have ya, T... Pull up a nice comfy chair and prepare to do some battle with yer ol' buds... Cowabunga... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 13 Feb 09 - 10:13 PM "Yer supposed definition of "the surge" is laughable, Sawz." I never defined anything Bobert. I just pasted and pointed you to the actual written plan. Laugh all you want. Are you still chuckling over the mythological gold plated M 16 given to Saddam? Bobert: "What you get from me is gleaned strictly from the Washington Post, The New York Times and the TV news" Show me the article about the gold plated M16 in the Washington Post, The New York Times or the TV news. Show me the news that says America sold the "bad gas" to Iraq. In the New York Times there was an article about where it came from and did not mention that it came from the US. Why is that Bobert? And where is the most populated place on earth? Is that somewhere in the NYT WAPO or TV news? Where? I missed it. You think all these Bobert facts are credible when you can't back up any of them except with threats of bodily harm because they are all in your mind. Is that laughable? Just another Bobert funny story you tell, another stink bomb so you can go over and mess with Tbus and call him a jerk. You don't believe this stuff yourself. You just make believe you do for trolling purposes, for your entertainment. Something tells me you have to get buzzed up on some good shit first so reality gets all blurred and your fingers don't hit the keys you are aiming for. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 14 Feb 09 - 06:52 AM Huh?? What on earth are you yabbering on about Bobert?? Your last post made absolutely no sense at all - which really shouldn't come as all that much of a surprise as few if any of your posts do, composed as they mostly are of lies, mis-representations, myths and half-truths. Ignored the question posed to boot - again not unusual. Iraq a mistake Bobert? - Not in the least, and there are millions of LIVE Iraqis will vouch for that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 14 Feb 09 - 08:03 AM Sorry, T... Iy sounded like you were equating the current price of oli to the US/UK invasion??? I even reread that part about a theoretical Iraq/Iran war and what the price of oil would be if that was the case rather than the US/UK/Iraq war??? I'm sorry that you have gone back accross the truth line into the untruth zone... Just know that you are welcome over here anytime you need to catch yer breath from singing the company fight song... Yo, Sawz.... So in your own words, define surge... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Barry Finn Date: 14 Feb 09 - 08:23 AM What the price is/was/could or could not have been is no justification to this war, that's just film floating on the surface. Weither or not Iran & Iraq would've had a go at each other is not our call nor a reason to invade. We hold no corner on predicting the future much less dictating the future. One million LIVE Iraqi's would not vouch for this war. You are joking aren't you? Almost every Iraqi has lost someone close to them or has had someone dear to them mained or scared. Some have lost entire extended families for no other reason than they were breathing the air surrounding their homes. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 14 Feb 09 - 09:34 AM A surge is an increase. Now where is the news article about "Even rewarded Saddam ****afterwards**** with all kinds of booty, including a gold plated M-16 rifle..." Hmmmmmmmmm???? Washington Post _________ The New York Times __________ TV news __________ The untruth zone __________ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 14 Feb 09 - 05:01 PM Oh, I don't keep every article but you can bet that it was in the Washington Post... I believe it was some time around 1982-83 and I recall that it was Donnie Rumsfeld who presented the gifts to Saddam... Tell ya what, Sawz, I'll find the source if you'll agree that when I find it that you admit that you are wrong... Unless I get that then it's not worth the time it will take to dig it up... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 14 Feb 09 - 06:53 PM OK lets put the question in even simpler terms, for those who are slightly uncomfortable with the concept. For all you tossers who have lambasted the US administration for altering the state of affairs in Iraq - OK got the group who should be responding to this??? Exactly what would have been Saddam Hussein's reaction been to Irans attempt to acquire nuclear weapons?? Lets hear some sort of response people??? You have after all been extremely forth-coming in your opinions before. Bobert - you're excused - the mental exercise may prove too taxing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Folkiedave Date: 14 Feb 09 - 07:02 PM there are millions of LIVE Iraqis will vouch for that. And at the last count over 4,200 dead Americans and a further 699 or so from coalition forces to vouch for its failure. Is it simply a numbers game? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 14 Feb 09 - 07:21 PM Well Folkiedave why don't you ask some Iraqi that question? You were one of those opposed to the thing from the beginning - Yes?? You were one of those who were quite content to let the Iraqi people suffer under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein The last Iran v Iraq war cost 1,300,000 lives. Now tell me FolkieDave how many would have been killed in a second Iran V Iraq War if GWB had not acted?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 14 Feb 09 - 07:35 PM First of all, T, "Fu*k Off"... I'll outthink yer sorry butt any day of the week so please spare us the the condescending crap... Really... Sp here's the deal... Exactly why would Saddam ahve wanted to mix it up with anyone??? Think about it... The US discovered (duhhhhhh...) that Iraq didn't have jack when it came to WMDs... It really didn't have jack in the way of anything that would be considered modern weaponry... That is fact... That is not opinion... So your theory is that a severaly crippled Iraq would take on Iran??? Really??? That would have been a completely insane move on Iraq's part... Lastly, nothin' wrong with my critical thinkerator but I an worried that yer's is "out of order"... Please tell us why a severely depleted Iraqi military would have taken on Iran... Por favor... And stop the condescending crap... You, afterall, are the one on the wrong side of history... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 14 Feb 09 - 08:19 PM Yo, Sawz... Okay it was a pair of golden spurs and an M-16... Who cares??? Problem I have is giving gifts to folks who you are are gonna later string up and vilify... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 15 Feb 09 - 02:54 AM Ah Bobert, Had the US and GWB not acted as they did: - The UN sanctions would have been lifted completely in 2002, or just conveniently ignored by Saddam's trading partners as was found to be the case when the UN "Oil-For-Food" scandal broke. - Russia, China, France and North Korea would have had no problems at all in re-equipping Saddam's armed forces in exchange for Iraqi oil concessions, so by 2004 at the latest, Iraq would have been more than ready. - The reason Saddam would want to "mix it" with Iraq is simple Bobert. There is no way on God's earth that Saddam would sit back and let Iran acquire nuclear weapons without first doing something to prevent it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Folkiedave Date: 15 Feb 09 - 06:16 AM The problem is Teribus, there are lots of nasty people in the world. Now why pick on Iraq? Why not go rescuing the Burmese people - suffering under a dictatorship. Or the Zimbabweans, who are dying of starvation as their country suffers under a dictator. Thousands if not millions have died in the Congo region of Africa. Wny not send a task/invasion force there instead of pussyfooting around? Is it the job of the USA just to go around putting the wrongs of the world right? If you believe it is then a little consistency might be appropriate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 15 Feb 09 - 08:56 AM "there are lots of nasty people in the world." - Very true Folkiedave, very true. "Now why pick on Iraq?" - Ask the US Joint House Security Committee, or all of the nineteen US Security and Intelligence Agencies who separately identified Saddam Hussein's Iraq as the nation posing the greatest threat to the United States of America, her interests and her allies. "Why not go rescuing the Burmese people - suffering under a dictatorship." - Burma was not considered to be a threat to the United States of America, her interests and her allies. "Or the Zimbabweans, who are dying of starvation as their country suffers under a dictator." - Zimbabwe was not considered to be a threat to the United States of America, her interests and her allies. "Thousands if not millions have died in the Congo region of Africa. Wny not send a task/invasion force there instead of pussyfooting around?" - The Democratic Republic of the Congo was not considered to be a threat to the United States of America, her interests and her allies. "Is it the job of the USA just to go around putting the wrongs of the world right? If you believe it is then a little consistency might be appropriate." - No it is not the job of the United States of America to go round putting the wrongs of the world right, and I do not believe that I have ever said that it was. That little job is supposed to fall on a rather useless and ineffectual organisation known as the United Nations, who if memory serves me correctly: - Did absolutely nothing in Rwanda - Did absolutely nothing in the Balkans - Did absolutely nothing in Tibet - Did absolutely nothing in Cambodia - Did absolutely nothing in Darfur - Did absolutely nothing in Burma - Did absolutely nothing in Zimbabwe - Were doing nothing in Iraq until the USA stated if you do not act we will. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Folkiedave Date: 15 Feb 09 - 12:04 PM Ask the US Joint House Security Committee, or all of the nineteen US Security and Intelligence Agencies who separately identified Saddam Hussein's Iraq as the nation posing the greatest threat to the United States of America, her interests and her allies. All of whom got it wrong of course. You forgot to mention that bit. Have you not noticed the USA has a long history of invading people and sometimes democratically elected leaders? Since 1960.......... Bay of Pigs 1961 Dominican Republic 1965 Vietnam (1959 - 1974) Bit far away to pose a threat weren't they? Still the domino theory said if they won the world would collapse and "no longer be safe for democracy". Well they won with no visible effect on democracy, apart from a couple of million dead in the area, widespread use of chemical defoliants - carpet bombings of civilans etc etc...and the 58,000+ dead Americans. But American governments love spending money on war. Overthrowing regimes or installing puppet regimes in Indonesia, Guatemala, backing the right-wing regimes in El Salvador, bombing Libya. CIA overthrowing a democratically elected regime in Chile. Come to the UK and take a look at my friend Luiz's scars where Pinochet's thugs tortured him. Invading Panama 1989 and overthrowing Noriega. My that did a lot to stop drug-running didn't it! Reagan even managed to upset his best (possibly only) friend Mrs Thatcher by invading a Commonwealth state. My those heavily armed Grenadans posed a real threat to the USA didn't they? Was it their armed aircraft carriers? Nuclear submarines? Supersonic Bombers? Or did they just invade a tiny island in the Caribbean because they could? Countries are invaded on a whim, nothing to do with threats to the USA and their allies. Often to overthrow a regime the USA simply doesn't like or to protect US big business. Give it a rest old boy - I am afraid history in not on your side. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 15 Feb 09 - 12:30 PM OK Bobert, I will admit that I am wrong about Saddam being given a gold plated M16 if you can show it in one of the sources you cited. Ya got a deal. But there are other things like the "bad gas" that you claim the US sold to Saddam that need to backed up with something credible. You see, I research before I make an assertion. The closest things I can find to your assertion is a Dutch guy that got jail time for selling tons of ingredients to Saddam for making the bad gas and one of the ingredients came from a company in Baltimore. U.S. authorities say the defunct company, Alcolac Inc. effectively supplied both sides during the Iran-Iraq war. Alcolac pleaded guilty in 1989 to knowingly violating export laws in the case of a shipment of thiodiglycol that ultimately went to Iran. Alcolac turned a blind eye to abundant evidence in its files that this chemical was not going to the final destination that its customers stated in documents filed with customs. The other thing I found was that a non profit group gave some germ specimens to some medical group in Iraq that requested them for research. It was approved by the US government. Do you think these could have been hyped until it turned into the US selling the poison gas and Bio WMDs? Also WMDs was not the only reason for going after Saddam. You base your assertions on that as if it were fact and then build this whole thread on it as if it was a fact. Maybe WMDs were the main reason or considered the most important reason but not the only reason. Another thing is that is perfectly possible for someone to be incorrect about some things and correct about other things. Often people try to use false logic of saying that if someone was incorrect about one thing it proves they were wrong about other things. That either they are stupid or a liar. That is a logical fallacy. I have seen instances where I agreed with Amos or Bobert, I said so and was not struck by lightning. Another logical fallacy is to assert that because a plurality of people believe something to be true, it must be true, a famous Amos ploy. How many people thought the earth was flat? They were wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 15 Feb 09 - 02:22 PM Apparently you didn't read a post along the way, Sawz... It was a set of gold plated "spurs" and an M-16 (un plated)... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 16 Feb 09 - 02:00 AM Bobert: I see quite clearly that you asserted "with all kinds of booty, including a gold plated M-16 rifle" Now you are backing off and saying it was a pair of golden spurs and an M-16? What news source provided this information? Now how about the assertion that "the US even provided the bad gas that was used against the Kurds" and how was Saddam rewarded with all kinds of booty, including golden spurs and an unplated M-16 rifle? What was the other booty? What news source provided this information? Washington Post _________ The New York Times __________ TV news __________ The untruth zone __________ Pravda ______________ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 16 Feb 09 - 02:01 AM HR 114: The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq: * Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors. * Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."[2] * Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population." * Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people". * Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War. * Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq." * Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations. * The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them. * The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism. * Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 16 Feb 09 - 02:10 AM Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton 10/10/2002. "Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. Now this much is undisputed." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 16 Feb 09 - 02:14 AM The Carter Doctrine The Carter Doctrine was a policy proclaimed by President of the United States Jimmy Carter in his State of the Union Address on January 23 1980, which stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf region. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Folkiedave Date: 16 Feb 09 - 04:05 AM ..... which stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf region. Which apart from controlling oil are..............? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 16 Feb 09 - 08:15 AM Did ya' read the Ricks editorial yesterday, Sawz??? Get the book "The Gamble"... You could use a little truth to mix in with yer confusion... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 16 Feb 09 - 10:12 AM "yer confusion" I think you need to go back and read your own words Bobert because you are clearly confused about whet you said. Bobert one day: "What you get from me is gleaned strictly from the Washington Post, The New York Times and the TV news" Bobert another day: "No, T, that is not my source... My source is http;//www.justforiegnpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html You are throwing up a smoke screen because you are unable to answer simple straightforward answers, yet you seem to think you know all the answers. Where did any of your "facts" about: "the US even provided the bad gas that was used against the Kurds" "Saddam rewarded with all kinds of booty, including golden spurs and an unplated M-16 rifle" appear in any of the sources you cited. What was the other booty? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 16 Feb 09 - 01:03 PM "All of whom got it wrong of course. You forgot to mention that bit." Got what wrong exactly Folkiedave?? Before answering: - Actually read the relevant UN Security Council Resolutions particularly 678 and 687. - Actually read the final reports from UNSCOM to the UN Security Council delivered in January and March 1999. - Then take the trouble to learn exactly what it was that was considered to pose the greatest threat to the United States of America in the wake of the attacks of 11th September 2001. You will then find out that they got it spot on. "Have you not noticed the USA has a long history of invading people and sometimes democratically elected leaders?" Well no I haven't Folkiedave. The US has "invaded" very few countries in the post-Second World War era. Certainly a damn sight fewer than Soviet Russia, or China. Your list of US "invasions" resulted in far fewer casualties, in comparison to their Soviet counter-parts, resulted in no "occupation" of foreign soil and were extremely short in duration. But let's have a look at your contenders as "invasions" shall we. "Since 1960.........." - Why only since 1960 Folkiedave?? Bay of Pigs 1961 - "Cold War" Not really an invasion by the United States of America was it Folkiedave? It was an unsuccessful attempt by a force of Cuban immigrants to the US who were exiled from Cuba to invade southwest Cuba with support from U.S. government armed forces and overthrow the Cuban government of Fidel Castro. Dominican Republic 1965 - "Cold War" Not really an invasion by the United States of America was it Folkiedave? Initial US intervention due to responsibility to protect and evacuate US citizens from a "civil war" situation. The United States along with the Organization of American States (OAS) formed an inter-American military force to assist in the intervention in the Dominican Republic. Later, the Inter-American Peace Force (IAPF) was formally established on May 23. In addition to the United States military presence, the following troops were sent by each country; Brazil 1130, Honduras 250, Paraguay 184, Nicaragua 160, Costa Rica 21 military police, and El Salvador 3 staff officers. Some 6,500 people from many nations were evacuated to safety. In addition, the US forces airlifted in large relief supplies for Dominican nationals. The fighting continued until 31 August 1965 when a truce was declared. Most American troops left shortly afterwards as policing and peacekeeping operations were turned over to Brazilian troops, but some U.S. military presence remained until September 1966. Vietnam (1959 - 1974) "Bit far away to pose a threat weren't they?" - "Cold War" Not really an invasion by the United States of America was it Folkiedave? The Vietnam War, also known as the Second Indochina War, the Vietnam Conflict, or often in Vietnam the American War occurred in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia from 1959 to April 30, 1975. The war was fought between the communist North Vietnam, supported by its communist allies, and the government of South Vietnam, supported by the United States and other member nations of the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO). Care to tell who it was that invaded Vietnam in what was known as the Third Indochina War Folkiedave?? "Still the domino theory said if they won the world would collapse and "no longer be safe for democracy". Well they won with no visible effect on democracy, apart from a couple of million dead in the area, widespread use of chemical defoliants - carpet bombings of civilans etc etc...and the 58,000+ dead Americans. But American governments love spending money on war." - Well so much left-wing froth and indignation. What the US intervention in Vietnam did achieve was to discourage the Kremlin and Beijing from further attempts at expansion in South-East Asia, the SEATO alliance held when many planners in the Kremlin thought it would fold. While Vietnam was starting another "communist inspired insurgency" was being defeated in Malaysia. The US invaded Indonesia?? Really - don't think so Folkiedave, same goes for your other candidates. Want to compare notes on the Soviet invasions and occupations that followed the end of the Second World War Folkiedave?? Travel to eastern Europe Folkiedave and ask the people living there if they want to have the Russians back, I dare say you'll find more than a few there who could show you their scars and be more than willing to tell you who were responsible for them - but that's not the sort of history you would want to hear of acknowledge is it Folkiedave??. As for your remark - "Give it a rest old boy - I am afraid history in not on your side." - I'm pretty sure that you, and the likes of you, do wish that I would give it a rest. Becomes pretty embarrassing when every time you trot out the usual myths, lies, misrepresentations and half-truths that someone calls you to task for it. The history that you say is not on my side is the rather selective version that the socialist left cling to in order to bolster their prejudices. Now how about that list that defines the Left's march to the "Brave-New-World" since the defeat of Nazi Germany, eh Folkiedave - Shall we take the USSR first Dave: The following are "Invasions" proper Folkiedave, not quick "in-and-out" affairs lasting a couple of months where few died. What we're talking about here is brutal use of military force, thousands of deaths, permanent military bases and occupations lasting years, where the political will of Soviet Russia was ruthlessly imposed upon the subject nations. - Bulgaria - Romania - Poland (Twice although second time round by proxy) - Latvia - Lithuania - Estonia - Hungary (Twice) - Czechoslovakia (Twice) - Yugoslavia - Albania - East Germany - Angola - Mozambique - Vietnam - Indonesia - Afghanistan China next, eh Folkiedave??: - South Korea - Tibet - Vietnam Shall we now compare the death tolls for each?? Followed by the durations?? Who's side is history on now Folkiedave?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Stringsinger Date: 16 Feb 09 - 06:09 PM The idea that the US is least culpable in invasion is pure fantasy. Once again, the stats are not substantiated by facts. Who is doing the counting? The UN security council is different from the other branches of the UN. The biggest threat to the US is the idea that invading foreign countries makes it safe. The Vietnam War was escalated by Johnson who believed in the "domino theory". Here is what Wiki says about the Bay of Tonkin. The Gulf of Tonkin Incident is the name given to two separate incidents involving naval forces of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) and the United States in the waters of the Gulf of Tonkin. On 2 August 1964, the destroyer USS Maddox (DD-731) engaged three North Vietnamese P-4 torpedo boats, resulting in damage to the three boats. Two days later the Maddox (having been joined by the destroyer USS Turner Joy (DD-951) reported a second engagement with North Vietnamese vessels. This second report was later concluded to be in error.[1] Together, these two incidents prompted the first large-scale involvement of U.S. armed forces in Southeast Asia.the Bay of Tonkin This was assuredly a pretext for an invasion of magnitude by the US. The Vietnam War did not discourage China or Russia who were rejected by the North Vietnamese. The "domino" theory did not hold water and was later refuted by those who were involved. The incident was based on a mistake. Sonar picked up misinformation on who the attackers were. They were whales. Actually, The Bay of Pigs was a clandestine operation supported by the Kennedy Administration. The mafia was even involved which there is some support for the idea that this is what caused JFK's assassination. The money to finance the Iraq war was managed so poorly that a billion dollars was lost in transit that the taxpayer had to fund. The idea that the USSR has to be compared to the casualty list of the US is a specious argument. Both nations have had their share of extensive bloodshed. BTW there is no democracy in Iraq today unless you consider Shari'a law to be that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 16 Feb 09 - 06:17 PM "there is no democracy in Iraq today" A specious and uncolorable argument. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 17 Feb 09 - 10:35 AM "the stats are not substantiated by facts" - Care to give us some then Frank?? Your usual left wing waffle doen't really provide much information. For example taking Folkiedave's examples of US "Invasions": 1. Bay of Pigs 1961 - Any details relating to the US Army, Naval and Airforce Units assigned to this invasion and the numbers involved? It was an attempted US invasion of Cuba wasn't it? 2. Dominican Republic 1965 - I've given you quite a bit of information on this one Frank, in addition I believe that 41 US ships were involved in the blockade, the 82nd Airbourne were also involved ashore, alongside Brazilians, Hondurans, Paraguayans, Nicaraguans, Costa Ricans and 3 guys from El Salvador. What did the mighty US need with those guys Frank?? It was a US invasion wasn't it?? Have got substantive information that neither the OAS or IAPF were involved?? If so how come it was the Brazilians who were the last to leave?? Were they there on holiday?? Get the drift Frank?? I could go on but won't. Here are some statistics for you. Since the end of the Second World War the United States of America could with some justification be accused of the deaths of tens of thousands of people due to their meddling and interference in the affairs of others. During the same period the USSR and China could with some justification be accused of the deaths of millions due to their meddling and interference in the affairs of others. And Frank it doesn't matter how much you wriggle those statistics are fact and nothing is going to change that. "Workers of the world unite.. Eh??" load of bollocks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Folkiedave Date: 17 Feb 09 - 02:35 PM ere are some statistics for you. Since the end of the Second World War the United States of America could with some justification be accused of the deaths of tens of thousands of people due to their meddling and interference in the affairs of others. Sorry, how does that arise Teribus? You seemed to indcate the USA hadn't been guilty of anything - helping a country here, assisting a country there, a little mild overthrowing of democratically elected governments occasionally. Nothing serious like. Now apparently "with some justification" they are responsible for tens of thousands of deaths. Bit like I suggested. Do those figures include Vietnam by the way? Cos' the numbers are a bit low otherwise. And by the way when interfering in the democratic affairs of another country one death is too many. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 17 Feb 09 - 06:52 PM So then Folkiedave let us here you roundly condem your Marxist pals the USSR & China in the same terms you seem to reserve for the Government of the USA. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Folkiedave Date: 18 Feb 09 - 05:02 AM I don't have any Marxist pals and the use of such a term shows a decided ignorance of political theory and a profound knowledge of right-wing ideology. I have been doing that which you have (eventually) got around to asking for years. I have supported those who wanted freedom from UK rule and hegemony (I often use Cyprus as an example) and wholeheartedly condemn the USSR and China for the way it treated people in the past and nowadays. I don't work on the basis of ideology but on what people's actions are. My condemnation of countries who invade other countries is unequivocal. And I don't even ask you if you will now condemn the USA for all those deaths you talked about. I know you will because I believe you are a very fair man.....and I mean that most sincerely. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 18 Feb 09 - 07:40 AM Well, Dave... Ya' wonder why T used the USSR and China as justifications for the the US endless thirst for war... I mean, why not the Germans in WW II??? I mean, if yer gonna use one bad country to justify your own badness, ehy, lets just call it like it is... And what it is is the the US just can't seem to get enough killing to keep it satisfied... And the bad thing about it is that there have sho nuff been some very bad countries that have gotten away with alot of bad stuff that the US had absolutely no interest in??? (No oil, Boberdz...) Oh??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,AR Date: 18 Feb 09 - 10:09 AM At least some good news although sad. I know Teribus was touched by this story recently. Reality TV star Jade Goody is expected to make almost £1 million from the TV and magazine rights to her wedding. It's been revealed that she has finalised deals with OK! magazine and Living TV for exclusive coverage of the event. The magazine deal is reportedly worth more than £700,000 with a further £100,000 coming from the sale of the TV rights. Her publicist Max Clifford said: "They (Living TV) have an ongoing relationship with Jade but then of course because of what's happened to her, that has become much more sensitive and complicated. "What I suggested is they film the wedding, and then that's it. There won't be more episodes of the series they have been filming." 27-year-old Jade was told by doctors last weekend that her cervical cancer was terminal and that she has just months to live. Her wedding to boyfriend Jack Tweed is due to take place this weekend at a country house hotel in Essex. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Folkiedave Date: 18 Feb 09 - 03:38 PM I wouldn't know JG if she passed me in the street but I understand from listening to broadcasts that since she is hardly likely to need the money it will be left to her sons. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 02 Mar 09 - 01:23 AM Polling Data In the long run, will the U.S. mission in Iraq be seen as a success or a failure? Source: Rasmussen Reports Methodology: Telephone interviews with 1,000 American adults, conducted on Feb. 4 and Feb. 5, 2009. No margin of error was provided. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 02 Mar 09 - 08:53 AM Well, sure, Sawz... The only way that Obama can get US the heck out of Iraq without the right winged warmongers spending millions in hate ads is to change the story to their liking... Doesn't make the Iraq war any righter (pun intended)... This is the current crop of PR, this time from Obama, to soften up the reaction so that we can get out... Politics... Not reality on the ground... The civil war is just on hold in Iraq... That is reality... Reality, Part B... There was never any real justifictaion for going into Iraq... If people were asked the if they thought going into Iraq was a good idea the polls would be very different... It's all in PR and how the questions are asked... People aren't that much different than rats in Skinner's Box when it comes to polls... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 02 Mar 09 - 11:02 PM A whole bunch of posturing an rhetoric but nothing to back it up. Polls don't mean anything but your unsubstantiated opinions do? The phenomenons known as "BOBERT FACTS" are the only thing that means anything? Screw what the great liberator Obama said, only what Bobert says is true. Maybe they mean something to you but they are based on you own personal spin. "There was never any real justification for going into Iraq" I have shown you the pre Bush Administration list of reasons but you ignore it. Want to see it again? How about the Clinton Administration's Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998? How about the Carter Doctrine? "The civil war is just on hold in Iraq... That is reality" Now pray tell us what this "BOBERT FACT" is based on? Have you got any news yet on the bad gas we sold Saddam to gas the Kurds with and that M16 and other booty we gave him for gassin' those insolent Kurds that were tryin to over throw him? HMMMMMMMMMMM? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Barry Finn Date: 03 Mar 09 - 01:03 AM If people thought that George Bush made the right move his ratings wouldn't be the lowest we've seen in this century, he could've jumped off a dime at his exit time. If the parachute didn't open he'd break his neck from the fall MacWar would've won he Bush been right. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 03 Mar 09 - 07:16 AM Exactly, Barry... That is common sense... Some thing that Sawz seems to know nuthin' about... I mean, lets get real here... Sheesh!!! B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 03 Mar 09 - 10:37 AM 400 Up |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 03 Mar 09 - 10:50 AM Now James "Peanut" Carter was someone Bobert said he voted for. Bobert also reckoned that Carter was one of the best Presidents the US ever had. OK Bobert you were asked a question. Tell us what the "Carter Doctrine" was? Another question that both Bobert and Barry ducked. What was the aim of the Iraq Bill that one William Jefferson Clinton Introduced and had passed? Iraq a mistake Bobert - HELL NO!! Carter succeeded in only one thing - In making the US a laughing stock. He also seriously damaged the capability for the US to gather meaningful intelligence in one of the most crucial areas of the planet - The Middle-East. Clinton although constantly warned of the dangers elected to bury his head in the sand and win popularity contests instead of looking to the security of the United States of America. His reluctance to act resulted in five major attacks. Bush did act and to date America has not been successfully attacked once since 9/11. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 03 Mar 09 - 11:19 AM The Carter Doctrine does not apply to Iraq, Teribus; it was limited to preventing outside interference, notably by the USSR, in US interests relating to Saudi Arabia, foremost, and secondarily the rest of the Persian Gulf region. It cannot be used as a justification for unilateral invasion absent a precipitating offensive move on the part of another country. It was the Reagan corollary that extended it to internal matters, which is surely what the Iraq invasion was about. This shifted the Carter doctrine and placed the self-anointed mantle of "arbitrary police of other nations" on the shoulders of America, wanted or not. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 03 Mar 09 - 11:46 AM "outside interference" covers a multitude of sins Amos (think nuclear) and is not only restricted to a physical presence or invasion. Cornerstone of US policy in the gulf region has always been that no single country in the region shall be permitted to exercise hegemony over the area. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 03 Mar 09 - 01:41 PM The only thing thing that I seem to know nuthin' about are the following ******* BOBERT FACTS ******: Heck, the US even provided the bad gas that was used against the Kurds... Even rewarded Saddam ****afterwards**** with all kinds of booty, including a gold plated M-16 rifle. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 03 Mar 09 - 02:49 PM Close your eyes Bobert, stick your fingers in your ears and say "I'm Not Listening" Myths of Iraq During a recent visit to Baghdad, I saw an enormous failure. On the part of our media. The reality in the streets, day after day, bore little resemblance to the sensational claims of civil war and disaster in the headlines. No one with first-hand experience of Iraq would claim the country's in rosy condition, but the situation on the ground is considerably more promising than the American public has been led to believe. Lurid exaggerations and instant myths obscure real, if difficult, progress. I left Baghdad more optimistic than I was before this visit. While cynicism, political bias and the pressure of a 24/7 news cycle accelerate a race to the bottom in reporting, there are good reasons to be soberly hopeful about Iraq's future. Much could still go wrong. The Arab genius for failure could still spoil everything. We've made grave mistakes. Still, it's difficult to understand how any first-hand observer could declare that Iraq's been irrevocably "lost." Consider just a few of the inaccuracies served up by the media: Claims of civil war. In the wake of the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra, a flurry of sectarian attacks inspired wild media claims of a collapse into civil war. It didn't happen. Driving and walking the streets of Baghdad, I found children playing and, in most neighborhoods, business as usual. Iraq can be deadly, but, more often, it's just dreary. Iraqi disunity. Factional differences are real, but overblown in the reporting. Few Iraqis support calls for religious violence. After the Samarra bombing, only rogue militias and criminals responded to the demagogues' calls for vengeance. Iraqis refused to play along, staging an unrecognized triumph of passive resistance. Expanding terrorism. On the contrary, foreign terrorists, such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, have lost ground. They've alienated Iraqis of every stripe. Iraqis regard the foreigners as murderers, wreckers and blasphemers, and they want them gone. The Samarra attack may, indeed, have been a tipping point--against the terrorists. Hatred of the U.S. military. If anything surprised me in the streets of Baghdad, it was the surge in the popularity of U.S. troops among both Shias and Sunnis. In one slum, amid friendly adult waves, children and teenagers cheered a U.S. Army patrol as we passed. Instead of being viewed as occupiers, we're increasingly seen as impartial and well-intentioned. The appeal of the religious militias. They're viewed as mafias. Iraqis want them disarmed and disbanded. Just ask the average citizen. The failure of the Iraqi army. Instead, the past month saw a major milestone in the maturation of Iraq's military. During the mini-crisis that followed the Samarra bombing, the Iraqi army put over 100,000 soldiers into the country's streets. They defused budding confrontations and calmed the situation without killing a single civilian. And Iraqis were proud to have their own army protecting them. The Iraqi army's morale soared as a result of its success. Reconstruction efforts have failed. Just not true. The American goal was never to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure in its entirety. Iraqis have to do that. Meanwhile, slum-dwellers utterly neglected by Saddam Hussein's regime are getting running water and sewage systems for the first time. The Baathist regime left the country in a desolate state while Saddam built palaces. The squalor has to be seen to be believed. But the hopeless now have hope. The electricity system is worse than before the war. Untrue again. The condition of the electric grid under the old regime was appalling. Yet, despite insurgent attacks, the newly revamped system produced 5,300 megawatts last summer--a full thousand megawatts more than the peak under Saddam Hussein. Shortages continue because demand soared--newly free Iraqis went on a buying spree, filling their homes with air conditioners, appliances and the new national symbol, the satellite dish. Nonetheless, satellite photos taken during the hours of darkness show Baghdad as bright as Damascus. Plenty of serious problems remain in Iraq, from bloodthirsty terrorism to the unreliability of the police. Iran and Syria indulge in deadly mischief. The infrastructure lags generations behind the country's needs. Corruption is widespread. Tribal culture is pernicious. Women's rights are threatened. And there's no shortage of trouble-making demagogues. Nonetheless, the real story of the civil-war-that-wasn't is one of the dog that didn't bark. Iraqis resisted the summons to retributive violence. Mundane life prevailed. After a day and a half of squabbling, the political factions returned to the negotiating table. Iraqis increasingly take responsibility for their own security, easing the burden on U.S. forces. And the people of Iraq want peace, not a reign of terror. But the foreign media have become a destructive factor, extrapolating daily crises from minor incidents. Part of this is ignorance. Some of it is willful. None of it is helpful. The dangerous nature of journalism in Iraq has created a new phenomenon, the all-powerful local stringer. Unwilling to stray too far from secure facilities and their bodyguards, reporters rely heavily on Iraqi assistance in gathering news. And Iraqi stringers, some of whom have their own political agendas, long ago figured out that Americans prefer bad news to good news. The Iraqi leg-men earn blood money for unbalanced, often-hysterical claims, while the Journalism 101 rule of seeking confirmation from a second source has been discarded in the pathetic race for headlines. To enhance their own indispensability, Iraqi stringers exaggerate the danger to Western journalists (which is real enough, but need not paralyze a determined reporter). Dependence on the unverified reports of local hires has become the dirty secret of semi-celebrity journalism in Iraq as Western journalists succumb to a version of Stockholm Syndrome in which they convince themselves that their Iraqi sources and stringers are exceptions to every failing and foible in the Middle East. The mindset resembles the old colonialist conviction that, while other "boys" might lie and steal, our house-boy's a faithful servant. The result is that we're being told what Iraqi stringers know they can sell and what distant editors crave, not what's actually happening. While there are and have been any number of courageous, ethical journalists reporting from Iraq, others know little more of the reality of the streets than you do. They report what they are told by others, not what they have seen themselves. The result is a distorted, unfair and disheartening picture of a country struggling to rise above its miserable history. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Lighter Date: 03 Mar 09 - 03:56 PM Sawzaw, simply as a point of information: the results of a public opinion poll, no matter how scrupulously conducted, say nothing about what the actual likelihood of success or failure (however these are defined) may be. The poll only measures the level of confidence of the respondents. But I doubt they have much expertise or any first-hand knowledge. And what might be "success" for one person (say, "a stable, neutral Iraq") might well be "failure" for someone else (who, for example, might demand "a stable, democratic, U.S.-aligned Iraq"). Opinion polls measure opinions and little else, and they don't always do that very well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 03 Mar 09 - 05:39 PM Lighter: That is your opinion, I presume, that carries more or less weight than the poll? Amos: You are right. Saddam was not exactly an outside force. But I think it sets the stage (gives an excuse) for military intervention in the middle east. Carter proclaimed: The region which is now threatened by Soviet troops in Afghanistan is of great strategic importance: It contains more than two-thirds of the world's exportable oil. The Soviet effort to dominate Afghanistan has brought Soviet military forces to within 300 miles of the Indian Ocean and close to the Straits of Hormuz, a waterway through which most of the world's oil must flow. The Soviet Union is now attempting to consolidate a strategic position, therefore, that poses a grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil. This situation demands careful thought, steady nerves, and resolute action, not only for this year but for many years to come. It demands collective efforts to meet this new threat to security in the Persian Gulf and in Southwest Asia. It demands the participation of all those who rely on oil from the Middle East and who are concerned with global peace and stability. And it demands consultation and close cooperation with countries in the area which might be threatened. Meeting this challenge will take national will, diplomatic and political wisdom, economic sacrifice, and, of course, military capability. We must call on the best that is in us to preserve the security of this crucial region. Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 03 Mar 09 - 05:43 PM Sawz: Fromt he smell, I would guess your recent cut-and-paste was several years old, no? WHy not provide source information yourself? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 03 Mar 09 - 06:02 PM Yo, Sawz... Apparent;y you don't read all my posts 'casue it's been at least a month since I corrected the gifts that we given to Saddam... Maybe you could tell us what those gifts were, por favor??? Also, who presented these gifts, por favor??? And maybe if you quit you friggin' shouting you'd have more tiem for keeping up with these threads... (Nah, Boberdz... He wouldn't... And shouting is all he really knows...) Sad... B! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 03 Mar 09 - 06:40 PM Oh, BTW... How about doing it in yer own words... Yer lenghthy cut and posts from rightie blogs is rather ingenious so I don't ven read them... Nor do other folks here... It may make you feel smugly warm and fuzzy but if no one reads yer rightie blogs then you have done a disservice to your argument/s... And T, Amos is ebntirely correct... The Carter Docrine had nothin' to do with Bush and Co.'s (you incvluded) trumped up excuses for his trumped up war.... Had common logic prevailed Bush would have backed down after the Jan 27th report to the UN by Blix... But cowboys and common logic don't exactly mix too well... "Cowboys ain'y easy to love and they're hearder to hold They rather give you a song than diomonds of gold Thems that don't know him won't like him And those that do won't know how to take him But there's something That's won't let him do things that is right..." B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 03 Mar 09 - 08:08 PM "Bush did act and to date America has not been successfully attacked once since 9/11" Gawd I love that one. So, Bush gets a pass on 911 - even though he had been in office for nine months...even though the outgoing administration implored him to pay attention to Al Qaeda (while he crowed about missile defense shield)...But *after* 911, we haven't been attacked. Well, for the nine prior years we had not been attacked either! Bush kept us safe *after* 911... "Other than that how was the play Mrs. Lincoln". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 03 Mar 09 - 08:42 PM Wait a minute!!! Seems to me that the two worst terrorist attacks have occured under Republican presdients... Beruit under Reagan and... ...9/11 under Bush??? Hmmmmmmm??? And exactly how is it that the US is safer from terrorists under the Repubs??? Yeah, TIA... Like, what kinda revisonionists acid trip are the Bushites on here??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Lighter Date: 03 Mar 09 - 09:35 PM Well, since you ask, it is my opinion, based on experience, that few members of the general public chosen at random have a profound understanding of Iraq and Iraqi society. (I certainly don't.) Therefore their personal expectations of success or failure in Iraq(however defined) have little to do with what's actually happening or will happen. Especially if, as you say, the news media have been misleading them. What remains a fact, though, is that the majority opinion concerning something the opinion-givers don't know much about has little bearing on the actuality of that something. The Iraq War, in this case. All the poll does is count poorly-informed opinions on all sides. That remains true regardless of the subject of the poll and regardless of whether one likes its findings or not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 03 Mar 09 - 10:55 PM So Lighter, of public opinion is to be discaounted the your opinion should be discounted or not? CNN: "Do you think that the United States of America is winning or not winning the Iraq war?" Washington Post: "Thinking about the next year, do you feel optimistic or pessimistic about the situation in Iraq?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 03 Mar 09 - 11:07 PM So, Saawz: how will we know? The surreender of...um...who???? Or is there some other definition of "win" in your mind? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 04 Mar 09 - 07:55 AM Yer exactly right, lighter... And I offer into evidence Sawz post of 10:55 as "Exhibit A"... Face it, the wrong question was asked... This thread is about whether or not going into Iraq was a mistake and not about warm and fuzzy regergitation of what the media has been cramming down our throats since (drum roll) "The Surrrrrrrrgggggge"... Of course the American people really have no concept of waht the surge was... Most would say it simply was more boot on the ground which, of course, is an incorrect answer... But that answer, however incorrect, fits nicely into the revisionists bumnper sticker lenght policy positions... I mean, I even asked Sawz a whi,le back what the surge was and he listed a bunch of stuff that never really dealth with the facts on the ground and shift in tactics (not strategy) and perhaps why even to this day he is completely in the dark about what this thread is really about... Garbage in, garbage out... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Lighter Date: 04 Mar 09 - 09:03 AM You're missing the point. Polling people who are poorly informed about X tells nothing about X itself, regardless of what X is. That's a fact that every professional pollster knows and, I suspect, many professional journalists too. The poll thing is a non-partisan observation that's true of any subject. I haven't expressed any opinion at all about the Iraq War. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 04 Mar 09 - 11:24 AM Still no answer form Bobert on those *********BOBERT FACTS********* Yet he loves to call people liars. What happened to the offer you made Bobert? Are you backpedaling? Why would such a always correct person need to avoid doing what he said he would do? Lighter: You are missing the point. If opinions expressed by others is not accurate, what makes your opinion on polls accurate? The number indicates a change in opinions over the years. Did they get samrter or dumber over the years? What does the percentage of error mean? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 04 Mar 09 - 11:50 AM "I even asked Sawz a whi,le back what the surge was and he listed a bunch of stuff that never really dealth with the facts on the ground" You asked me about the surge and I directed you to the government website that laid it all out. Then you wanted to know how it was different from the existing strategy. I directed you to that too. I answered your question. Your problem, like the arrogant Bill O'Reilly, is that my answer is not the answer you wanted so you continue to bully and accuse me of not answering. I have politely agreed to appologize if you can show me where your alleged facts appeared in any of the three sources you cited. Now you ridicule and search for some flaw in what I said in an effort to excuse your self from doing what you said you would do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 04 Mar 09 - 11:51 AM "First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully." -- Former Deputy Attorney General John Yoo, in a 2001 Justice Department memo |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 04 Mar 09 - 12:20 PM This is the excellent foppery of the world, that, when we are sick in fortune — often the surfeits of our own behavior — we make guilty of our own disasters, the sun, the moon, and the stars." Lear |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Barry Finn Date: 04 Mar 09 - 01:06 PM That should read "Floppery" Amos. You only "touch the tip" Amos when you mention "First Amendment speech and press rights"! One should take into account of illegal wire tapping, the loss of 'Hey-bus in the Corpses', the right to face your accuser, the right to a speedy trail, 'the right to a trial", the use of kidnapping, extreme rednditions, imprisoment without cause-on hearsay accusations with no presentation of evidence. The list at times seems endless & only now is there showing up any evedience of intention to purposely circumvent the Constitution. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 04 Mar 09 - 03:35 PM Here comes the Foppery. Hippity hoppity. ;} |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 04 Mar 09 - 03:53 PM That John Yoo, there, Sawz, was a man after your own heart, I take it? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 04 Mar 09 - 04:11 PM Rahm Emanuel "Never let a serious crisis go to waste" Marxist Saul Alinsky: "Rule one, never allow a crisis go to waste." Good Job comrade Rahm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 04 Mar 09 - 04:13 PM What a ridiculous comparison, Sawz. By your logic, if a man is NOT a Communist, he should insist on letting all crises go to waste, because someone who was one said otherwise? Do you live your whole live but such avoidance schemes???? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 04 Mar 09 - 05:52 PM Well, Hitler said that the people would beleieve the Big Lie and some 60 years later we had the Big WMD Lie... And people did beleive it... Even after evidence to contrary a large number of people still believed it... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 04 Mar 09 - 09:34 PM Bobert with the ear plugs, blindfold and ballerina slippers: I got my apology all ready, waitin' and gift wrapped for when you do what you said you would do. I might eve throw in a box of pink peeps left over from last Easter and a six pack of Turbo Dog to wash 'em down with. Bobert: "Tell ya what, Sawz, I'll find the source if you'll agree that when I find it that you admit that you are wrong... Unless I get that then it's not worth the time it will take to dig it up." OK Bobert, I will admit that I am wrong about Saddam being given a gold plated M16 if you can show it in one of the sources you cited. Ya got a deal. Your turn Bobert. Let your Honesty overcome your Ego. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: TIA Date: 04 Mar 09 - 11:11 PM In the 1400s, it was possible to poll people and find out that a plurality believed the world was flat. Don't forget that the full name of polls is ususally "Opinion Polls". Polls have no meaning when issues of fact are at hand. Or shall we take a poll as to whether penicillin cures bacterial disease? Maybe we should take a poll about whether my spork will fall if I let it go right now. So what is the "fact' we are discussing? *"WIN"* What does it mean, and what did it mean to those answering the poll? Without a firm handle on these, the polls are farts in a windstorm. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 05 Mar 09 - 08:11 AM Sawz, Call yer local mental helth clinic and run, don't walk, to it because you are clearly disturbed... I made the correction about the M-16 along time ago... It was gold plated spurs and an M-16 rifle (unplated)... Big woop... You act as if this changes the issue here... It doesn't... It's not relavent to this discussion... Get that mental health and then come back when you have been cured of yer obsessive compulsiveness... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 05 Mar 09 - 10:24 AM Bobert still does not hold up his end of the bargain. Instead he accuses the person he made the bargain with of being mentally disturbed. "Bobert: "Tell ya what, Sawz, I'll find the source if you'll agree that when I find it that you admit that you are wrong... Unless I get that then it's not worth the time it will take to dig it up." Have you found that source yet? You made the following statement during this discussion so it must be revelant: "Heck, the US even provided the bad gas that was used against the Kurds... Even rewarded Saddam ****afterwards**** with all kinds of booty, including a (redacted) M-16 rifle." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 05 Mar 09 - 11:10 AM Yo, Sawz... For the ten millionth time, I corrected the booty list a long time ago... Your continued harrassment won't change that... If you can't accept that then go get mental health 'cause you certainly are coming off as some slobbering cyber-sicko... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 05 Mar 09 - 06:33 PM Meanwhile spare a thought for Teribus and his other war. The problems of Afghanistan, far from being overcome, are spreading across Pakistan too. But perhaps all is not lost, as NATO is now hoping to be dug out of its hole by Russia and Iran. (Amos, Edmund said it, not Lear.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 05 Mar 09 - 10:49 PM Bobert: "I'll find the source" Where is the source Bobert? Correcting the fact that the mythological M-16 was not gold plated does not reveal the source or who when and where the mythological M-16 was given. "Okay it was a pair of golden spurs and an M-16" Does this reveal the source? Then there is your statement that: "Heck, the US even provided the bad gas that was used against the Kurds ****afterwards**** with all kinds of booty" What was the "all kinds of booty", when where and how did the US provide the gas? Bobert: "What you get from me is gleaned strictly from the Washington Post, The New York Times and the TV news" Where is the source for the above facts por favor? You said you would look it up so please do so. "But wait, fir an extra $2.95 (plus shipping and handling) you'll get documentation that the US government had promised the Kurds they would support them against Saddam... Hmmmmmmk??? I got my $2.95 for the documentation right here, Where do I send it? You are very good at making personal attacks instead of backing up your ******* Bobert Facts ******* except with threats. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 06 Mar 09 - 01:04 AM Fionn typical BBC reporting, that's the same BBC that cannot write the word "Taleban" without prefixing it with "resurgent", the same BBC who have predicted massive spring and summer Taleban offensives that will drive ISAF out of the country every year since 2006 - odd that none of them have ever materialised. If you actually read the item they are talking about talks. Read nothing in it at all about Iran or Russia being asked to dig anyone out of a hole. Anything like that would be have to be done through the United Nations. They after all were the ones who put NATO into Afghanistan. Now what has the "Beeb" got to tell us about how terrible things are in Iraq?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 06 Mar 09 - 01:30 AM "This is the excellent foppery of the world, that, when we are sick in fortune,--often the surfeit of our own behavior,--we make guilty of our disasters the sun, the moon, and the stars: as if we were villains by necessity; fools by heavenly compulsion; knaves, thieves, and treachers, by spherical predominance; drunkards, liars, and adulterers, by an enforced obedience of planetary influence; and all that we are evil in, by a divine thrusting on: an admirable evasion of whoremaster man, to lay his goatish disposition to the charge of a star! My father compounded with my mother under the dragon's tail; and my nativity was under Ursa major; so that it follows, I am rough and lecherous. Tut, I should have been that I am, had the maidenliest star in the firmament twinkled on my bastardizing." — William Shakespeare (King Lear) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 06 Mar 09 - 07:26 AM Fact: Georeg Bush's war machine lied about Iraq having WMDs... Fact: George Bush's war machine lied about ties between Iraq and al qeada... Fact: Goerge Bush's war machine lied about Iraq trying to by nuclear material Fact: On January 27th Hanz Blix stated that the Iraqis were cooperating with the inspectors in letting the inspectors inspect whereever they (the inspectors) wanted... Opinion: Given that the US was in a position to find or not find WMDs in Iraq there is a cognitive disconnect in why the Bush war machine ordered up the invasion... That is the discussion here... Anyother discussion is just subterfuge... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 06 Mar 09 - 08:01 AM "Fact: Georeg Bush's war machine lied about Iraq having WMDs..." False. Since Bush said that Saddam had WMD programs, NOT WEAPONS, you are making a strawman arguement based on a lie ( LIE 1) "Fact: George Bush's war machine lied about ties between Iraq and al qeada..." False. Bush stated that there were reports , and there have been shown by Iraqi documents that Al Quida did recieve aid and comfort by Saddam. ( LIE 2) "Fact: Goerge Bush's war machine lied about Iraq trying to by nuclear material" False. There are records of Saddam trying to get nuclear PROGRAM materials ( forbidden by the UN) the mistake about the yellow cake ( Gee, we bought HOW MUCH yellowcake from Iraq, and shipped it secretly to the US? But I guess it was a gift, since he did not buy it...) ( I will not call this a lie, as the specific claim was mistaken, although Saddam has been shown to buy nuclear material. "Fact: On January 27th Hanz Blix stated that the Iraqis were cooperating with the inspectors in letting the inspectors inspect whereever they (the inspectors) wanted..." You fail to tell the rest of the report, where Blix states that it is NOT suffiecient, and that Saddam is STILL in violation ( after his last chance to come clean) of the UNR. This one I have told you before, and the specific statemnet you make, while true, is NOT what the report states as a conclusion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 06 Mar 09 - 08:36 AM LOL, bb... You know he lied and we all know that you will go to the grave defending him... Nothing new here... BTW, will you explain what is more important than "most important" which is what Blix said in reference to the report where he said the Iraqi's were cooperating???? I don't think that there is a word "moster" which would relegate "most important" to mean not "most important"... But with yer logic (or lack thereof) I'm sure you find some way the degrade "most important" to meaning something less than that... That is the crux of all of you arguments... Semamtics verses reality... I gues that "mushroom cloud" was not literally a mushroom cloud but something quite different... That's the problem we have here... Most folks, other than diehard Bush-heads, would agree that the Bush war machine centered its arguments for war on 3 lies: WMDs (not programs, or wantabee programs) but WMDs, an al qeada link and Iraq trying to buy nuclear material... That's reality to everyone in the world other than you folks who blindly followed the Bush War campaign... Ya'll can wiggle a sqirm now but it doesn't change the facts of the s Maybe you should revist some of the reporting in the Post from those days... No, not cherry pick but revisit the entirity of the articles written in the Post... The Post even admits that it got sucked into a "culture" during the selling of the war and admitted that it should have been more dilligent in questiooning the claims of the Bush War Machine... I believe that article was buried in the A-section on August 17, 2004 but I haven't looked for it for a while so that might not be the correct date... So, bb, revise away... You are in a very tiny minority of people who just can't deal with reality... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 06 Mar 09 - 09:08 AM Don't shoot the messenger Teribus. The BBC report was quoting Clinton. For instance: "If we move forward with such a meeting, it is expected that Iran would be invited as a neighbour of Afghanistan." And: "We can and must find ways to work constructively with Russia where we share areas of common interest, including helping the people of Afghanistan." Teribus may not realise it, but this is a repositioning. To me it has a hint of desperation about it, but no doubt Teribus will read it as confirmation that NATO has achieved a military triumph and wiped the Taleban from the face of the planet.(LOL) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 06 Mar 09 - 09:43 AM Bobert I am waiting for you to supply the source of the "facts" that you brought to this discussion. So far you have chickened out and are in a state of denial. "For the ten millionth time, I corrected the booty list a long time ago." So the "all kinds of booty" was: _________________________________ The source was: _________________________________ Now as fir other blogs???? I don't go to any of them... What you get from me is gleaned strictly from the Washington Post, The New York Times and the TV news... Nuthin' more!!! Allnatural, here... If I happen to see things the same way as some anti-Bush blogs see things then, hey, means we're both payin' attention.... But I swaer on my daddy's grave that these are my sources and I don't need nobody to tell me what to think or how to defend the postions I take... And I take that very seriously. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 06 Mar 09 - 10:30 AM THe media were rich with implications, innuendos and even bald statements that Iraq was a holder of and potential user of weapons of mass destruction. "The smoking gun would be a mushroom cloud", said Condi. Remember tha one? The administration made multiple statements on multiple occasions directly implying linksbetween al Qwda's attack on the US and Iraq. Are you seriously trying to weasel that fact? It has been documented in these threads almost as many times as it happened. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 06 Mar 09 - 01:10 PM "THe media were rich with implications, innuendos and even bald statements that Iraq was a holder of and potential user of weapons of mass destruction." - Amos Ah so it was the MEDIA who stated that Iraq had WMD - How does that translate to this being a "Bush Lie" as Bobert wants it to be broadcast as. If fact if either of you ever bothered to read what the mandate of UNMOVIC was you would both know that UNMOVIC did not go into IRAQ to FIND WMD - They were tasked with going into Iraq to determine and verify what the status was with regard to WMD, WMD Programmes, WMD Weapons, WMD Delivery systems and Precursor Materials. "The administration made multiple statements on multiple occasions directly implying linksbetween al Qwda's (??) attack on the US and Iraq." - Amos That is a blatant lie Amos. Within five days of the attacks that took place on the 11th September, 2001 two senior members of the Bush administration stated clearly and unequivocally in broadcast statements and in interviews that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with those attacks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Stringsinger Date: 06 Mar 09 - 03:39 PM But that's not the Party Line they told the public prior to that cover-your-ass announcement. They ginned up the iraq invasion by linking Al Quaeda and Hussein. "Smoking gun....mushroom cloud?" Bush's WMD pronouncement. B.S. to sell the invasion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Gervase Date: 06 Mar 09 - 05:39 PM Teribus, that is utter and arrant bollocks, and if you search your conscience you will recognise the fact. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 06 Mar 09 - 06:02 PM If that is utter arrant bollocks Gervase then prove it - And guess what?? I can tell you now that you will not be able to. Are you denying the fact that Colin Powell on the steps of the UN Building in New York on 16th September told CNN that the US were positive that neither Saddam Hussein or Iraq had anything to do with the attacks of the 11th September? Are you denying that that same evening in an interview with Bob Russert on "Meet the Press" Vice-President Dick Cheney was asked: Russert: "Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?" Cheney: "No." Now exactly what part of "No" do you not understand Gervase?? Can you give us any clue as to how he could have made his answer slightly less ambiguous?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 06 Mar 09 - 08:16 PM No, dimwit. The state,ents were by SECDEF, SECSTATE, POTUS and VPOTUS. They were reported int he media. Verbatim. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 06 Mar 09 - 09:24 PM Yo, Sawz... As fir yer little juvilinistic game, try this one on on fir size: F**k off!!! I've grown tiresome of yer gnat impersonation... You add absolutely nothin' to this discussion at all... Your little kindergartenish game is beneath me... You can type big scarey letters... I don't care... Paint 'um red... I don't care... You are just a cyber wuss as far as I can see who thinks he has something on me... You ain't got jack on me... Alll you have is yer little game because you have given up trying to defend this war... If you continue this line of childish and borderline obseesive behavior I will ask that Joe Offer remove your posts from this thread... I have a right to do that because it is my thread and you are trying to highjack it with meaningless childrens games... This thread is for adults... Not the Pampers crowd... Last warning!!! Keep f**king with this thread and I'll either have you bounced or I'll have the thread closed... Square business... And if you don't like it, I'm transparent... I'm easy to find... Come talk to me... Know what I nean, Vern??? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 06 Mar 09 - 11:51 PM Bobert: If you are an adult and I am childish, just answer the questions about what you posted and that will solve the problem. I will answer any question you ask the best way I know how. You might not like the answer and you might ridicule it rather than bring up a supportable fact that disproves it but at least it will be an answer, not an avoidance tactic and not a threat. What I have "on" you is you are constantly stating outrageous things that have no basis in fact and you will not provide any support for those facts. The US did not supply the "bad gas" for Saddam to use on the Kurds and they did not reward him afterwards with all kinds of booty including a M-16 rifle. To make such serious claims that are unsupported and unfounded is irresponsible. Just because you claim it is the truth does not make it the truth. To make callous remarks and refuse to support them is not adult behavior and not responsible behavior. Then you accuse me of being some kind of bully while you bully Tbus endlessly and call him a "belligerant blowhard who is too friggin; proud and partisan to admit that you are wrong" but if someone accuses you of being a blowhard because you wont answer questions, that is not allowed and someones teeth are threatened. So tell Joe to kick me off or end the tread if you want but I don't believe I am being threatening, insulting or abusive but just some one you can't blow off because you don't want to or can't support your claims. So now I am asking politely again for the source for your assertions about the gas, the rifle, the booty reward. Please. Thanks |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 07 Mar 09 - 12:12 AM The National Journal: "" One of the more intriguing things that Bush was told during the briefing was that the few credible reports of contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda involved attempts by Saddam Hussein to monitor the terrorist group. Saddam viewed Al Qaeda as well as other theocratic radical Islamist organizations as a potential threat to his secular regime. At one point, analysts believed, Saddam considered infiltrating the ranks of Al Qaeda with Iraqi nationals or even Iraqi intelligence operatives to learn more about its inner workings, according to records and sources. The September 21, 2001, briefing was prepared at the request of the president, who was eager in the days following the terrorist attacks to learn all that he could about any possible connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Much of the contents of the September 21 PDB were later incorporated, albeit in a slightly different form, into a lengthier CIA analysis examining not only Al Qaeda's contacts with Iraq, but also Iraq's support for international terrorism. Although the CIA found scant evidence of collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the agency reported that it had long since established that Iraq had previously supported the notorious Abu Nidal terrorist organization, and had provided tens of millions of dollars and logistical support to Palestinian groups, including payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. The highly classified CIA assessment was distributed to President Bush, Vice President Cheney, the president's national security adviser and deputy national security adviser, the secretaries and undersecretaries of State and Defense, and various other senior Bush administration policy makers, according to government records. The Senate Intelligence Committee has asked the White House for the CIA assessment, the PDB of September 21, 2001, and dozens of other PDBs as part of the committee's ongoing investigation into whether the Bush administration misrepresented intelligence information in the run-up to war with Iraq. The Bush administration has refused to turn over these documents. Indeed, the existence of the September 21 PDB was not disclosed to the Intelligence Committee until the summer of 2004, according to congressional sources. Both Republicans and Democrats requested then that it be turned over. The administration has refused to provide it, even on a classified basis, and won't say anything more about it other than to acknowledge that it exists. On November 18, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said he planned to attach an amendment to the fiscal 2006 intelligence authorization bill that would require the Bush administration to give the Senate and House intelligence committees copies of PDBs for a three-year period. After Democrats and Republicans were unable to agree on language for the amendment, Kennedy said he would delay final action on the matter until Congress returns in December. The conclusions drawn in the lengthier CIA assessment-which has also been denied to the committee-were strikingly similar to those provided to President Bush in the September 21 PDB, according to records and sources. In the four years since Bush received the briefing, according to highly placed government officials, little evidence has come to light to contradict the CIA's original conclusion that no collaborative relationship existed between Iraq and Al Qaeda. "What the President was told on September 21," said one former high-level official, "was consistent with everything he has been told since-that the evidence was just not there." In arguing their case for war with Iraq, the president and vice president said after the September 11 attacks that Al Qaeda and Iraq had significant ties, and they cited the possibility that Iraq might share chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons with Al Qaeda for a terrorist attack against the United States...." resident George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses. On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings, interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration's case for war. It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to Al Qaeda. This was the conclusion of numerous bipartisan government investigations, including those by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2004 and 2006), the 9/11 Commission, and the multinational Iraq Survey Group, whose "Duelfer Report" established that Saddam Hussein had terminated Iraq's nuclear program in 1991 and made little effort to restart it. In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003. Not surprisingly, the officials with the most opportunities to make speeches, grant media interviews, and otherwise frame the public debate also made the most false statements, according to this first-ever analysis of the entire body of prewar rhetoric. President Bush, for example, made 232 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and another 28 false statements about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Secretary of State Powell had the second-highest total in the two-year period, with 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Rumsfeld and Fleischer each made 109 false statements, followed by Wolfowitz (with 85), Rice (with 56), Cheney (with 48), and McClellan (with 14). The massive database at the heart of this project juxtaposes what President Bush and these seven top officials were saying for public consumption against what was known, or should have been known, on a day-to-day basis. This fully searchable database includes the public statements, drawn from both primary sources (such as official transcripts) and secondary sources (chiefly major news organizations) over the two years beginning on September 11, 2001. It also interlaces relevant information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches, and interviews. Consider, for example, these false public statements made in the run-up to war: On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney's assertions went well beyond his agency's assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, "Our reaction was, 'Where is he getting this stuff from?' " In the closing days of September 2002, with a congressional vote fast approaching on authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, Bush told the nation in his weekly radio address: "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year." A few days later, similar findings were also included in a much-hurried National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction — an analysis that hadn't been done in years, as the intelligence community had deemed it unnecessary and the White House hadn't requested it. In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: "Sure." In fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an absence of "compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda." What's more, an earlier DIA assessment said that "the nature of the regime's relationship with Al Qaeda is unclear." On May 29, 2003, in an interview with Polish TV, President Bush declared: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories." But as journalist Bob Woodward reported in State of Denial, days earlier a team of civilian experts dispatched to examine the two mobile labs found in Iraq had concluded in a field report that the labs were not for biological weapons. The team's final report, completed the following month, concluded that the labs had probably been used to manufacture hydrogen for weather balloons. On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush asserted: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase agreement "probably is a hoax." On February 5, 2003, in an address to the United Nations Security Council, Powell said: "What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources." As it turned out, however, two of the main human sources to which Powell referred had provided false information. One was an Iraqi con artist, code-named "Curveball," whom American intelligence officials were dubious about and in fact had never even spoken to. The other was an Al Qaeda detainee, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who had reportedly been sent to Eqypt by the CIA and tortured and who later recanted the information he had provided. Libi told the CIA in January 2004 that he had "decided he would fabricate any information interrogators wanted in order to gain better treatment and avoid being handed over to [a foreign government]." The false statements dramatically increased in August 2002, with congressional consideration of a war resolution, then escalated through the mid-term elections and spiked even higher from January 2003 to the eve of the invasion.... http://projects.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/ Administration Statements Linking Iraq and Al Qaeda. I think this horse is dead. Can I stop beating it now? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 07 Mar 09 - 02:54 AM Hindsight's a marvelous thing isn't it Amos, I note you do not give the dates of those "cut'n'pastes" - 23rd January, 2008 Unfortunately your President had to deal with the information that was known at that time and the evaluation of that intelligence by the experts available to him at that time. Maybe the President was doubly unfortunate in that as far as the US Intelligence and Security Agencies went, they were still headed up and manned by and large by exactly the same men who had advised George W. Bush's predecessor in 1998, that Iraq constituted a threat to the United States of America. Although having said that, I can see no reason why men in those positions would, under such circumstances, not do their jobs conscientiously to the best of their professional ability. In both your links, particularly the second one from "democratic underground.com" of a 27th August, 2006 edit of something originally posted on 23 November, 2005, their greatest failure is to not actually separate the attacks of 11th September, 2001 from what was evaluated as constituting the greatest threat of attack to the United States of America. The two things are completely separate and totally different in scale and nature. The only relevance of 911 was that it demonstrated the frightening degree of the vulnerability of the United States of America to an asymmetric attack. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Barry Finn Date: 07 Mar 09 - 03:52 PM "Unfortunately your President had to deal with the information that was known at that time and the evaluation of that intelligence by the experts available to him at that time" Not true! Bush excepted only the info that was useful for his war plan. He had all the info available that was needed to make an informed, intellegant choice. He did not want to wait to go to war & he painted the picture that best supported his plan & went ahead with it before the paint was dry enough for the rest of the world to get a good look at his masterpiece. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 07 Mar 09 - 04:17 PM T: They were totally separate in fact. They were conflated by the mouthpieces of the Administration in order to justifdy the invasion of Iraq for other motives. The dates of the links above do not matter; what matters is they demonstrate that the Administration on multiple occasions tried to persuade the American people that there WAS a link, that there WERE WMD and that invasion WAS justified, all three of which turned out to be complete bullshit. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 08 Mar 09 - 05:45 AM From your links Amos and from intelligence reports received the following statement is true: There was evidence of links and contacts between Al-Qaeda and the Iraqi Ba'athist Regime of Saddam Hussein. The following statement is also true: There were absolutely no links to, or involvement by the Iraqi Ba'athist Regime of Saddam Hussein in the Al-Qaeda attacks of the 11th September, 2001. I can differentiate between the two - you and obviously thousands of your fellow countrymen cannot. In exactly the same way, you and thousands of your fellow countrymen believe that the US went into Iraq to discover and unearth massive stockpiles of WMD. Which, of course if you actually read the remit of UNMOVIC, is nonsense. The Administration of George W. Bush did not make up the detailed list of what WMD Iraq might have and what WMD programmes might still be running. All that information came from UNSCOM, the very last group in Iraq monitoring the dismantling of those very same programmes. What UNMOVIC was sent into Iraq to do was to clearly and unequivocally establish exactly what the status was with regard to the discrepancies detailed previously by UNSCOM. Did they expect to find them? - Did they believe they were going to find them? - Of course they did. How does this failure to grasp what is going on come about? Because you and all those thousands of "believers" did not take the trouble to read what was reported and match it up to what was actually said. Best example of that that we saw in the UK was the "45 minute" claim. Poorly presented and stated in Parliament and woefully reported by the Press in the UK - Myself and any ex-forces member knew exactly what it meant, having had it hammered into us in "threat" lectures throughout the "Cold War". 45 minutes is the time it takes the armed forces of the Soviet Union and their Warsaw Pact Allies to arm their Chemical/Biological weapons. Ask those whose statements have been highlighted in your links if they truly believed what they were saying at the time, you will a "Yes" right across the board. But while you are doing that also ask the Governments of the fifteen nations who made up the Security Council of the United Nations at the time whether they and their intelligence services also independently believed it, you will also get a "Yes" right across the board - even from Ba'athist Syria, Saddam's neighbour. Another thing that you never mention - Saddam Hussein's own admission that he did everything in his power to foster the belief that Iraq still possessed WMD and was fully prepared to use them. Indication of this - the attempt in 2002 to buy 1 million ampules of atropine from Germany. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 08 Mar 09 - 08:01 AM What I'm waiting for is for Cheney to have to divulge his pre-war contacts at the CIA and testimony of the folks he spoke with there... Right now, Cheney is sandbagging on providing much of anything about what he did for 8 years??? Funny thing... We know everything about his illnesses and his operation but nothing about the men involved in writing the mystery energy policy or his involvement at the CIA in shaping intllegence to fit a decision to invade Iraq, according to former Treasury Secretary, that was made long before 9/11??? (But, Bobertz... Bill Cliinton left orders to invade Iraq???) He did??? Hmmmmmmmm??? Must have been the only Clinton order that Bush ever followed... Sho nuff didn't have any use for everything else the Clinton administartion stood for... You know, like keeping taxes high enough to pay for the governemnt, or continuing to remain engaged in the Palestian/Isareali conflict, missle treaties, global warming treaties, etc., etc.... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Gervase Date: 08 Mar 09 - 03:06 PM The material provided by Amos has been posted on here before but, Teribus, it seems that nothing short of ECT or a lobotomy will induce you to change your mind. The fact is that, for all your wind and piss, you are in the same position as the thick tom on the passing out parade whose mother sighs, "Oh look, everyone's out of step except my Tommy!". For all your frenetic cutting and pasting you are not going to persuade anyone as to the merits of your peculiar views, and as time passes and more things enter the public realm you simply look more and more silly. Your tiresomely repetitive rebuttals are beginning to seem as hysterical as those of any latter-day flat-earther or creationist Still, your mulishness does provide some of us with a quiet chuckle! |
|
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. |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 07:59 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: Teribus Date: 13 Mar 09 - 10:04 PM "T-zer, T-Bird, T-Bollocks... I kinda like T-Bollocks... Has that nice ring to it..." - Bobert "Name calling belongs in the school-yard, not in serious debate; it is a useful indication of the mental level of the person who indulges in it," - Courtesy of Jim Carroll Kinda apt - thanks Jim. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Ron Davies Date: 13 Mar 09 - 10:14 PM I will not get sucked into another huge Iraq sinkhole of wasted time. Teribus has already proven he always looks for the most unseaworthy vessel, then lashes himself to the mast. But this speaks to the heart of the problem. Teribus has glossed over Amos' quote of Ari Fleischer. Pity--since it shows quite clearly how much Teribus knows about the issue--which seems to be, almost 6 years after the crucial events, exactly what he knew in 2003--a bit less than nothing. Ari said (11 March 2009).: "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." First, the stupid formulation--Ari actually meant exactly the opposite of what he said. He actually meant we could not take the chance Saddam might strike again. The extra "not" makes his sentence supremely idiotic. Unless he wanted Saddam to strike. Which he possibly did not. OK. Now to the sense as he meant it: after September 11, having been hit once, could we take a chance Saddam might strike again? Teribus says he completely understands "what he saying there (sic)..." Somehow, I doubt it. "September 11"--the attack by (mostly Saudi) terrorists--no Iraqis. Certainly nobody sponsored by Saddam Understand, Teribus? "Saddam"--he was the dictator of Iraq until the 2003 war was over. Understand, Teribus? "again"--that means a second time Understand, Teribus? The word "again" in this sentence refers to Sept 11. Sept 11 would be the first attack. Understand, Teribus? So Ari is saying we could not take the chance Saddam would attack us again, as Saddam did Sept 11. Which is a blatant lie. And also the foundation of Bush's Iraq propaganda campaign. Which obviously Ari-- long after the alleged connection between Saddam and Sept 11 has been exhaustively exposed as a despicable lie-- is still trying to spread. And that's fine with Teribus. Since, virtually alone among sentient beings, he still believes it. So it seems that Teribus has proven beyond doubt, not only that he has not the foggiest notion of anything Ari said in that quote- from the start to the end , but that he refuses to even try to understand. Though Teribus claims to have noticed the 2009 date of the quote, he obviously has learned precisely nothing in almost 6 years. Proving, if proof were necessary, that he is an excellent candidate for the easiest mark for propaganda since the 3rd Reich. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Barry Finn Date: 14 Mar 09 - 12:40 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. "for Iraqis; Iranians; Israelis & Americans."???? Maybe Iraqis! What second Iran/Iraq War? When did that happen? "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?" So now we have these new reasons that brought us into the war T? Or to justify it? Peace in the Middle East won't happen while 1st, Israel remains the only nation in the area that has nukes (why is it ok for them?) & 2nd while they continue to blockade the peace process. There'll be no rest in the mid east untill this conflict is settled 1st! •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. True T, but had we not blown (How Many) billions on the war we would've been in a far better position to weather out the storm. The care for the Vets alone for the next half century is enough to cripple our existing health care system as well as cause the flood banks to overflow. "terrorism has flourished" Has it Barry?? Where?? You've got to be kidding???? Do you live in a cave? "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." T, I'm thinking that you should tell Obama yourself, you've had it all worked out right from jump street. You should run for his office, I'm sure that there are so many who believe as you do that you'll get a vote or 2. NOT Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 14 Mar 09 - 07:47 AM Ari said (11 March 2009): "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." I'll tell you what speaks to the heart of the problem Ron, you credit Americans with, and believe that they must have, the attention span of Goldfish in order to swallow the rubbish that you have just written. Can you tell me why you and Amos have taken two sentences and placed them for analysis in splendid isolation, blithely ignoring everything that has happened over the past eight years, and, everything that has been previously said on the subject? Ari's word formulation is poor only if you do as you have done, and what Amos rather clumsily tried to do. I must say though that I would have phrased it differently if I were to try and say the same thing. However GWB put it better in his SOTU Speech when the potential threat posed by Saddam's Iraq was described, so did Bill Clinton in an Address to the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon on 17th February 1998: 1. "Before September 11, 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents and lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, and other plans - this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that day never comes." – GWB 28th January, 2003 2. "Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal." – WJC 17th February, 1998. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 14 Mar 09 - 08:20 AM Apologies Barry I forgot to answer your post. "So now we have these new reasons that brought us into the war T? Or to justify it?" No Barry, those are not new reasons that brought us into the war, they are not mentioned to justify the decision to invade Iraq in any way, shape or form. The following occurred as a direct result of the United States of America adopting the posture it did with regard to Iraq from 2002 onwards: 1. Libya completely abandons its WMD programmes including a hitherto unknown nuclear weapons programme. 2. Exposure of the Libyan nuclear weapons programme reveals a hitherto unknown, secret and highly illegal network run by a Pakistani, Dr.A.Q.Khan, whose purpose is the sale and proliferation of nuclear weapons technology and components. The links and activities of this organization extend from Pakistan to Malaya, Libya, Syria, Iran, Iraq and North Korea. 3. Due to the exposure of Khan's network North Korean activities in the sale and supply of components and technology are brought to an end. The North Koreans are forced to attend six-party talks to discuss their own nuclear programme which they agree to dismantle. 4. Due to the exposure of Khan's network and disclosure by a dissident group in Iran exposing the hitherto secret uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz and the secret heavy water facility at Arak, Iran suspends but does not abandon its nuclear weapons programme (according to NIE Report). Iran's nuclear programme put under the spotlight by IAEA and the international community as a whole. 5. Syria is forced to comply with UN Resolutions calling for an end to its 27 year long occupation of Lebanon, thereby enhancing Lebanon's chances of peace stability and self-determination. Due to exposure of Khan's network links between Iran, Syria and North Korea are identified and investigated. It is as yet undisclosed as to whether those links are related to rocket technology, or whether they are related to nuclear weapons. A secret Syrian facility located close to the Turkish border is raided by Israeli commandos and destroyed by aerial attack. Syrian protests are "muted" and the site of the building is surgically cleared and sanitized by the Syrians before IAEA inspectors are allowed access. Several North Korean technicians die in the attack. 6. Due to the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein from power the number of known state sponsors of international terrorist organizations was reduced by one. Incidence of suicide bombings inside Israel plummeted. All of the above, as previously stated, came about as a direct or indirect result of the US invasion of Iraq. All post date 9/11 and subsequent action taken in Afghanistan to drive the Taleban from power. Barry asks: "What second Iran/Iraq War? When did that happen?" Saddam Hussein if left in place with UN sanctions lifted, or merely ignored, would never have tolerated any Iranian nuclear programme irrespective of its purpose. Saddam Hussein if left in place would have done everything in his power to destroy that Iranian nuclear programme and France, Russia and China would have done everything in their power to assist him. Nothing like getting paid by both sides in a conflict to maximize the profit margin. Ah Barry so the Israeli "nukes" are the root cause of the trouble in the middle-east are they? All will be well when all the countries and combatant organizations have "nukes" will it? Barry, not even the Russians, at the height of the "Cold War", were f**king stupid enough to even remotely promise any Arab country access to nuclear weapons, let alone let them develop them independently. There will be peace in the middle-east when attacks on Israel and Israeli citizens stop – and that could happen tomorrow if the protagonists decided upon it and agreed it. "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." - teribus "True T, but had we not blown (How Many) billions on the war we would've been in a far better position to weather out the storm." – Barry No buts Barry, people were given loans by banks and lending institutions who should never have been given loans in the first place. The reason that those people were given loans was because the banks and lending institutions had been, fraudulently in my opinion, given reason to believe by mortgage brokers that the loans would be guaranteed by the Federal Bank. Of course they weren't, so when people started to default on their repayments the banks went to the mortgage brokers and the Federal bank said "Nothing to do with us" and that is when the shit hit the fan. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the Government, the war, or any other Government spending programme. Tell me Barry where terrorism has flourished?? Asking me about my domestic arrangements does not answer my question – As it happens I do not live in a cave, but I can give you the names of a few who do, and they have to change them every night. Health care Barry?? Simple as I've said all YOU and your fellow citizens have got to do is vote for it and pay the f**kin' cost of it. There is no such thing as "Government" money, its your money, its tax money, if you want something then pay for it and stop whinging about it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Gervase Date: 14 Mar 09 - 06:22 PM Merciful heavens, you really do have too much time on your hands, don't you? Your replies have all the hallmarks of the obsessive/compulsive rebutter. Your analysis is still bollocks, however. Tell me, old fruit, how much has terrorism gone down in Pakistan? Or Iraq? Or Egypt? Or the Phillipines? Or Afghanistan? Or Somalia? Or the UK, come to that? Your really are living in a parallel universe! Have a look here for just the first ten weeks of 2009. I would cut and paste it, as that seems to be your preferred technique, but you seem to get out so little that a little exercise of the mousing fingers might do you some good. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 14 Mar 09 - 06:54 PM He won't read it... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 14 Mar 09 - 07:08 PM Gervase your analysis of the questions I posed cannot be answered by the word bollocks - excuse me dearheart but that that smacks of complete refusal to face reality. As for your list of terrorist "outrages" having read through them eliminate those directly connected to Afghanistan and Iraq and I could have given you that same list decades ago. Terrorism id flourishing - my arse it is. hey Gervase they're hiding out in cavbes for fucks sake afraid to go outside and look up at the sun for fear that the next hour will place a Hellfire missile will deliver them to purgatory where they belong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 14 Mar 09 - 07:17 PM Yer gettin' to him, Grevase... 2 typos in 3 sentences = T is rattled... Keep poundin'... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 14 Mar 09 - 08:03 PM "typos" Bobert - how the fuck would you know?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: cobra Date: 14 Mar 09 - 08:22 PM Oh dear.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Gervase Date: 15 Mar 09 - 03:58 AM Teribus. Decades ago? Has militant Islam really been at it that long? I must be mistaken then. I thought the PFLP, PLO and similar outrages (not to mention PIRA and ETA) were more to do with nationhood rather than religion. Religious terrorism has risen. Or are you going to say black is white and deny that? Why not go the whole hog and say the Earth is flat and the sun goes around it. Go on, you know you want to! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 15 Mar 09 - 05:13 AM Gervase, just a small point I know but: "Decades ago? Has militant Islam really been at it that long?" - Gervase Where and when have I mentioned militant Islam?? I have mentioned terrorism and referred to terrorist attacks, but not militant Islam. Oh first entry from your link: "January 1 - 5 Dead, 50 injured, Guwahati, Assam: Police are blaming a insurgent group in Assam for three explosions early on New Year's Day that killed 5 people and injured 50 others. The United Liberation Front of Asom has been waging a low level insurgency for two decades in the province leaving at least 10,000 people dead. This comes just after the Mumbai attacks." Read the second last sentence of that entry very carefully: "The United Liberation Front of Asom has been waging a low level insurgency for two decades in the province leaving at least 10,000 people dead." Did you see that word "DECADES" Gervase?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Gervase Date: 15 Mar 09 - 07:12 AM You're being selective there, Teribus (no surprises there, of course!). At least half of those incidents can be blamed on militant Islam, and the Iraq misadventure has poured petrol on the flames. Discount Iraq and Afghanistan? That's a bit like looking at PIRA murders and discounting those that happened in Northern Ireland, you clot. OK, How about a bit of cut and paste – giving just the January attacks? Twenty-five of them; eighteen of which can be linked to militant Islamic factions. Nice to know terrorism is on the wane, eh? Just because the US and the UK hasn't been attacked for a while doesn't mean that terrorism has gone away. Date Dead Injured Incident January 1 5 50 Guwahati, Assam. Police are blaming a insurgent group in Assam for three explosions early on New Year's Day that killed 5 people and injured 50 others. The United Liberation Front of Asom has been waging a low level insurgency for two decades in the province leaving at least 10,000 people dead. This comes just after the Mumbai attacks. January 1 4 16 Khar, Bajaur Agency. Militants fired rockets at a civil colony in the Bajaur Agency town of Khar killing four people and injuring 16 others. The attackers were able to get away before police and army officials caught them. LINKED January 2 23 72 Yusufiya. A relative of a Sunni tribal shiek blew himself up at a Sunni gathering south of Baghdad killing 23 people and wounding 72 others, including many of his relatives. LINKED January 2 4 37 Colombo. Hours after the capture of the Tamil Tigers capital in northern Sri Lanka a suicide bomber in Colombo struck killing three security officers and himself and wounding an additional 37 others.[4] January 3 0 3 Colombo. A bomb blast outside a mosque in Colombo has injured three people. January 4 35 79 Baghdad. A suicide bomb blast at a Shite religious shrine in Baghdad has killed at least 35 people and injured 79.LINKED January 4 7 28 Dera Ismail Khan. Police officers investigating "explosives" in the North-West town of Dera Ismail Khan were attacked by a teenage suicide bomber resulting in the deaths of 7 people and the injuring of another 28. Five policemen are among the dead. LINKED January 5 0 1 Athens. Police guarding the Cultural Ministry in Athens were attacked by gunfire. This comes nearly a month after riots began over the killing of a 15 year old boy by Athens Police. The unit targetted was a riot squad unit and one policeman was taken to hospital with serious injuries. Three people were arrested a short time later. January 8 1 2 Khuzdar, Balochistan. One person was killed and two others injured in an bomb incident. The bomb had been placed on a sitting motorcycle and there is no information on who committed the act. January 9 12 20 Zaranj,Nimroz. A car bomb in a market place killed 10 civilians and two Afghan police officers and injured at least 20 others. LINKED January 11 3 0 . Suspected Islamic insurgents in Thailand southern provinces shot and killed two Buddhist men and a Muslim woman as they headed to work at a rubber plantation. Police are looking for four gunmen. LINKED January 12 9 18 Baghdad Three explosions in Baghdad in a market, at a checkpoint and a military patrol resulted in the deaths of at least 9 Iraqis and the injuring of 18 others. LINKED January 14 1 15 Bugti colony, Sui A remote control triggered explosive detonated in Sui province killing one man and injuring 15 others including ten Pakistani soldiers. LINKED January 15 6 2 Bardhere Town A remote controlled landmine detonated in Bardhere town killing a militia commander and three other Somali militiamen and two civilians while injuring two more civilians in an attack blamed on Islamist rebels. LINKED January 17 0 0 Hernani, Basque Country A blast went off at a television station in Hernani causing damage but no injuries. ETA is blamed for the attack. January 17 6 19 Kabul A suicide car bomber in Kabul killed one U.S serviceman 4 civilians and himself and wounded 19 others in Kabul. LINKED January 18 5 20 Qaiyara A Sunni political leader was killed along with four other people and at least 20 other people were wounded in a suicide bombing in the northern community of Qaiyara. LINKED January 18 0 4 Herat A bridge was blown up by Taliban insurgents wounding four Afghan civilians as foreign troops were apparently going over the bridge. No foreign fatalities or injuries reported. LINKED January 20 2 2 Kandahar A bicycle bomb exploded killing two Afghan police officers and wounding two more people. January 21 4 10 Baghdad Ziyad al-Ain, a dean of Baghdad's Islamic University and the Iraqi Under-secretary for the Education Ministry, Ammar Aziz Mohammed Ali, survived a car bomb but four others including a woman and a child were killed and ten others injured.LINKED January 24 14 30 Mogadishu A car bomb exploded in Mogadishu killing 15 civilians and one Somali policemen. The bomb was meant for AU peacekeepers but policemen noticed the suspicious vehicle and fired several shots at the driver resulting in the vehicle crashing short of its target and exploding. At least 30 others were wounded. LINKED January 24 6 13 Jarma A car bomb exploded north of Baghdad killing five police officers and the suicide car bomber and injured 13 others just a week before provincial elections in Iraq. LINKED January 24 0 0 Kidapawan City Two men tossed a grenade into a church grounds in the city of Kidapawan City in insurgency hit southern Philippines and it exploded causing some damage. No injuries or deaths were reported in the incident. LINKED January 26 2 6 Katahariya village A bomb hanging from a tree at the Katahariya village local market exploded killing one person and injuring two other people seriously. The Tarai Army has claimed responsibility for the blast. LINKED January 27 2 5 Kissufim A bombing by Palestinian militants at the Kissufim crossing killing one Israeli soldier and injured three others. Israeli soldiers invaded Gaza to find the bombers but withdrew after a short time when their operation was not successful. In retaliation Israeli forces later shot and killed a Palestinian farmer and wounded two other Palestinian civilians, a second terrorist incident connected to the first. January 28 2 4 Bogota An explosion in a two-story building in Bogota has killed 2 people and injured at least four others. January 30 0 10 Davao City Communist rebels set off a landmine by a military convoy in Davao City and then attacked a police station with gunfire resulting in the injuring of ten people, but no fatalities. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 15 Mar 09 - 07:36 AM OK Gervase - go back down through your list and see how many of your "LINKED" incidents can also be attributed to motives other than militant Islam i.e. sectarian, nationalistic, insurgent action, civil war, etc. The fact that a great number of those committing the acts are Muslim does not necessarily mean that militant Islam is the driver. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Gervase Date: 15 Mar 09 - 10:50 AM Tell you what - you do it - and cite references please, giving the qualifications of the relevant analyst. Use one side of the paper only. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 15 Mar 09 - 11:01 AM Any references that yer gonna see outta T, Gervase, will be bogus rightie blog proclamations that have little or no factual basis... On the other thread we are now hearing the very latest rightie blog-o-crap with the unsubstantuated number of people who were datained as "enemy comabatants" who have returned supposedly to jihad... Complete mythology but everytime I hear the number being thrown out by the Bushite/warmongers it's a different number picked purely out of the sky... But then again T has never been too good with either reality or numbers... But he'll say that my claim that upwards of a million Iraqis have been killed by this war... And even when I furnish my source he will say that my source is bogus... Yeah, he'll pick some rightie blog-o-crap number but poopoo John Hopkins??? Hmmmmmmm???? Noted PHDs on one side v. a bunch of pissed off Republican warmongers on the other??? This ain't rocket surgery... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 15 Mar 09 - 03:32 PM Ah I see Gervase you say something and it just has to be accepted. Hey pal your contention that the incidents are related to militant Islam - You bloody well prove it, or at least attempt to offer something by way of substantiation. If you cannot do that then sorry I am not prepared to accept your premise. Just a quick run down through your list: Date Dead Injured Incident January 1 4 16 Khar, Bajaur Agency. Militants fired rockets at a civil colony in the Bajaur Agency town of Khar killing four people and injuring 16 others. The attackers were able to get away before police and army officials caught them. LINKED to militant Islam claims Gervase: Hardly, muslims killing muslims, care to tell us all how the cause of Islam is furthered by this attack. This district in the FATA of Pakistan is currently being contested by the Pakistani Army and the Tehrik-e-Taliban, the so-called Pakistani Taleban. The town serves as the main Pakistani Army Base in the district. January 2 23 72 Yusufiya. A relative of a Sunni tribal shiek blew himself up at a Sunni gathering south of Baghdad killing 23 people and wounding 72 others, including many of his relatives. LINKED to militant Islam claims Gervase: Arab Sunni Muslim kills himself and other Arab Sunni Muslims how is this an example of militant Islam – it could just as well have been a family tiff. January 4 35 79 Baghdad. A suicide bomb blast at a Shite religious shrine in Baghdad has killed at least 35 people and injured 79. LINKED to militant Islam claims Gervase: Possibly Arab Sunni Muslim targets a Shia Muslim Shrine in order to kill Arab Shia Muslims – Again does not further the cause of Islam and has all the hallmarks of a straightforward sectarian attack. January 4 7 28 Dera Ismail Khan. Police officers investigating "explosives" in the North-West town of Dera Ismail Khan were attacked by a teenage suicide bomber resulting in the deaths of 7 people and the injuring of another 28. Five policemen are among the dead. LINKED to militant Islam claims Gervase: Attack on the police in NWFP town bugger all to do with militant Islam. Since August 2008 the town has been subject to sectarian violence primarily against the Shia community. January 9 12 20 Zaranj,Nimroz. A car bomb in a market place killed 10 civilians and two Afghan police officers and injured at least 20 others. LINKED to militant Islam claims Gervase: Attack on Afghan Police Force part of the ongoing Taleban insurgency bugger all to do with militant Islam January 11 3 0 . Suspected Islamic insurgents in Thailand southern provinces shot and killed two Buddhist men and a Muslim woman as they headed to work at a rubber plantation. Police are looking for four gunmen. LINKED Ah Gervase this one is an example of militant Islam and attacks such as these have been common in this part of Thailand for years, they have nothing whatsoever to do with outrage over Afghanistan or Iraq. January 12 9 18 Baghdad Three explosions in Baghdad in a market, at a checkpoint and a military patrol resulted in the deaths of at least 9 Iraqis and the injuring of 18 others. LINKED to militant Islam claims Gervase: Bugger all to do with militant Islam this is a Taleban attack on a military check point carried out as part of the ongoing insurrection in Afghanistan. January 14 1 15 Bugti colony, Sui A remote control triggered explosive detonated in Sui province killing one man and injuring 15 others including ten Pakistani soldiers. LINKED to militant Islam claims Gervase: Ah so the Baluchi Liberation Army had nothing to do with this then Gervase?? Nothing whatsoever to do with militant Islam but a hell of a lot to do with nationalistic aspirations of the Baluchi people. Their primary "beef" with the Government of Pakistan is that the latter put a pipeline through their land and the locals are deriving very little benefit - This is about money not religion. January 15 6 2 Bardhere Town A remote controlled landmine detonated in Bardhere town killing a militia commander and three other Somali militiamen and two civilians while injuring two more civilians in an attack blamed on Islamist rebels. LINKED to militant Islam claims Gervase: Assassination Gervase, carried out as part of internal struggle for power in Somalia, nothing to do with militant Islam. January 17 6 19 Kabul A suicide car bomber in Kabul killed one U.S serviceman 4 civilians and himself and wounded 19 others in Kabul. LINKED to militant Islam claims Gervase: Taleban attack on US military personnel carried out as part of the ongoing insurrection in Afghanistan. January 18 5 20 Qaiyara A Sunni political leader was killed along with four other people and at least 20 other people were wounded in a suicide bombing in the northern community of Qaiyara. LINKED to militant Islam claims Gervase: Sectarian attack in Iraq. January 18 0 4 Herat A bridge was blown up by Taliban insurgents wounding four Afghan civilians as foreign troops were apparently going over the bridge. No foreign fatalities or injuries reported. LINKED to militant Islam claims Gervase: Failed Taleban attack on ISAF military personnel carried out as part of the ongoing insurrection in Afghanistan. January 20 2 2 Kandahar A bicycle bomb exploded killing two Afghan police officers and wounding two more people. Taleban attack on Afghan Police Force personnel carried out as part of the ongoing insurrection in Afghanistan. January 21 4 10 Baghdad Ziyad al-Ain, a dean of Baghdad's Islamic University and the Iraqi Under-secretary for the Education Ministry, Ammar Aziz Mohammed Ali, survived a car bomb but four others including a woman and a child were killed and ten others injured. LINKED to militant Islam claims Gervase: Sectarian assassination attempt January 24 14 30 Mogadishu A car bomb exploded in Mogadishu killing 15 civilians and one Somali policemen. The bomb was meant for AU peacekeepers but policemen noticed the suspicious vehicle and fired several shots at the driver resulting in the vehicle crashing short of its target and exploding. At least 30 others were wounded. LINKED to militant Islam claims Gervase: Failed attack on AU troops as part of ongoing internal violence in Somalia, a squabble for power that has got nothing to do with militant Islam January 24 6 13 Jarma A car bomb exploded north of Baghdad killing five police officers and the suicide car bomber and injured 13 others just a week before provincial elections in Iraq. LINKED to militant Islam claims Gervase: Politically motivated attack nothing to do with militant Islam January 24 0 0 Kidapawan City Two men tossed a grenade into a church grounds in the city of Kidapawan City in insurgency hit southern Philippines and it exploded causing some damage. No injuries or deaths were reported in the incident. LINKED to militant Islam claims Gervase: Inconclusive as no organization has claimed responsibility for this "attack" on a grave yard, so I'd be interested to hear your reasoning for linking this to militant Islamists. January 26 2 6 Katahariya village A bomb hanging from a tree at the Katahariya village local market exploded killing one person and injuring two other people seriously. The Tarai Army has claimed responsibility for the blast. LINKED to militant Islam claims Gervase: Terai Army is an underground militant movement fighting for the rights and greater autonomy of Nepal's minority Madhesi people who are primarily Hindus. Again I'd be interested in your reasoning for linking this to militant Islamists. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Stringsinger Date: 15 Mar 09 - 04:09 PM The problem is not militant Islam but militant Islams. Religion has every bit to do with the carnage in the Mid-east. Of course, the Hindu reaction doesn't help though here we have to see that it is more than one militant Hindu faction as well. As long as American foreign policy is predicated on extirpating all that they don't agree with, they only exacerbate the senseless bloodshed of religious fanaticism from all factions. Iraq and Afghanistan foreign policy at the moment is an exercise in futility. The only outcome is more of the Hobbesian Trap instigated by an irrational Leviathan. The Bush propaganda line that Iraq has somehow improved its situation after innocent civilians have been slaughtered and rendered helpless by meaningless sanctions is risible. In a sense, Bush has slaughtered as many Iraqis as did Saddam if not more. There is no responsible response to this mistake except to pull the armed forces out of Iraq and Afghanistan and admit that it was an egregious error that will go down in the history books. Leaving American soldiers there will mean further bloodshed. After this, an assessment of foreign policy that relies on violence needs to be reexamined and replaced by a rational approach. This would include understanding (not necessarily supporting) the motives of alien cultures and religions, something that Americans and others such as Great Britain have been unwilling to do. Stringsinger |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 15 Mar 09 - 05:39 PM Heck, we have militant Christains, too... Or at least they profess to be Christains... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Gervase Date: 15 Mar 09 - 05:51 PM So, Sunni/Shia attacks have nothing to do with the brand of Islamicism being promulgated? And the Taleban do not have a militant Islamicist agenda at all? "Bugger all to do with militant Islam" is the quote from our resident ISS pundit. Well, we learn something new every day! Watching this man consistently make a complete arse of himself really is the modern equivalent of the 'penny visit' - join the queue and watch through the bars as the mighty Teribus argues that the world is flat and the sun goes round the earth, pounding his keyboard all the more frantically as he gradually loses the plot and lapses into foul-mouthed incoherence. So, another stick through the bars; what do you make of this list of terrorist attacks, this time for February? More than there were in January (oops, sorry - terrorism is on the wane and they're all hiding in caves, aren't they?), but I await your usual forensic excellence with bated breath. The numbers, by the way, mean the same as in the previous post. They are human lives wrecked. A significant majority of the attacks can be linked to militant Islamicist action, but the dancing monkey will, of course, prove otherwise… February 1 3 40 Zhumadian, Henan Province An explosive device detonated outside a hospital in Zhumdian in Henan Province killing 3 people and injuring 40 others according to the Hong Kong Centre and police report four dead and two injured. It is believed someone unhappy with the hospital might be behind the explosion. February 1 1 3 Kabul Insurgents attacked a Nato convoy in Kabul with a suicide bomber resulting in the injuring of two Afghan civilians and a French soldier and the death of the insurgent attacker. February 2 22 8 Tirin Kot, Uruzgan province A suicide bomber in a police uniform in the Southern Afghan province detonated an explosive belt killing himself and 21 other Afghan police recruits and injured 8 others.[30] February 3 4 24 Colombo Rebels detonated a bomb on a bus carrying Sri Lankan soldiers in the capital of Colombo killing four people and injuring twenty-four others as the military continues it's offensive in northern Sri Lanka against Tamil rebels. February 4 1 4 Baghdad A bombing occurred in Western Baghdad killing the son of a Iraqi Sunni Awakening Council member and injuring four other people. February 4 0 1 West Memphis, Arkansas Trent P. Pierce Chairman of the Arkansas State Medical Board was critically injured in a car bombing that occurred in his drive way. There are reports that he received serious injuries to his abdomen and face, but no internal trauma was reported. No one else was wounded in the blast. February 5 15 15 Khaniqin, Diyala Province A bombing occurred in a restaurant killing fifteen people and injuring fifteen others in Diyala province bordering the Kurdish Autonomous Zone. February 8 2 11 Baghdad A roadside bomb exploded targeting Shiite pilgrims in northern Baghdad killing two and injuring at least eleven others. February 8 1 14 Baghdad An IED exploded in eastern Baghdad after the bombing targeting Shiite pilgrims killing one civilians and injuring fourteen other people. February 8 0 0 Bethlehem, West Bank Palestinians tossed flaming Molotov cocktails at an Israeli bus in the West Bank city of Bethlehem. Minor damage was reported but no injuries were reported in the incident. February 9 30 90 Vishvamadu A female suicide bomber from the LTTE Black Tigers detonated her explosives in a crowd of soldiers and fleeing refugees in northern Sri Lanka as an attempt to cow people into not leaving rebel-held areas of Sri Lanka. Twenty-eight people including eight civilians were reportedly killed and at least ninety others wounded. February 9 0 0 Madrid A van exploded near the offices of construction company Ferrovial and the blast is being blamed on ETA rebels in the Basque Country after two political parties connected to ETA were banned from upcoming regional elections. No one was hurt or killed in the blast. February 9 6 3 Mosul A suicide attacker detonated his explosives by a police check-point killing four American soldiers, their Iraqi translator and injuring two police officers and one civilian. February 11 16 43 Baghdad Two suicide car bombers detonated explosives in SW Baghdad in car lots killing at least 16 people and injuring 43 others. February 11 28 57 Kabul Twenty people were killed along with eight Taliban attackers in Kabul as the insurgents targeted a prison and the nearby Interior ministry. Afghan forces and plain-clothed CIA operatives were able to get control of the situation. February 11 11 15 Mogadishu A suicide bombing killed 11 and wounded 15 African Union peacekeepers. Al-Shabaab militia claimed responsibility for the attack. February 12 4 3 Mosul A car bomb killed four people and injured three in Mosul, Northern Iraq. February 12 3 1 Pattani Province A roadside bomb exploded in Pattani province targeting a police car after it had just completed escorting educators to a school in the insurgent hit south. Three policemen died and a fourth was critically injured. February 13 7 1 Foum Al-Metleg A bomb targeting a civilian mini-van detonated killing all four occupants including a child and a second blast detonated when rescue workers arrived killing two police officers and one firefighter. One other police officer was seriously wounded. February 13 35 65 Karbala A female suicide bomber attacked a procession of Shia pilgrims — many of them women and children — south of Baghdad on Friday, killing 35 people and injuring 65 others, officials said. It was the third straight day of deadly bombings against Shia pilgrims. February 13 0 3 Baghdad An insurgent in eastern Baghdad tossed a grenade at Iraqi forces injuring three police officers in the blast. February 14 0 5 Kandahar City An improvised explosive device or (IED) hit a Canadian military convoy in Afghanistan in Kandahar City leaving four Canadian soldiers and one Afghan interpreter injured. Canadian forces exchanged gunfire with insurgents after the explosion. February 14 1 13 Puliyankulam LTTE rebels tossed a hand grenade into a bus packed with refugees in Northern Sri Lanka killing one civilian and injuring 13 other people. February 15 0 5 Maitum An improvised explosive device detonated in front of a government building housing a gymnasium injuring five people. February 15 0 0 Victorville, California An improvised explosive device went off inside a federal prison in California during a search Saturday, according to federal authorities. No one was injured, the authorities told CNN. The incident happened in the recreation area of the Victorville Federal Penitentiary. Bureau of Prisons spokesperson Traci Billingsley said the device was found by a staff member during a "routine search of inmate property". She said it "detonated upon discovery." February 18 0 0 Athens Two gunmen fired 13 shots into a private T.V studio's compound and tossed in an explosive device before fleeing on two sport motorcycles. No one was hurt or killed in the incident and the bomb failed to explode. February 18 0 0 Zahedan One male attempted to detonated an explosive device inside a mosque in the central city of Zahedan. However he was refused entrance and he headed to a nearby kitchen and placed the explosives down where it detonated. Minor damage was reported but no casualties. February 19 4 2 Balad Ruz Four Iraqi soldiers were killed and two were injured when a roadside bomb exploded in the restive province of Diyala on Thursday, a senior police officer told AFP. The attack took place in Balad Ruz, a town 70 kilometers (44 miles) northeast of Baghdad, said the officer, who asked not to be named. February 20 27 65 Dera Ismail Khan A bombing occurred at a Shiite funeral possession that left 27 people and injured at least 65 other people. February 20 3 2 Baghdad A woman and two children were killed in one explosion and two police officers were wounded in a secondary explosion targeting emergency services. February 21 0 5 Maalot Two rockets were fired from the southern Lebanese city of Tyre injuring three Israeli citizens in Maalot and causing two others to suffer shock. February 22 0 0 Barakaldo A bomb detonated in Basque Country. No injuries were reported. February 22 1 22 Cairo A bomb detonated in medieval Cairo killing a French woman and injuring a number of western tourists and Egyptians.[60] February 22 13 15 Mogadishu Two Al Shabeeb militants in a car detonated a bomb in an AU base, killing eleven peacekeepers from Burundi and injuring fifteen others. February 23 0 0 Lazkao A rucksack packed with around 10kg worth of explosives explodes outside the Basque Socialist Party headquarters in the town after a warning call from ETA. The blast took place at 3:00 am, causing major damage to the local but no injuries were reported. February 24 0 0 Vitoria A bomb explodes in front of a PNV headquarters in Vitoria causing minimal damage and no injuries. February 25 2 8 Kandahar City A motorcycle bomb exploded killing two civilians and injuring eight other people including five ANA soldiers. February 27 0 0 Thoubal district Unknown militants threw bombs into a congressional office resulting in one bomb exploding resulting in significant damage but no injuries or deaths. February 28 4 6 Baghdad A bomb in Sunni western Baghdad left four people including a police officer dead and another six wounded. As an absolute aside, what is interesting about the two months' stats is how active ETA and the Basque separatists remain, and how under-reported this is in the English-language media. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 16 Mar 09 - 02:07 AM Your turn for the month of February Gervase - go through your "incidents" and strike off those where there is a clearer cause for the violence. It was you that introduced "militant Islam" to the debate, so perhaps you might research the following terms "Jihad"; "Fatwa" & "Takfir". Militant Islam is promotion of the faith through force, or defence of the faith through force. I'd point out that the "faith" is not under attack in either Afghanistan or Iraq. Where violence is directed against fellow muslims over differing interpretations of Islam that is in fact "Takfir". Al-Qaeda is in Jihad with the "West", primarily the USA. The Taleban as an organisation in Afghanistan are not. Abu Sayyaf in the Philipines will provide examples of militant Islam their principle targets being the RCC in that country, they are promoting their religion by force. In Somalia all you have going on is a "turf" war it has nothing to do with religion, merely a squabble for power. In Iraq you have the dying throws of an insurgency and sectarian attacks, both aimless and both going nowhere. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Gervase Date: 16 Mar 09 - 04:21 AM Au contraire - in each of the situations you mention you have a resurgent and radical Islamic movement buoyed up sufficiently to resort to violence. In most cases it is the hard-line, anti-Western element - the one which wants to establish the Caliphate - which is doing the running. That is an attitude which has hardened and been easier to promulgate among the young in the wake of the invasion of Iraq. I'm willing to wager that the course of the campaign in Afghanistan would have been entirely different and far more successful had Bush not sent the troops into Iraq. As it is a course of action that I initially supported (albeit with some misgivings, given the historical record of actions in that region) seems to have degenerated into a never-ending exercise in putting fingers into lots of holes in a very large, crumbling dyke, with little chance of success. To a large swathe of the world, the Taleban are the good guys, holding out against the infidel. Why do you think they have attracted volunteers from all over the world? And now, it seems, their brand of militant Islam is spreading. Pakistan's not looking too good at the moment, is it? I am aware of the semantic distinctions you make, old fruit. Fatwa, by the way, is a judicial term, not a military/political term. By that token, are you going to say that those PIRA attacks not aimed directly at the security forces on the UK mainland were not acts of terrorism? Or that the Taleban would actually be quite happy to have Afghanistan become a moderate democracy? Let's have a straight answer to this question: Has US foreign policy since 2001 inflamed or moderated Muslim militancy and has there been an increase or a decrease in terrorism? Or maybe we are seeing a subtle undercurrent of racism in your bluster. Is it because those affected tend not to be white Westerners, that it doesn't matter?. After all, some of these cultures dohave a different attitude to human life, don't they? It's cheaper in hot countries, so who cares if a few ragheads throw a strop. Not our problem, old boy - anyway, they're all cowering in caves in fear of the white man's missiles, aren't they? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 16 Mar 09 - 06:37 AM " find it curious that just recently on this thread that T's American counterpart, bb, asked me the same question..." Bobert, When I read the reports by Blix, and do not find the statement that you claim is there, I have to either presume you are lying again or that you have some source I do not inside the UN. Thus my question. Should I just presume you are lying again???? The quote I have seen you make is in refernce to only a part of the required cooperation, as I have pointed out. Blix then atates that ""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." " Did Iraq do so? The answer, according to Blix in several reports the the UN, was NO. Please show me any report where Blix states otherwise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 16 Mar 09 - 07:52 AM I've provided my source twice now, bruce... I provided you with it months ago and more recently provided it for T... If you need me to refresh the source, which BTW is from the UN, then let me know... Maybt the 3rd time will be the charm... But if one looks at Blix defining the "process" (not the deatils) of the inspection process and uses "most important" then one would have no other choice but to interpret that as meaning the process was working... In that case the war was unjustifies based on the original reasons we were given for going to war in the first place which, BTW, had nothing to do with creating democracy or getting rid of a "bad man" who tried to kill Bush's daddy or who had gassed the Kurds... Those excuses were not part of the original package... Yo, Gervase... One of T's favorite diversionary tactics is to move the discussion away from the buried bodies (literally) to miscroscopic areas of focus... It really has very little to do with the big picture but if he can get you arguing over how many angels can dance on the end of a pin then he feels that he has qon the arguement... He has yet to respond to the larger question that was posed by me in my first post... That question still remains... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 16 Mar 09 - 08:31 AM Bobert, As I have stated numerous times, Blix said that Saddam was NOT cooperating on the facts of the matter- ie, what the UNR demanded of him.; "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: GUEST,TIA Date: 16 Mar 09 - 09:07 AM It is amazing how some will put the microscope on a single phrase, and then build a whole fantastic contraption argument based on such a small and dubious foundation. Why don't we take a look at whether Hans Blix himself though the invasion was justified? -snip- Iraq war wasn't justified, U.N. weapons experts say Blix, ElBaradei: U.S. ignored evidence against WMDs Monday, March 22, 2004 WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United Nations' top two weapons experts said Sunday that the invasion of Iraq a year ago was not justified by the evidence in hand at the time. "I think it's clear that in March, when the invasion took place, the evidence that had been brought forward was rapidly falling apart," Hans Blix, who oversaw the agency's investigation into whether Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, said on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer." Blix described the evidence Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003 as "shaky," and said he related his opinion to U.S. officials, including national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. "I think they chose to ignore us," Blix said…. -snip- The full story is here , and it contains numerous direct statements by Blix and El Baradei that make it abundantly clear that one cannot (honestly) use their opinions to support the war. . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 16 Mar 09 - 12:54 PM 1. "Au contraire - in each of the situations you mention you have a resurgent and radical Islamic movement buoyed up sufficiently to resort to violence." Do you work for the BBC Gervase? I ask because they're awfully keen on that word "resurgent" when talking about the Taleban, so much so that the OED is going to have to alter the commonly understood meaning of it from: Resurgent: - increasing again, or becoming popular again To Resurgent: - Timid cave dweller As to there being any "radical Islamic movement buoyed up sufficiently" – Well Gervase if you have the people behind you don't need the terrorism to get what you want. One would think after so much "resurgence" for all these years the Taleban would have been a bit further down the road to accomplishing their goals, but they're not are they? They've gone backwards. 2. "In most cases it is the hard-line, anti-Western element - the one which wants to establish the Caliphate - which is doing the running." Oh, they most certainly are doing the running Gervase mostly in an easterly direction, out of Afghanistan and into the FATA and NWFP of Pakistan. Where having arrived and settled down for a nice cup of tea they get whacked by a Hellfire missile from a Predator Drone –life must be an absolute bitch for them. 3. "I'm willing to wager that the course of the campaign in Afghanistan would have been entirely different and far more successful had Bush not sent the troops into Iraq. As it is a course of action that I initially supported (albeit with some misgivings, given the historical record of actions in that region) seems to have degenerated into a never-ending exercise in putting fingers into lots of holes in a very large, crumbling dyke, with little chance of success." Pure supposition of course but sending more troops into Afghanistan would have accomplished what exactly. It most certainly would not have addressed the concerns of the United States of America with regard to what was identified as being potentially the greatest threat that they faced. And that is the prime responsibility of the President of the United States of America the protection and security of his country. When the Russians went into Afghanistan they went in mob handed 154,000 combat troops complete with armour, artillery and air support. They stayed there for nine years and were defeated in detail by the "Mujahideen". There were many reasons for their defeat but one factor was that like the US Forces in Vietnam their soldiers were conscripts, who basically did not want to be in the Army in the first place and most certainly did not want to be based outside Mother Russia fighting Afghans. Now compare that to the current situation in Afghanistan in terms of actual combat troops NATO/ISAF and the US "Enduring Freedom" Force have about one quarter of the strength that the Russians had if that. Unlike the situation that faced the Russians the entire country is not up in arms against NATO/ISAF, much of it is pretty quiet. NATO/ISAF and the US has been there for seven years, where are the Taleban? You will find them largely, over the border in Pakistan. What towns and districts do the Taleban control? None MusaQuala was the last and they got booted out of there some time ago, they haven't returned. Differences our technology is far better and a great deal more sophisticated and advanced than anything the Russians had. Intelligence gathering and monitoring is absolutely amazing, as is the ability to handle the information gathered. The majority of the troops are "professional" soldiers. There is talk these days of "Stalemate" – anybody ever hear that when the Russians were there. The new President of the United States of America and his Vice-President have been foolish enough to come out with statements that could only ever be construed as giving aid and comfort to the enemy – strange thing for the "Commander-in-Chief" of any Army to do – but still he's new to the job, he might just improve, had he done that in this country he'd be guilty of treason. But say Obama sticks to his plan and puts three more combat brigades into Afghanistan on the ISAF side of the equation, that almost doubles the size of the "fighting" troops in country and Gervase if what we've got there at present is holding the "resurgent" Taleban to a stalemate, then with an 85% increase in troop numbers the Taleban are in for a pretty torrid time – and they know it. 4. "To a large swathe of the world, the Taleban are the good guys, holding out against the infidel." As somebody said if you have the people behind you don't need the terrorism to get what you want. So I don't think the swathe is all that large, specially not in Swat where when the Taleban came in almost everybody fled, that is how much they are thought of as being "good guys" 5. "Why do you think they have attracted volunteers from all over the world?" I actually didn't think the Taleban as such took in foreigners. Al-Qaeda has and no doubt still does. I haven't actually ever heard of anyone flocking to Taleban training camps. The Arab Jihadists are universally despised by the people of Afghanistan as were the Taleban themselves once they got into the swing of things and nobody wants to see them return to power. 6. "And now, it seems, their brand of militant Islam is spreading. Pakistan's not looking too good at the moment, is it?" Ah, the Taleban have their own brand of militant Islam do they, how nice to know. But its not really spreading is it Gervase. The only reason it is now being seen in the FATA and NWFP of Pakistan is not because of its popularity amongst "swathes" of people who think that the Taleban are "good guys", its primarily because the Taleban have had their sorry arses kicked out of Afghanistan and they have been forced to flee to the only refuge open to them, it's not been spread you Pillock, it's merely been temporarily transferred. 7. "I am aware of the semantic distinctions you make, old fruit. Fatwa, by the way, is a judicial term, not a military/political term." Care to point out when and where I stated that "Fatwa" was a military/political term Gervase?? 8. "Let's have a straight answer to this question: Has US foreign policy since 2001 inflamed or moderated Muslim militancy and has there been an increase or a decrease in terrorism?" Oh good, I like these - Straight Answer: Forget 2001 Gervase, US foreign policy since 1948 has inflamed Muslim militancy. Muslim militancy regarded 2001 as the year they scored their greatest achievement. Don't for one bloody minute think that Muslim militancy arrived on the worlds doorstep as a result of the election of GWB or as a result of actions taken by him. There are millions and millions of Muslims in the world Gervase, it is the second most followed religion in the world after Christianity. And guess what Gervase, by and large very few Muslims are militant, the ones that are tend to be Arab, and what they seek to achieve is the second Caliphate. Ah Gervase, the "racist" card you must be losing it. Or is this another attempt to put words into my mouth? Let's see we've had: • Militant Islam when I only ever mentioned terrorism • Fatwa as a military/political term when I said no such thing • That those PIRA attacks not aimed directly at the security forces on the UK mainland were not acts of terrorism – when I have never said anything of the sort • That the Taleban would actually be quite happy to have Afghanistan become a moderate democracy? - when I have never said anything of the sort • And finally I must be a racist, pathetic really. If you are going to argue the toss stick to what has actually been said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 16 Mar 09 - 03:21 PM Your arguement, Bruce, is nonsense... Why the heck were the inspectors sent back to Iraq??? Can you answer that??? And, in terms of simple logic, please spare us any answer that involves Saddam havin' to prove he didn't have something... This is basic logic here... One can never prove that one does not have something... But, for the sake of discussion, if one could then still why would an inspection team be sent to Iraq??? I mena, if Saddam could have proved he didn't have the stuff then having inspectoras there or not wouldn't have mattered one way or another... But I guess that if we carry illogic to its extreme if you believe that one can prove they don't have something then by not seeing anything (as in inspecting) then that would be added proof that nothing was there... I tell ya what, bruce... Yer a purdy smart guy but on this one you have chosen the diog that not only won't hunt but couldn't find his tail in the dark... I mean, you arguments are badly flawed... Basic Logic 101... Bill D, being a Philosophy major, might be able to explain it better but no matter... There is a point in time when defending an undefendable position, while considered honorable by some, really becomes a drag on the rest of yer arguments... You are there... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 16 Mar 09 - 03:36 PM It most certainly would not have addressed the concerns of the United States of America with regard to what was identified as being potentially the greatest threat that they faced. And that is the prime responsibility of the President of the United States of America the protection and security of his country. Don't you think he had an obligation to steer clear of fantasies in doing so? It is bad enough he took most of his high-level guidance from imaginary playmates, but committing the resources of a nation to defend itself from imaginary dangers is a bit of incometence verging on treachery, wouldn't you say? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 16 Mar 09 - 04:02 PM Imaginary in what way Amos? Please tell us why the threat outlined by your intelligence community in February 1998 and again by the same people in 2001 as posing the greatest danger to the United States of America could have been completely dismissed as being imaginary. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 16 Mar 09 - 04:54 PM It's irrelevant, T... We were told that Saddam had MDWs... Then Powell pushed Bush to go to the UN... Then the UN got approval from Saddam to come look for them... So UN inspectors were sent to Iarq... Time would have proved there were no WMDs... Bush wanted war so he pulled the plug on the process and called up the invasion anyway... End of story... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 16 Mar 09 - 05:35 PM "Please tell us why the threat outlined by your intelligence community in February 1998 and again by the same people in 2001 as posing the greatest danger to the United States of America could have been completely dismissed as being imaginary." Read the Blix and El Baradei quotes in my link. They were in the process of dismantling the evidence for the great danger, and the Bush Administration (and US and UK Intelligence it would seem - under intense political pressures documented elsewhere) "largely ignored" them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 16 Mar 09 - 06:40 PM Blix and ElBaradei were not, and are not, responsible for the security and safety of the United States of America President George W Bush was. Saddam Hussein was warned repeatedly when given his last final chance. Full and proactive co-operation with UNMOVIC was required form Day One - that didn't happen, irrespective of how selectively Bobert quotes. Iraq was not permitted one single material breach of 1441 there were in fact seven. At the same time the US warned the UN security Council you act to resolve this matter and address our concerns or we will. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Barry Finn Date: 17 Mar 09 - 01:28 AM The US, the UN & the world were listening to Blix. Then when he (Blix) said something Bush didn't want to hear, Bush shut down the hearing aids & no longer listened but most of the world stayed tuned in. Except for you & a few others that always rely on what they love best, WAR! Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 17 Mar 09 - 01:59 AM The US population, the UN, the world, Blix and ElBaradei were not, and are not, responsible for the security and safety of the United States of America President George W Bush was. When it came to the derailing of the UN effort look no further than President Jacques Chirac of France. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Gervase Date: 17 Mar 09 - 03:32 AM Teribus, stick to what has being said, you purblind drooling old dullard. Where did I say that more troops in Afghanistan would have made a difference? Where exactly? And at no point did I say you didn't consider PIRA attacks to be terrorism. Have years of self abuse down in the engine room finally dimmed your eyesight? Have you been drinking Brasso again? Bloody hell. it's no wonder you get things so spectacularly wrong when you're seemingly incapable of extracting meaning and nuance from a mere ten or twenty lines of text. Little wonder that what comes out is bollocks when what goes in gets so garbled. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Mar 09 - 06:34 AM Bobert: "arguement, Bruce, is nonsense..." No, yours is. "Why the heck were the inspectors sent back to Iraq??? Can you answer that???" Yes- to verify the information that IRAQ was supposed to supply in "response to UNR1441. Since the report to the UN by Blix states that 1. the information was not complete 2. The Iraqis were NOT providing the needed proof BLIX concluded that Iraq was in violation of UNR1441, not only after the deadeline, but at the time of the report in February. "And, in terms of simple logic, please spare us any answer that involves Saddam havin' to prove he didn't have something... This is basic logic here... One can never prove that one does not have something..." Since the required proof that was demanded was the accounting for of material that Sqaddam was KNOWN to have ( by UN inspections of 1998 and earlier), there was no requirement for "proof that one does not have something" The proof was of the disposition of known material. That is another strawman arguement that you have consistantly put in, even though you havce been told repeatedly that it was untrue. YOU ARE LYING AGAIN. Basic Remedial Logic 001 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Mar 09 - 07:30 AM BTW, in case you decide to actually read the UNR before deciding what it says: http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement Sorry if your sources didn't bother reading it, either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Mar 09 - 07:33 AM in part: 3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, subcomponents, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material; 4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below; 5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter; 6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq; |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Mar 09 - 07:39 AM Bobert: fron UNR 1441: "1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);" UNR 687... http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/596/23/IMG/NR059623.pdf?OpenElement ( paragraphs 8 -13 are on page 3 of the PDF file.) Now, what part of this don't you understand???? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Mar 09 - 08:08 AM Bobert "We were told that Saddam had MDWs..." NO. We were told that Saddam was NOT complying with the previous UNR, was believed ( by most of the world) to have prohibited WMD programs still, and had NOT accounted for the material he was previously supposed to have destroyed, and IF he continued his WMD programs ( already known from 1998 and prior) it would be a danger- thus he should comply) "Then Powell pushed Bush to go to the UN..." Just as he should have. secretary of DEFENSE- what do you think the word means, if not to protect from likely harm????? "Then the UN got approval from Saddam to come look for them..." WRONG. Then the UN passed UNR 1441, giving Saddam a "last and FINAL chance" to comply with the UNR, and avoid serious action. "So UN inspectors were sent to Iarq..." NO. FIRST, Iraq submitted a report that was NOT in compliance with UNR1441. Then, AFTER the US started to prepare for military action, Saddam allowed the inspectors in, BUT DID NOT PROVIDE THE REQUIRED cooperation AND PROOFS ( That Iraq was to supply, NOT that the UNR was supposed to hunt for) "Time would have proved there were no WMDs..." Wrong again. Lack of evidence IS NOT evidence of lack. Reports by the AF and Army general on the Northern Iraq fron were of numeroud trucks carrying unknow material from the Iraqi military storage ( where the previous UN teams had noted WMD materials) to the Syrian border prior to the invasion of Iraq ( see the book they wrote) "Bush wanted war so he pulled the plug on the process and called up the invasion anyway..." Bush delayed too long, and did not prevent the WMD materials from getting out. And you ignore the encouragement by some nations and the "anti-war" protestors who gave Saddam reason to believe he could continue his non-compliance with the UNR without any impact. THOSE are the ones responsible for any dead or wounded. Had Saddam taken the UNR seriously, and either complied outright originally, or thrown open his borders without the threat of military force, there would have been no war. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Mar 09 - 08:17 AM "As for compliance with UN Res 1441, the Resolution does not call for "basic" compliance. It does not call for any kind of qualified compliance. It does not--in short--allow for the sort of excuse-making and special pleading that you seem so eager to offer the regime of Saddam Hussein. It calls for full, unconditional and immediate compliance by Iraq which was not given, as explicitly asserted by Hans Blix in the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission Quarterly Report governing the relevant inspection. Compliance with UNR 1441 was violated on Dec 7, 2002 with the Iraqi regime's fraudulent "Complete and Full Declaration". The declaration was declared non-compliant by Hans Blix in his official capacity as chief inspector for UNMOVIC." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Mar 09 - 08:20 AM "Bush wanted war so he pulled the plug on the process and called up the invasion anyway..." So, you mean that Bush went and attacked Iraq BEFORE the UN report by Blix that Iraq was in non- compliance with UNR1441? ... That was in December of 2002- WHEN DID BUSH ATTACK IRAQ???? the process was completed before the invasion - and Saddam had been fooled by idiots like you into thinking that he would not be held to account. Congratulations for contributing to all those deaths. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 17 Mar 09 - 08:53 AM Through the Looking Glass. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Gervase Date: 17 Mar 09 - 09:01 AM I think you'll find that the Bush administration wanted war and the process was a convenient figleaf. When it started to look as though that process was going to impede the path to war, Bush went ahead anyway. Interesting that none of the hawks has answered the point made by TIA at 09.07 yesterday. To remind you of the headline: 'Iraq war wasn't justified, U.N. weapons experts say' Anyone care to try to spin that? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Gervase Date: 17 Mar 09 - 09:05 AM Congratulations for contributing to all those deaths. Bobert And what sort of crass, moronic, craven, lily-livered, scum-sucking troll bait is that? Get back to jerking off over Soldier of Fortune or whatever it is that you use for erectile dysfunction, you feeble-minded cretin. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 17 Mar 09 - 09:54 AM Bruce: That last remark was wildly inaccurate, off the wall, stupid and beyond the pale. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Mar 09 - 10:25 AM Wrong, Amos. The comment was in line with those claiming anyone who disagreed with the Mudcat Majority opinion about the war was therefore seeking war, and responsible for the bloodshed caused by Saddam's refusal to comply with the UN. The following remark at 0905 by Gervase is beyond the pale, and if left to stand will demonstrate that if Martin Gibson had opinions in accord with the Mudcat Majority, he would still be here. Freedom of speech only for those you agree with, right????? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Gervase Date: 17 Mar 09 - 10:35 AM Congratulations for contributing to all those deaths. Bobert You stand by that remark? If so, I stand my mine. Don't go crying to mommy coz the nasty man called you a bad name. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Mar 09 - 10:59 AM Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Gervase - PM Date: 09 Mar 09 - 07:54 AM ..... When someone resorts to gutter insults it's a good sign that their fund of argument is pretty well bankrupt. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Good to know that you have run out of facts to support your viewpoint. If you find anything to support YOUR statements, it would be interesting to hear it. Until then, try to refrain fron making comments with no factual content. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Gervase Date: 17 Mar 09 - 11:08 AM Even your mate Teribus acknowledges that the war was planned long before 9/11. That much is common knowledge. You want facts? What about the UN inspectors saying the invasion was unjustified? Or is someone making that up? And I think to accuse someone of being responsible for the deaths of others is a far worst insult than calling someone an onanistic cretin. Maybe I'll retract the 'cretin' - your thyroid function may be perfectly OK for all I know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 17 Mar 09 - 11:17 AM Bruce: You're overheating my friend. The issue is not what the Mudcat Majority thinks, but whether the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, and if so why. I think you--and perhaps Gervase--need to take a few deep breaths. You seem to feel you were "blamed for all the deaths" or accused of being a war-monger. And it is possible even I have said things in the heat of argument that could be so interpreted. There are things I could have done to lower the probability of war. I could have communicated more broadly, more loudly, or more intelligently, perhaps. And there are things you could have done, likewise, to lower the probability of that war--not voting for Bush, for example. But it is certainly not the case that "Bobert enabled the war" by telling Saddam he was a psycho-at-large. That is just wild-eyed doublethink, my friend, and I think you know that. There is no shame in examining the past for error in the hope of building a wiser future. It is silly not to do so. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Mar 09 - 11:24 AM Those who protested US enforcement of the UNR (and previous ceasefire) are to my mind far more guilty of contributing to the war than those of us who, for whatever reasons, voted for Bush. Had the demonstrations been for Saddam to comply, or had they even ALLOWED those critical of Saddam to participate ( I gave examples in past thread of them not being allowed to march) IMHO the invasion would not have been needed, and there would be a lot fewer dead. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Mar 09 - 11:25 AM "There is no shame in examining the past for error in the hope of building a wiser future. It is silly not to do so." I agree entirely- so when will you admit the error of your ways and agree with ME???? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 17 Mar 09 - 11:28 AM My chosen course of action did not, despite your double-jointed logic, result in wanton violence, death, and mayhem. Neither did Bobert's. I agree with you on many things, Bruce, but the ready resort to extreme force is not one of them. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Mar 09 - 11:37 AM "the ready resort to extreme force " After 12 years, and how many Kurds and Kuwaiti killed, you claim that demanding Saddam comply with the cease-fire terms or face the consequences as a "ready resort to extreme force "??? IMHO, MY chosen course of action did not, despite your double-jointed logic, result in "wanton violence, death, and mayhem." The invasion was handled in a reasonable way, in spite of the failures of some allies to allow staging. The POST-INVASION control I have stated was handled less than effectively. I do not consider the INVASION to be either wanton OR unwarranted. But then, you insist that I agree with your opinion on everything, I have to presume. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Stringsinger Date: 17 Mar 09 - 01:45 PM Invasion really accomplishes nothing. It doesn't create an understanding or agreement. It is merely a tool for expressing a power play to satiate an anger by the aggressor. The reason Iraq was a huge mistake is that those who were in control of foreign policy knew nothing about Iraq or the Iraqi people so they didn't know how they would react. There were hardly anyone in the state department under Bush who even knew how to speak Iraqi Arabic or Farsi. It was a joke. It's so easy to be an armchair soldier and rail against injustices that are manufactured by media and pundits. It's also easy to be a "good German" and take orders without examining what the effect of those actions would be on those being affected. All the factoids in the world will not explain away the futility of the Iraq invasion. Many of these propaganda devices are used in any war to justify atrocities. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 17 Mar 09 - 01:53 PM Here is some Through the Looking Glass: BB: "I do not consider the INVASION to be either wanton OR unwarranted." This statement has been backed up with copious quotes from Hans Blix. But Hans Blix has said that the invasion was unwarranted! And more: paraphrasing "...{people who opposed the invasion are responsible for the deaths that it entailed}..." I for one cannot think that many impossible things before breakfast. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Mar 09 - 02:05 PM Guest TIA, Instead of changing what I said to something you can make fun of: "Those who protested US enforcement of the UNR (and previous ceasefire) are to my mind far more guilty of contributing to the war than those of us who, for whatever reasons, voted for Bush. Had the demonstrations been for Saddam to comply, or had they even ALLOWED those critical of Saddam to participate ( I gave examples in past thread of them not being allowed to march) IMHO the invasion would not have been needed, and there would be a lot fewer dead. " Feel free to OPPOSE the invasion ( I will allow others to have their own opinions, unlike the many here who insist that no-one have any opinion that is different from theirs) - but DO NOT say that you can oppose enforcing the UNR AND tell Saddam that he will not be held accountable and then ignore the responsibility for his acting in the manner you encouraged him to. I oppose unneeded wars- but IN THIS CASE the invasion, IMHO, was warranted. I do not know what reasons Blix had for his statement- was he told the UN was that Iraq was not in compliance with the last and final chance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 17 Mar 09 - 02:05 PM 1. "Teribus, stick to what has being said," I only wish you would Gervase 2. "Where did I say that more troops in Afghanistan would have made a difference?" Where have I stated that you did? If you think it was in point 3 of a previous post of mind: "Pure supposition of course but sending more troops into Afghanistan would have accomplished what exactly." Your comprehension of the English language is even poorer than you have demonstrated to date. 3. "And at no point did I say you didn't consider PIRA attacks to be terrorism." Then why introduce the subject. Remember your opening plea here to stick with what is being said. You were listing supposed examples of militant Islam, I merely pointed out that in most of those cases there were other factors that provided far more likely reasons for terrorist violence. This imperative that you insist that everything must be seen as being "black" or "white" is childish and ludicrous, not surprising considering your puerile ad hominem attacks. 4. "To remind you of the headline: 'Iraq war wasn't justified, U.N. weapons experts say'" And the date of that article TIA provided the link for was?? 16th December 2003 and the Invasion was?? 20th March 2003. Have you got anything from the good Doctor Blix prior to 20th March 2003 where he categorically states that: • Iraq has completely disarmed • All WMD have been destroyed • All WMD precursor chemicals and materials have been destroyed • All research and development programmes on WMD and WMD delivery systems have been shut down and all material relating to that work destroyed. It's a tremendous indication of your naïveté if you actually believe and act on what you read in the newspapers. 5. "And what sort of crass, moronic, craven, lily-livered, scum-sucking troll bait is that? Get back to jerking off over Soldier of Fortune or whatever it is that you use for erectile dysfunction, you feeble-minded cretin." You seem to be fixated on masturbation Gervase – Do you do a lot of it? On Mastermind would that be your specialist subject?? You really should get out more and meet a few people. 6. "Even your mate Teribus acknowledges that the war was planned long before 9/11. That much is common knowledge." Oh quite right Gervase, I believe that the Pentagon has got extremely detailed plans for a great number of wars, most dating back to 1945, but some pre-dating even that, and they all are being continually updated and revised as conditions change. Iceland; Ireland; UK the US Government has got invasion plans for all of those and more, and they all predate 9/11. I think I can remember asking you what you thought the word "contingency" meant if placed in front of the word "plan". Like most questions you are asked you never did get back to me. 7. "You want facts? What about the UN inspectors saying the invasion was unjustified? Or is someone making that up?" Ah yes facts, such as the fact that the UN inspectors stated that the war was, in their opinion, unjustified armed with 20 x 20 hindsight nine months after the event. You know I could have told that guy Napoleon that it would all end in tears – that make me some sort of bloody expert Gervase, you Prat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Mar 09 - 02:11 PM BB: "I do not consider the INVASION to be either wanton OR unwarranted." This statement has been backed up with copious quotes from Hans Blix. But Hans Blix has said that the invasion was unwarranted! --------------------------------------- Good strawman argument. The first statement is not in the same message as the second. The first statement is one of MY OPINION. The secound is in support of FACTS. Have any idea what FACTS are???? The last statement is one of yours that is a statement of his OPINION ( Not mine) and NOT what he put in the UN Report that he submitted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 17 Mar 09 - 02:35 PM But then, you insist that I agree with your opinion on everything, I have to presume. You do not have to agree with anything, Bruce, least of all those who make you feel uncomfortable. You never read those accounts of marines wantonly firing on civilians at checkpoints, having been told the more of them were dead, the better, by their sergeant? Not wanton? Have you seen the pictures of civilians finding themselves suddenly decimated by "shock and awe" tactics that did not work, tactically, but cost hundreds of lives and limbs? Not wanton? For fie. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Mar 09 - 02:45 PM Amos, Have you ever seen the results of a gas attack on civilians? Have you ever seen the skin sliding off, and the eyeballs dripping out of the face of someone that has had a nuclear bomb dropped on them? Have you ever see piles of dead bodies stacked like cordwood, because no-one would let them immigrate before the concentration camps were started? AS for pictures, movies, and written reports, I have all of these. YOU, Amos, do not have to agree with anything, least of all those who make you feel uncomfortable. IMHO there are less dead than would have been the case by now if Saddam had not been stopped. I have seen no reason presented to believe otherwise, nor to believe that, no matter what the intention, those who protested the UNR and it's enforcement contribted to Saddam's resistance and to the number of people killed. MY OPINION. Based on the facts that I have found and been presented. You are free to have your own. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 17 Mar 09 - 05:23 PM First of all, must be nice to have 24 hours a day 7 days a week to just sit in front a computer without one care about stuff like having to go ouyt and make a living... So to you especially, bruce, congrates... Secondly, it would also be nice if Mudcat had a one rebuttal rule... I mean, to come home after 8 hours in the real world and find that bruce has submited half a dozen or more confrontational and rude posts since I last had 10 lousy mintes to catch up on things ain't really respectfull... Thirdly, I resent being blamed for the Iraqi war deaths... That is an ouright ***lie***... It is folks like Teribus and bruce who have the blood on their hands... Any attempt to turn that around is a bald faced psychopathic ***lie***... Fourthly, there is a complete lack of historical perspective on bb and t's part about UN Resolution 1441... As others here, as well as Bush's own former Treasury Secretary, have pointed out that the decision to invade Iraq was made even before 9/11... The only reason that Bush ever went to the UN was because Secretary of Sate Colin Powell pushed back against the neocons and so Bush reluctantly went to the UN... This resolution was as bogus as a 3 dollar bill... Fifthly, both bb abd T refuse to answer TIA's question... Sixthly, bb has gone back to thinking that he SCREAMS loud enought that will make his positions correct... Silly behavior on his part... Seventhly, I don't think bb would recognize a fact if it was standing in his doorway so his proclamations that his opinions are based on facts are just that: procalmations... Kinda like his vulgar and childish SCREAMING... Just noise... Eigthly, the Blix quotes I have posted are indeed Blix quotes and deal with the overall process that was on the ground in Iraq when Bush pulled the plug on sanity... Both bb and t had to be provded a source for them... Hmmmmmmmmm??? Why ask for a source if there wasn't some underlieing thinking that he hadn't said those things??? I mean, in asking for the source they were inferring that they were not aware that Blix had said that the Iraqis was cooperating... Maybe bb and t didn't have that information... I don't know... I do know that its very strange that both would have to be lea to the source of Blix's remarks to the Security Council... Ninethly, how does one go about proving that don't possess something??? This is philosophically imnpossible... Deamnding it is the ultimate trick bag because it can't be done... If you don't have it then you don't have it... Lastly, tho the bb's and the teribus's of the world will go to their graves in denial, historians will get the story correct that this war was the US's largest foriegn policy blunder... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Gervase Date: 17 Mar 09 - 05:23 PM Teribus, my comment on the outcome of Afghanistan had no relation to the number of troops committed, whatever your supposition. I am referring to the hearts and minds aspect of the campaign. The Taleban would have found is considerably more difficult to garner support with a population that actually welcomed the coalition. Think Malaya rather than Vietnam; Templeton rather than Westmoreland. I suggest you ask your son what the people really think. When asked, "have you seen any Taleban?" do they immediately dob them in, or do they smile evasively and say, "No Taleban here," when everyone knows full well that there are. I introduced PIRA attacks in Ulster as an analogy because you seemed to be labouring under the delusion that attacks by Islamic militants in Iraq and Afghanistan somehow "don't count" as terrorism; as though only PIRA attacks on the UK mainland counted. Note the "as though". And, yes, every military has hypothetical plans for any eventuality. We even have war plans against the French on a shelf somewhere in Shrivenham (and no bad thing, some would argue). But the plans being put forward for Iraq were rather more than that, I think you'll find. If we are talking table-top wargames, why did the very first meeting of the National Security Council following Bush's inauguration have the invasion of Iraq on its agenda? Are you suggesting that, in the UK, COBRA or JIC deliberates the invasion of France as a matter of priority? You can bluster and spout bollocks until the cows come home, but I think posterity will judge the subject of this overlong thread to be accurate. And hindsight is, indeed, a wonderful thing. I remember one armchair general saying that it was highly unlikely that there would be a war because Bush would never launch an attack without the full and official sanction of the UN, and anyway, if the Americans did decide to invade it would have to be an entirely amphibious assault and that would never work, so would everyone please calm down. Ring any bells? Similarly, if you can be arsed to fossick back through old posts, you'll find that I supported the Afghan operation and thought it justified (albeit with reservations as the the long-term outcome), but at no point did I see the Iraq operation as justified. For one view from way back when, see this post from February 2003. Hindsight or foresight? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 17 Mar 09 - 11:21 PM Nobody has to believe my opinion on anything, and you are free to have your own opinion. But don't expect me to have any faith in your opinion of what Hans Blix's opinion was (or anything else for that matter) when there are **direct quotes** from Hans Blix himself that completely belie your opinion of his opinion. And the existence of those quotes is not opinion - it is fact, and I provided the link where you can go read them if you wish. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Mar 09 - 06:05 AM Bobert: "Ninethly, how does one go about proving that don't possess something??? This is philosophically imnpossible... Deamnding it is the ultimate trick bag because it can't be done... If you don't have it then you don't have it..." Is it any wonder that I emphasize things, when you are constantly proving you have no comprehension of basic English??? ----------------- Date: 17 Mar 09 - 06:34 AM Bobert: .... "And, in terms of simple logic, please spare us any answer that involves Saddam havin' to prove he didn't have something... This is basic logic here... One can never prove that one does not have something..." Since the required proof that was demanded was the accounting for of material that Sqaddam was KNOWN to have ( by UN inspections of 1998 and earlier), there was no requirement for "proof that one does not have something" The proof was of the disposition of known material. That is another strawman arguement that you have consistantly put in, even though you havce been told repeatedly that it was untrue. YOU ARE LYING AGAIN. Basic Remedial Logic 001 ------------------------------------------------------ Repeating a lie after being told the truth makes you a liar. Your accusations against my facts do not seem to have any support from reality: Perhgaps you should should reconsider who is making the " bald faced psychopathic ***lie***..." You have obviously not read the UNR that you claim to have such an expert knowledge of... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Mar 09 - 06:10 AM Guest TIA, And I have provided direct quotes from the UN report by Blix that state Iraq was not in compliance, and indicating that there was NOT the cooperation needed to fullfil the requirements of UNR1441. I have provided the source ( UN) and this report "completely belie(s) " your quote of his opinion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Mar 09 - 06:13 AM "Secondly, it would also be nice if Mudcat had a one rebuttal rule... I mean, to come home after 8 hours in the real world and find that bruce has submited half a dozen or more confrontational and rude posts since I last had 10 lousy mintes to catch up on things ain't really respectfull..." Bobert, Since I have been lead to believe from your repeated statements of known false information that you have a reading comprhension problem, I broke up a long post into smaller segments, thinking it might make it easier for you to understand. I am sorry that it was still beyond your abilities. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Mar 09 - 06:18 AM Bobert: "Thirdly, I resent being blamed for the Iraqi war deaths... That is an ouright ***lie***... It is folks like Teribus and bruce who have the blood on their hands... Any attempt to turn that around is a bald faced psychopathic ***lie***..." I gave my reasoning: If you do not like the result, argue with the facts or logic, not with me. So, ++your++ opinion that "It is folks like Teribus and bruce who have the blood on their hands... " is allowed, and we should be happy to be told that, but ++you++ resent "being blamed for the Iraqi war deaths... " Seems like you continue to want to inflict on others what you do not allow to be inflicted on yourself Ubermensch! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Mar 09 - 06:20 AM "Seventhly, I don't think bb would recognize a fact if it was standing in his doorway so his proclamations that his opinions are based on facts are just that: procalmations... Kinda like his vulgar and childish SCREAMING... Just noise..." Ad hominim arguement- you are attacking me, and not the facts. You seem to have abandoned any pretense at discussion, and are trying to silence discussion that you disagree with by force. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 18 Mar 09 - 08:20 AM No ad hominim here, bruce... You have just attached yer wagon to a dead horse and everyone here with the exception of the other two fringe radical righties sees that plainly for what it is... As for inflicting, hey, ain't our side who has blindly supported a war in which upwards of a million innocent people have been killed... You need to keep that in perspective... But you won't... It's not in yer DNA to accept the truth about this illegal and most immoral war... No ad hominim, just pure ol' down-home truth... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Mar 09 - 08:30 AM Sorry, Bobert- to attack me instead of the facts presented is ad hominem ( sorry about the spelling) "An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject. Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it. Other common subtypes of the ad hominem include the ad hominem circumstantial, or ad hominem circumstantiae, an attack which is directed at the circumstances or situation of the arguer; and the ad hominem tu quoque, which objects to an argument by characterizing the arguer as acting or arguing in accordance with the view that he is arguing against." please note: "It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it." So it is working against your own side to indulge in it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Mar 09 - 08:46 AM "ain't our side who has blindly supported a war in which upwards of" No, it is your "side" who encouraged Saddam not to comply with the UNR, and thus made the invasion the only means to disarm him. "this illegal and most immoral war..." Your opinion. NOT mine. The invasion was both legal and moral. But then, you do not permit opinions other than your own, from what I have been reading of your posts. Must be nice to be God. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 18 Mar 09 - 09:45 AM Oh, we should suppress dissent in the US because we don't want to give poeple the wrong idea or make them think they can get away with murder.... Sorry, Bruce, that one won't fly either. Saddam Hussein is wholly responsible if he chooses to base his decisions on obviously weak foundations, accept data from unqualified sources, or engage in wishful thinking about the way things are. CNN does not equal intel. Come to think of it, so was GWB. I guess they both failed that little test. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Mar 09 - 09:52 AM "Oh, we should suppress dissent in the US because we don't want to give poeple the wrong idea or make them think they can get away with murder...." No more than we should supress voting because people are responsible for the actions of those they vote for- BUT they are still responsible. The protestors are responsible for the encouragement they gave Saddam, as the ones who voted for Bush are responsible for what he did. Or are you still pushing for special rights to those you agree with, that you prohibit to those you disagree with???? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 18 Mar 09 - 10:05 AM I never have, Bruce; this is your fantasy. The idea that Saddam's insanities should be laid at the doorstep of those who opposed going to war is nuts, that's all. ANy student of history would know better. He made up his own crazy head just as W made up his; they were both nuts, and I am delighted to see them both gone. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Mar 09 - 10:17 AM Sorry, Amos. I have stated the reasons that I have these opinions, and have seen nothing to lead me to change them. I do NOT doubt the INTENTIONS of those who protested holding Saddam accountable were peaceful ( for the most part), but the RESULTS are as I have described. If I throw a flower, with only peaceful intent, am I then NOT responsible when that flower goes in the eye of someone, and blinds them? If I tell a criminal that he will not be held accountable for his actions, and he then chooses to kill someone, do I not have some responsibility for that killing? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Mar 09 - 10:20 AM More to the point, you ( your "side") hold ME responsible for the actions of Bush, because I supported him. Are you not responsible for the side ( no UN action against Saddam) that YOU advocated? If not, the double standard is alive and well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 18 Mar 09 - 10:46 AM No double standard here... Had Bush allowed the inspections to continue then the reasons given for this war would have been shown to be false and there wouldn't have been a war... That is our side's posotion... Get it, bruce??? No war = ***no*** upwards of a million dead Iraqis ....................verses....................... Your side which didn't want to let the inspections go forward but instead wanted to invade Iraq... War = upwards of a million dead Iraqis Purdy simple... And please don't go thru yer little twisted rationale that it was our side that is responsibile for this war... There is absolutely no logic or factual basis fpor that line of BS... It is equivalent of blaming the Holocost on the Jews... (Now Bobert gets to enjoy the rest of a rare day off from playing plumber...) B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Mar 09 - 10:57 AM "It is equivalent of blaming the Holocost on the Jews..." No, it is equivalent to putting some of the blame on the Allied Leaders who did not allow Jewish immigration, telling Hitler it was his own problem to deal with and they would not interfere. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Mar 09 - 11:01 AM Bobert, You learn to read yet? "the reasons given for this war would have been shown to be false" UNR 1441 states the reasons- and the reports by Blix state that Saddam was NOT in compliance far after the deadline for his "last and final" chance to comply. Since it was his compliance that was required, the reasons for the war were his non-compliance. "There is absolutely no logic or factual basis fpor that line of BS" Then argue the logic and facts, instead of making ex deus pronouncements. You are not God!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 18 Mar 09 - 11:53 AM 1. Teribus, my comment on the outcome of Afghanistan had no relation to the number of troops committed, whatever your supposition. I am referring to the hearts and minds aspect of the campaign. The Taleban would have found is considerably more difficult to garner support with a population that actually welcomed the coalition. A news flash for you Gervase, the Taleban have never, repeat, never been "popular" in Afghanistan, not even amongst the Pashtu population. The only reason the Taleban ever became so prominent in Afghanistan was because they eradicated the worst of the corruption and excesses of the former "Mujihadeen" warlords after the expulsion of the Russians and offered some semblance of security to the people of Afghanistan but it came at a price – they were never liked but they were perceived generally as being the lesser of two evils in a situation where the "people" didn't have any real choice or say in the matter. Whatever "support" the Taleban have "garnered" in Afghanistan is down to fear and oppression, they are given little or nothing voluntarily from the population, they do however take a great deal at point of gun, and that Gervase includes "fighting men", who, obviously under such recruiting circumstances do not really fight all that hard. Oh, by the bye that I got from what my son has told me of operations in Afghanistan. As to the specific question you asked. They get a great deal of information from the "local" population, but that information in terms of degree is tempered by the reality that ISAF cannot "hold" territory, not surprising really as it was never meant that they should to any significant extent. As in discussions on Iraq, with Afghanistan what is completely ignored are the Afghan elements involved, the new Afghan National Army and Afghan Police Force. The former according to my son, is an organisation which is showing great promise, the latter he says are nowhere near as well trained, lazy and corrupt, in short an unreliable problem wherever they go. The ANA has gained the respect of those operating alongside it and my son's hope is that the Army or part of the Army takes over the role of the Afghan Police Force. The funny thing here is that if you compare that to what Doug Beattie's experiences were as recorded in his book "An Ordinary Soldier" it is the exact opposite. He reckoned that the APF were much better than the ANA. A serving member of the R.I.R. he worked with mentoring teams attached to the AFP. My son a serving Marine works with ANA Units, my son says that in taking up static positions near villages the ANA do not set up road-blocks and demand "tolls" from the locals, whereas the AFP do. AFP personnel are more often than not local to the area they work in and have excellent contacts with local Taleban a situation Beattie found astonishing in his time with them. ANA Units consist of Afghans from all over and they have a far greater sense of "Unit" loyalty, which under fire makes them a bit more effective and not being "local" they are less susceptible to outside pressures. In Afghanistan there was no US "Invasion" as there was in Iraq. Therefore in Afghanistan nobody fought either American, British, Canadian, Dutch, Danish, etc, etc troops. In Iraq, the Iraqi Army, Republican Guard, Special Republican Guard and Saddam Fedayeen fought US and British troops and were defeated, that combatant situation was carried over when the UN MNF came into being, not surprising really as it devolved to the same players as the only people willing and capable of taking on the job. The Pashtu, Tajik, Hazara, Uzbeks and the other ethnic groups that make up Afghanistan put a great deal of store in how you fight your enemy. The Taleban have lost a great deal of "face" in regressing to their bombing campaign. No longer do they dare face their enemies as the "Mujahideen" faced the Russians. The bombs the Taleban and Al-Qaeda now rely on, kill more Afghan civilians than they do "foreign infidels" and that, believe it or not Gervase, has registered and the Taleban are not liked because of that – the same thing helped in settling the hash of "Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq" in 2007. 2. I introduced PIRA attacks in Ulster as an analogy because you seemed to be labouring under the delusion that attacks by Islamic militants in Iraq and Afghanistan somehow "don't count" as terrorism; as though only PIRA attacks on the UK mainland counted. Note the "as though". Not exactly true is it Gervase. I was talking about terror, and terrorism and whether or not it had "flourished" – You introduced militant Islam as an example of terrorism that had flourished as a result of the actions of the US and her allies, you even provided a link to illustrate this. When it was pointed out to you that most of the examples identified by yourself in that list had other causes completely unconnected from religion, you threw in the PIRA. Both you and I have both agreed to stick to what is actually said – so stop introducing red herrings and desist from attributing to me opinions and points of view that I do not subscribe to or hold. 3. "Why did the very first meeting of the National Security Council following Bush's inauguration have the invasion of Iraq on its agenda?" Could that have anything to do with the NSC's work for the three previous years where they were informing the then President of the United States of America, one William Jefferson Clinton, that potentially Iraq posed the greatest external threat to the security and interests of the United States of America? After the November 2000 Presidential election, and on change of President and Administration in January 2001, can you think of any reason why the opinion of the National Security Council, or their advice, regarding that threat evaluation would change? Having just taken over the job as President of the United States of America, do you think it likely that if your National Security Council and your Intelligence Agencies inform you of what in their opinion is the greatest threat to the nation, you as President, would shuffle it off to some back-burner for attention at a latter date?? 4. "And hindsight is, indeed, a wonderful thing. I remember one armchair general saying that it was highly unlikely that there would be a war because Bush would never launch an attack without the full and official sanction of the UN, and anyway, if the Americans did decide to invade it would have to be an entirely amphibious assault and that would never work, so would everyone please calm down. Ring any bells?" Ah I'm glad you dug that up – Bobert always classifies me as having been "Gung-Ho" and all out for the war since long before Day 1. I on the other hand in the run up firmly believed that it would never happen – I think I am on record on this very thread for stating that my reasoning behind that point of view was that I could not believe that Saddam Hussein and his Ba'athist regime in Iraq could possibly be so bloody stupid as to think that GWB and the USA was bluffing in the wake of the attacks of 11th September, 2001 that showed them how vulnerable to asymmetric attack the USA was. At the time I held the belief outlined in your summation of my position as an "armchair general" that the US had no guaranteed access to land bases in the Persian Gulf region. After I posted that view Kuwait; Bahrain and Qatar came forward and granted the US leave to use bases on their territory to support any action against Iraq. I believe another important factor I predicted was the support of Turkey. That piece of the "jig-saw" did not fall into place and it cost the US dearly, the insurrection in the west and central provinces of Iraq would have been far shorter if Iraq's western border could have been sealed immediately. 5. "Think Malaya rather than Vietnam; Templeton rather than Westmoreland." By the bye Gervase if it's the man who said, "The answer [to the uprising] lies not in pouring more troops into the jungle, but in the hearts and minds of the people", its Templer (As in Field Marshal Sir Gerald Walter Robert Templer KG, GCB, GCMG, KBE) not Templeton. Here you are comparing apples and oranges and you know it. Much in the same way as Obama is waving his Afghan "Surge" under the direction of General David Petraeus. If memory serves me correctly both Obama and his Vice-President Joe Biden opposed the "Surge" in Iraq and the latter was extremely derogatory and disparaging of its effectiveness when General Petraeus appeared before the Senate Committee to present his Report on Iraq in September 2007. Of course by the time the 2008 Presidential elections had come round General David Petraeus's every word had been vindicated and while Biden was left wiping the egg off his face, his running mate Barack Obama was chattering away ten to the dozen about his "surge" for Afghanistan having vehemently opposed the earlier one in Iraq. Well Gervase, like your comparison of Malaya & Vietnam, GWB's Iraq Surge & Obama's Afghan Surge are only significant in that they cannot be compared. If Obama thinks a surge of 17-19,000 troops in Afghanistan is going to have the same effect in the same time frame as George W Bush's 30,000 troop surge had in Iraq, then he is going to be a very disappointed man. My take on it is that we will have to be in Afghanistan for at least another ten years What lessons could General Westmoreland (A complete and utter fool in my opinion) have taken from Gerald Templer to apply in Vietnam. The British in Malaya had quite a few things going for them that the Americans did not have in Vietnam, hence Templer's "Hearts and Minds" philosophy was a great deal easier to implement and those subject to it saw immediate benefits in terms of future prospects and standards of living. There was absolutely nothing that General Westmoreland could do in Vietnam that could ever come even close in terms of effectiveness to what the British accomplished in Malaya. Having coined the phrase the British have always seen the efficacy of a "Hearts and Minds" philosophy and have learned how and when to apply it, the American military have never understood it and have never applied it, they simply do not know how. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 18 Mar 09 - 12:00 PM Bruce: This is idiocy. I did not argue for no UN action against Saddam. This is not only a purely theoretical argument, it is one with no associated reality! I argued against Bush's pushing the US in to a unilateral invasion of a non-aggressor nation. There are a thousand options Bush could have selected--using PR, sales and marketing, using economics and financial pressure, using better intell, using covert operations, using pressure from Iran, Syria, and other regional voices. Many of these solutions require no violence at all. It is completely inane superficial logic to posit that those voicing objections to war were responsible for Saddam's irresponsibility. Flowers or no. And the reason Bush didn't let the inspections go forward was...??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 18 Mar 09 - 12:37 PM Continuing to cite the UN and Inspectors as the reason we had to go to war is just insane. The UN and the Inpsectors were practically (sometimes literally) begging Bush and the necons to not invade, and never gave their support or even tacit blessings. Just a few examples: ----------------------------------------------------------------- December 20, 2002; Guardian "US Secretary of State Colin Powell yesterday accused Iraq of "deception" and "lying" in the 12,000-page weapons inventory it handed to the UN. In his first appraisal of the dossier, Mr Blix noted that Iraq maintained it had no nuclear, chemical or biological weapons programs "and that none have been designed, procured, produced or stored" since the last inspections regime ended four years ago. Mr Blix said that western governments claimed to have evidence to the contrary, but that inspectors were currently not in a position "to confirm Iraq's statements, nor in possession of evidence to disprove it." The inspectors "don't get all the support we need" from western governments, he said." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/dec/20/iraq.foreignpolicy March 7, 2003; Blix at UN Security Council "…at this juncture we are able to perform professional, no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase aerial surveillance… …intelligence authorities have claimed that weapons of mass destruction are moved around Iraq by trucks, in particular that there are mobile production units for biological weapons. The Iraqi side states that such activities do not exist. Several inspections have taken place at declared and undeclared sites in relation to mobile production facilities. Food-testing mobile laboratories and mobile workshops have been seen as well as large containers with seed-processing equipment. No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found. …There have been reports, denied from the Iraqi side, that proscribed activities are conducted underground. Iraq should provide information on any underground structure suitable for the production or storage of weapons of mass destruction. During inspections of declared or undeclared facilities, inspection teams have examined building structures for any possible underground facilities. In addition, ground-penetrating radar equipment was used in several specific locations. No underground facilities for chemical or biological production or storage were found so far. …How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can -- cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament, and at any rate verification of it, cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude induced by continued outside pressure, it will still take some time to verify sites and items, analyze documents, interview relevant persons and draw conclusions. It will not take years, nor weeks, but months. Neither governments nor inspectors would want disarmament inspection to go on forever. However, it must be remembered that in accordance with the governing resolutions, a sustained inspection and monitoring system is to remain in place after verified disarmament to give confidence and to strike an alarm if signs were seen of the revival of any proscribed weapons programs." **Read carefully: "It will not take years, nor weeks, but months" **Bush and Co. attacked 13 days later (actually the bombing started even before that) And finally: Sept. 16, 2004; BBC News "The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter. He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm ----------------------------------------------------------------- Now go ahead and wave your arms about 1441, because selective quotation of only that is all you have got. Period. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 18 Mar 09 - 01:03 PM 89 cents and a UN Resolution will get you a 12 ounce cup of coffee at the local general store... UN Resolution 1441 was nothin' more than the very least the UN could come up with to stop Bush from invading Iraq or at the very least providing time for saner thinking on Bush's part... That shows how little the UN understood about Bush's severe mental problems that prevented him from reassessment... The man made up his mind to invade Iraq the day that the Supreme Court appointed him to be president... You pro-war folks must think that evryone else is just plain stupid to believe the crap that ya'll been dealing for the last 7 years... It was crap then and crap now... Historians won't have any trouble getting this story right... It will be like Vietnam in that it will take a few years before all the revisionists, apologists and rationalizers will be no more... Right now they amount to nothing but a little radical fringe group that is getting littler and littler as time goes by... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Stringsinger Date: 18 Mar 09 - 03:19 PM The reason that the Taleban have become such an influence in Afghanistan can be laid at the doorstep of US military policy. The Afghans don't want Americans in their face. The military proponents may tell you a different story but that's pure propaganda. It's a situation of the lesser of two evils with the Pashtuns. Who can they live with? It's time for these tin-pot militarists to step aside and deal with the cultural aspects of Afghanistan and Iraq. Naturally, the militarists are going to try to defend their turf. And they will do it with belligerence and not with the Afghan or the Iraqi people in mind. The Taleban will not be a force if we can educate the Afghan people not with weaponry or phony posturing but with showing good will to them and conveying that we (US) don't want to occupy their country. Let's see some schools, hospitals, libraries, museums, and the preservation of the country's cultural legacy being built and preserved. Why is it that the easiest solution of bombing, killing and maiming in a country is always employed? It never works. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 19 Mar 09 - 01:52 AM "The Taleban will not be a force if we can educate the Afghan people not with weaponry or phony posturing but with showing good will to them and conveying that we (US) don't want to occupy their country. Let's see some schools, hospitals, libraries, museums, and the preservation of the country's cultural legacy being built and preserved." - Stringsinger During the period that the Taleban were in power in Afghanistan there was one University in the whole country, music and dancing were banned, girls were denied any eductaion at all. The Taleban were in effect doing all the things that Stringsinger accuses the US of. It was the Taleban who were ruthlessly destroying Afghan culture by force and dictat. In the seven years that have followed the overthrow of the Taleban Frank there are now ten Universities in the country hundreds of new schools, hospitals and medical centres. The foreign troops serving out in Afghanistan with either ISAF or with US Operation Enduring Freedom are not making any effort at all to impose their culture on Afghan society, if you have any evidence to the contrary I'd like to see it. Now from what you have said, who is doing more for the Afghan people at the moment, the Taleban who terrorise, or the Afghan Government aided by the international community? The Afghan people are better off today than they have been at any point in their history over the last thirty years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Barry Finn Date: 19 Mar 09 - 03:13 AM T, everybody we invade is doing better today than yesteryear it seems from your point of view. How is that? Can you explain why the poppy by product is again the main export since the US came to the aid of the Afghan people when before we arrived the drug trade their was near dead? Iraq was the most cultured, educated of the societies in the region. The culture, has it suffered under US rule, has the education system advanced? Iraq was the pride of the mid east, that was before we got there! You probably think that the English should still be in India & that there is no diference between yesterday & tomorrow. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 19 Mar 09 - 07:49 AM The one thing that we are seeing with these wars is that they are a boon to bin Laden's recruiting efforts??? There was never al qeada in Iraq until Bush lost his mind and ordered up the invasion of Iraq... Dumb foriegn policy... And here we are all pissed off over $160M in bonuses to AIG employees... Heck, we spill that much in Iraq every day... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 19 Mar 09 - 12:45 PM Well Barry let's hear your ringing endorsement for the rule of Saddam Hussein in that most cultured and educated of societies in the region, that made Iraq the pride of the middle-east. I suppose you have immigration statistics that support the vast number of people who during the reign of Saddam Hussein who were clamouring to live there. I know the number that left, sorry fled, the country was over 4.5 million, maybe they were just extremely hard to please eh? Spell it all out for us Barry, then get an Iraqi Kurd, Madaan tribesman or Iraqi Shia Muslim's opinion on your take on things - Between that lot combined you have the major part of the Iraqi nation. My bet is that they would vehemently disagree with you. I'll write the Foreword to kind of set the tone and provide a bit of background, I'll let you to carry on with the rest: "THE WONDERFUL IRAQ OF SADDAM HUSSEIN" by Barry Finn Foreword by Teribus Iraq under Saddam Hussein had high levels of torture and mass murder. Secret police, torture, murders, deportations, forced disappearances, targeted assassinations, chemical weapons, and the destruction of wetlands (more specifically, the destruction of the food sources of rival groups) were some of the methods Saddam Hussein used to maintain control. The total number of deaths related to torture and murder during this period are unknown, as are the reports of human rights violations. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International issued regular reports of widespread imprisonment and torture. Documented human rights violations 1979-2003; Human rights organizations have documented government approved executions, acts of torture, and rape for decades since Saddam Hussein came to power in 1979 until his fall in 2003. • In 2002, a resolution sponsored by the European Union was adopted by the Commission for Human Rights, which stated that there had been no improvement in the human rights crisis in Iraq. The statement condemned President Saddam Hussein's government for its "systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian law". The resolution demanded that Iraq immediately put an end to its "summary and arbitrary executions... the use of rape as a political tool and all enforced and involuntary disappearances". • Full political participation at the national level was restricted only to members of the Arab Ba'ath Party, which constituted only 8% of the population. Therefore, it was impossible for Iraqi citizens to change their government. • Iraqi citizens were not allowed to assemble legally unless it was to express support for the government. The Iraqi government controlled the establishment of political parties, regulated their internal affairs and monitored their activities. • Police checkpoints on Iraq's roads and highways prevented ordinary citizens from traveling abroad without government permission and expensive exit visas. Before traveling, an Iraqi citizen had to post collateral. Iraqi women could not travel outside of the country without the escort of a male relative. • The activities of citizens living inside Iraq who received money from relatives abroad were closely monitored. • Halabja poison gas attack:The Halabja poison gas attack occurred in the period 15 March–19 March 1988 during the Iran–Iraq War when chemical weapons were used by the Iraqi government forces and thousands civilians in the Iraqi Kurdish town of Halabja were killed. • Al-Anfal Campaign: In 1988, the Hussein regime began a campaign of extermination against the Kurdish people living in Northern Iraq. This is known as the Anfal campaign. The campaign was mostly directed at Shiite kurds (Faili Kurds) who sided with Iranians during the Iraq-Iran War. The attacks resulted in the death of at least 50,000 (some reports estimate as many as 100,000 people), many of them women and children. A team of Human Rights Watch investigators determined, after analyzing eighteen tons of captured Iraqi documents, testing soil samples and carrying out interviews with more than 350 witnesses, that the attacks on the Kurdish people were characterized by gross violations of human rights, including mass executions and disappearances of many tens of thousands of noncombatants, widespread use of chemical weapons including Sarin, mustard gas and nerve agents that killed thousands, the arbitrary imprisoning of tens of thousands of women, children, and elderly people for months in conditions of extreme deprivation, forced displacement of hundreds of thousands of villagers after the demolition of their homes, and the wholesale destruction of nearly two thousand villages along with their schools, mosques, farms, and power stations. • In April 1991, after Saddam lost control of Kuwait in the Gulf War, he cracked down ruthlessly against several uprisings in the Kurdish north and the Shia south. His forces committed wholesale massacres and other gross human rights violations against both groups similar to the violations mentioned before. Estimates of deaths during that time range from 20,000 to 100,000 for Kurds, and 60,000 to 130,000 for Shi'ites. • In June 1994, the Hussein regime in Iraq established severe penalties, including amputation, branding and the death penalty for criminal offenses such as theft, corruption, currency speculation and military desertion, while government members and Saddam's family members were immune from punishments ranging around these crimes. • On March 23, 2003, during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Iraqi television presented and interviewed prisoners of war on TV, violating the Geneva Convention. • Also in April 2003, CNN revealed that it had withheld information about Iraq torturing journalists and Iraqi citizens in the 1990s. According to CNN's chief news executive, the channel had been concerned for the safety not only of its own staff, but also of Iraqi sources and informants, who could expect punishment for speaking freely to reporters. Also according to the executive, "other news organizations were in the same bind." • After the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, several mass graves were found in Iraq containing several thousand bodies total, and more are being uncovered to this day[citation needed]. While most of the dead in the graves were believed to have died in the 1991 uprising against Saddam Hussein, some of them appeared to have died due to executions or died at times other than the 1991 rebellion. • Also after the invasion, numerous torture centers were found in security offices and police stations throughout Iraq. The equipment found at these centers typically included hooks for hanging people by the hands for beatings, devices for electric shock, and other equipment often found in nations with harsh security services and other authoritarian nations. PS Barry I'll let you cover things like the Iran/Iraq War (1.5 million dead), that Saddam started and the introduction of quaint customs such a "Honour Killings" that he legalised. Pride of the Middle-East - You have got to be joking!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 19 Mar 09 - 01:51 PM That is the logical fallacy of the "false choice", wherein opposition to Bush's invasion is equated with support for Saddam's brutality. Remember, "you're either with us, or with the terrorists!" Here's another example for you: "If you support the invasion, then you are happy about the 4300 dead, and over 100000 wounded coalition soldiers" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 19 Mar 09 - 01:55 PM 600 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 19 Mar 09 - 02:04 PM No TIA, Barry's contention was that: - Iraq was the most cultured, educated of the societies in the region. - Iraq was the pride of the mid east, that was before we got there! All I have done in my response to those statements is outline how "idyllic" it was in reality - I leave it to the likes of Barry and yourself to expound upon it at greater length. Iraq under the leadership of Saddam Hussein - the pride of the middle-east - like hell it was. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 19 Mar 09 - 02:26 PM It is more likely Persia that was the pride of the Middle East, IMHO, but this is just rhetoric about rhetoric, wind chasing wind. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Stringsinger Date: 19 Mar 09 - 06:50 PM Saddam was not a great guy but women in general were safer under his regime. Now, they don't go out of the house. They don't go to school to get degrees. Iraq has been utterly ruined by the US invasion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 19 Mar 09 - 07:28 PM "We know that Iraq and the Al Qaida terrorist network share a common enemy: the United States of America. We know that Iraq and Al Qaida have had high-level contacts that go back a decade." -- President Bush, 10/7/02 "No one was arguing that Saddam Hussein somehow had something to do with 9/11." -- Former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, 3/18/09 "Six years to the day have passed since President Bush launched the invasion of Iraq, a preventative war of choice based on "intelligence fixed around the policy." The purpose, according to Bush, was "to disarm Iraq, to free its people, and to defend the world from grave danger." Yet of course, there were no weapons to disarm and no "grave danger" to defend against. The war has spawned more terrorists and created deeply rooted resentment of the United States. Even including the billions of dollars Congress has authorized to bail out the nation's troubled financial institutions, this unnecessary war will most likely turn out to be "the largest spending bill in history," as Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) called it. Billions have been lost in waste, fraud, and abuse. Private contractors who have raked in billions from the war have established solid records of endangering the lives of Americans and Iraqis in the country. More importantly, al Qaeda -- the main threat to the U.S. when the war was launched -- "has organized to pre-9/11 strength" because Bush turned his back on Afghanistan, a war in which the U.S. and its allies are not currently winning. However, the war in Iraq may be starting to draw to a close. Late last year, the Bush administration negotiated a security agreement -- or "withdrawal accord" -- with the Iraqi government, mandating that all U.S. troops exit the country by 2011. Last month, President Obama announced his own plan to speed up that process, ordering two-thirds of U.S. forces to redeploy by Aug. 31, 2010. The Progress Report has rounded up the significant developments surrounding the Iraq war over the last year -- some good, some bad, and others ugly. THE GOOD: -- Violence in Iraq is down to its lowest level since August 2003. -- A new ABC/BBC/NHK poll suggests that Iraqi civilians are "more upbeat about the future," and for the first time since March 19, 2003, violence and insecurity "are no longer the main concern of most Iraqis." -- U.S. combat deaths are at their lowest level since the initial invasion. -- Iraqi leaders and U.S. troops have offered praise of Obama's plan to speed up the American withdrawal from Iraq. -- Iraqi civilian casualties have been steadily dropping since 2007, and despite a slight uptick in February, January 2009 "set a record for the lowest number of Iraqi civilians killed" since the war began. THE BAD: -- Through last Tuesday, 4,260 U.S. servicemen and women and hundreds more from coalition countries have been killed in Iraq since the war began. Tens of thousands have been physically and mentally wounded. In fact, suicides among Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans "may exceed the combat death toll because of inadequate mental health care." -- According to Iraq Body Count, nearly 100,000 (maybe more) Iraqi civilians have lost their lives because of the war. Nearly 5 million Iraqis have either been internally displaced or left the country. -- A U.N. report released last month found that more than 25 percent of Iraq's young men are out of work, "a situation that is likely to worsen and threatens the country's long-term stability. ... Overall, the country's unemployment rate is 18%, but an additional 10% of the labor force is employed part time and wanting to work more." -- A study released last month found that "Iraq accounts for 1,067 suicide attacks" anywhere since 1981, "a number that accounts for more than half (54.8%) of all suicide attacks" since that time. -- The situation in Afghanistan continues to deteriorate as precious American and allied resources are still being used in Iraq. THE UGLY -- Being an architect of the war means never having to say you're sorry. Bush blames others for having to launch the war. Vice President Cheney is convinced the life and treasure lost to fight the Iraq war was worth it. Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice actually said she is "so proud" the U.S. invaded Iraq. And major war architect Richard Perle now denies the existence of neoconservatism, the ideological basis for the invasion. -- Despite zero evidence, Bush administration officials are still trying to link Saddam to al Qaeda. -- The British government released internal memos and e-mails last week that provide further evidence that the government dossier former UK prime minister Tony Blair used as the basis for which to justify the country's involvement in the invasion was indeed "sexed up" with unsupported claims of an imminent threat from Iraq. -- Last July, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) introduced a resolution praising the success of the "surge" of U.S. forces into Iraq "against enemies who attacked America on 9/11." Rep. Steve King (R-IA) recently introduced a "Victory in Iraq" resolution (despite the fact that Gen. David Petraeus refuses to use the term) "chronicling the success of the troop surge in Iraq and warning the new Commander-in-Chief that if he changes strategy, he takes ownership of whatever happens on his watch." -- The war has engendered so much hostility that during Bush's last press conference in Iraq, Iraqi journalist Muntader al-Zaidi threw both of his shoes at the President in an attempt to avenge the humiliation Bush levied on the Iraqi people. "This is a farewell kiss, you dog," al-Zaidi said. ..."(The PRogress Report) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 19 Mar 09 - 07:40 PM Well, the entire region is destabilized, upwards of a million Iraqis have been slaughtered, the US economy has tanked partly because of the dollar costs of the war, al qeada is stronger than ever and there is no real end in sight but... ...Saddam is gone... (whoopeee...) B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 20 Mar 09 - 12:07 AM New Film - "Four Lies and a Fact" by Bobert: Lie 1 (or Bobert Fact) - "the entire region is destabilized" Lie 2 (or Bobert Fact) - "upwards of a million Iraqis have been slaughtered" Lie 3 (or Bobert Fact) - "the US economy has tanked partly because of the dollar costs of the war" Lie 4 (or Bobert Fact) - "al qeada is stronger than ever and there is no real end in sight" Fact 1 (or Truth) - "Saddam is gone" To TIA, Barry Finn and Stringsinger: Hitler and Mussolini made the trains run on time in Germany and Italy, but that didn't alter the fact that both should have been confronted sooner rather than later, especially in the case of Hitler. The horror that the appeasers wished to avoid was the prospect of a repetition of the "Great War" with 16 million dead. Their attempted appeasement allowed both dictators to increase their strength and resulted in the Second World War which ultimately cost 72 million lives. Talking of responsibility for loss of life and "having blood on ones hands" there is a very good case for arguing that those who pursued a policy of appeasement with Hitler have the blood of 72 million people on their hands. If the UN had done it's job properly in the period 1991 to 1997 there would have been no invasion of Iraq in 2003, just as if the League of Nations had done its job properly in 1934 there would have been no Second World War. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 20 Mar 09 - 07:55 AM You are delussional, T, and no longer able to seperate mythology from reality... Get help!!! Soon!!! B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 20 Mar 09 - 12:16 PM Well Bobert IF I am delusional then you will find no trouble in producing substantive proof for the lies that you have produced on this thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 20 Mar 09 - 03:25 PM Big difference between Hitler/Mussolini and Saddam. They actually had functioning war machines and weapons. Turns out Saddam did not. It was all a big lie right up front. Sorry for the long cut and paste, but here is exactly why we invaded laid out in painful detail by William Rivers Pitt (from TruthOut): snip--------- Six years ago, the United States of America began the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Since then, 4,259 American soldiers have been killed and tens of thousands more have been wounded. There is no accurate accounting of Iraqi dead and wounded, because as we were told, we do not do body counts. Because the Bush administration left its Iraq expenditures off the budget, and because of the tremendous amount of war-profiteering, graft and theft that has been involved, we do not know exactly how much we have spent. For the record, 2,192 days later, this is how we got here: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." - Dick Cheney, Vice President Speech to VFW National Convention 8/26/2002 "There is already a mountain of evidence that Saddam Hussein is gathering weapons for the purpose of using them. And adding additional information is like adding a foot to Mount Everest." - Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary Response to Question From the Press 9/6/2002 "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." - Condoleezza Rice, US National Security Adviser CNN Late Edition 9/8/2002 "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." - George W. Bush, President Speech to the UN General Assembly 9/12/2002 "Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons - the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." - George W. Bush, President Radio Address 10/5/2002 "The Iraqi regime ... possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas." - George W. Bush, President Cincinnati, Ohio, Speech 10/7/2002 "And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons." - George W. Bush, President Cincinnati, Ohio, Speech 10/7/2002 "After 11 years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon." - George W. Bush, President Cincinnati, Ohio, Speech 10/7/2002 "We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas." - George W. Bush, President Cincinnati, Ohio, Speech 10/7/2002 "Iraq, despite UN sanctions, maintains an aggressive program to rebuild the infrastructure for its nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile programs. In each instance, Iraq's procurement agents are actively working to obtain both weapons-specific and dual-use materials and technologies critical to their rebuilding and expansion efforts, using front companies and whatever illicit means are at hand." - John Bolton, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control Speech to the Hudson Institute 11/1/2002 "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide biological or chemical weapons to a terrorist group or to individual terrorists ... The war on terror will not be won until Iraq is completely and verifiably deprived of weapons of mass destruction." - Dick Cheney, Vice President Denver, Address to the Air National Guard 12/1/2002 "If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world." - Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary Press Briefing 12/2/2002 "The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it." - Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary Response to Question From the Press 12/4/2002 "We know for a fact that there are weapons there." - Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary Press Briefing 1/9/2003 "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." - George W. Bush, President State of the Union Address 1/28/2003 "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." - George W. Bush, President State of the Union Address 1/28/2003 "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more." - Colin Powell, Secretary of State Remarks to the UN Security Council 2/5/2003 "There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. And he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction. If biological weapons seem too terrible to contemplate, chemical weapons are equally chilling." - Colin Powell, Secretary of State Address to the UN Security Council 2/5/2003 "In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world - and we will not allow it." - George W. Bush, President Speech to the American Enterprise Institute 2/26/2003 "If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since (UN Resolution) 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us ... But the suggestion that we are doing this because we want to go to every country in the Middle East and rearrange all of its pieces is not correct." - Colin Powell, Secretary of State Interview With Radio France International 2/28/2003 "So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? I think our judgment has to be clearly not." - Colin Powell, Secretary of State Remarks to the UN Security Council 3/7/2003 "Let's talk about the nuclear proposition for a minute. We know that based on intelligence, that has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He's had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." - Dick Cheney, Vice President "Meet the Press" 3/16/2003 "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." - George W. Bush, President Address to the Nation 3/17/2003 "Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly ... all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes." - Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary Press Briefing 3/21/2003 "One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites." - Victoria Clark, Pentagon Spokeswoman Press Briefing 3/22/2003 "I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction." - Kenneth Adelman, Defense Policy Board Member Washington Post, p. A27 3/23/2003 "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." - Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense ABC Interview 3/30/2003 "We still need to find and secure Iraq's weapons of mass destruction facilities and secure Iraq's borders so we can prevent the flow of weapons of mass destruction materials and senior regime officials out of the country." - Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense Press Conference 4/9/2003 "You bet we're concerned about it. And one of the reasons it's important is because the nexus between terrorist states with weapons of mass destruction ... and terrorist groups - networks - is a critical link. And the thought that ... some of those materials could leave the country and in the hands of terrorist networks would be a very unhappy prospect. So it is important to us to see that that doesn't happen." - Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense Press Conference 4/9/2003 "I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found." - Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary Press Briefing 4/10/2003 "But make no mistake - as I said earlier - we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found." - Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary Press Briefing 4/10/2003 "Were not going to find anything until we find people who tell us where the things are. And we have that very high on our priority list, to find the people who know. And when we do, then well learn precisely where things were and what was done." - Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense "Meet the Press" 4/13/2003 "We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them." - George W. Bush, President NBC Interview 4/24/2003 "There are people who in large measure have information that we need ... so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country." - Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense Press Briefing 4/25/2003 "We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so." - George W. Bush, President Remarks to Reporters 5/3/2003 "I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now." - Colin Powell, Secretary of State Remarks to Reporters 5/4/2003 "We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country." - Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense Fox News Interview 5/4/2003 "I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein - because he had a weapons program." - George W. Bush, President Remarks to Reporters 5/6/2003 "U.S. officials never expected that 'we were going to open garages and find' weapons of mass destruction." - Condoleezza Rice, US National Security Adviser Reuters Interview 5/12/2003 "We said all along that we will never get to the bottom of the Iraqi WMD program simply by going and searching specific sites, that you'd have to be able to get people who know about the programs to talk to you." - Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense Interview With Australian Broadcasting 5/13/2003 "It's going to take time to find them, but we know he had them. And whether he destroyed them, moved them or hid them, we're going to find out the truth. One thing is for certain: Saddam Hussein no longer threatens America with weapons of mass destruction." - George W. Bush, President Speech at a Weapons Factory in Ohio 5/25/2003 "They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer." - Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense Remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations 5/27/2003 "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on." - Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense Vanity Fair Interview 5/28/2003 "The President is indeed satisfied with the intelligence that he received. And I think that's borne out by the fact that, just as Secretary Powell described at the United Nations, we have found the bio trucks that can be used only for the purpose of producing biological weapons. That's proof-perfect that the intelligence in that regard was right on target." - Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary Press Briefing 5/29/2003 "We have teams of people that are out looking. They've investigated a number of sites. And within the last week or two, they have in fact captured and have in custody two of the mobile trailers that Secretary Powell talked about at the United Nations as being biological weapons laboratories." - Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense Infinity Radio Interview 5/30/2003 "But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." - George W. Bush, President Interview With TVP Poland 5/30/2003 "You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons ... They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two ... And we'll find more weapons as time goes on." - George W. Bush, President Press Briefing 5/30/2003 "This wasn't material I was making up, it came from the intelligence community." - Colin Powell, Secretary of State Press Briefing 6/2/2003 "We recently found two mobile biological weapons facilities which were capable of producing biological agents. This is the man who spent decades hiding tools of mass murder. He knew the inspectors were looking for them. You know better than me he's got a big country in which to hide them. We're on the look. We'll reveal the truth." - George W. Bush, President Camp Sayliya, Qatar 6/5/2003 "I would put before you Exhibit A, the mobile biological labs that we have found. People are saying, 'Well, are they truly mobile biological labs?' Yes, they are. And the DCI, George Tenet, Director of Central Intelligence, stands behind that assessment." - Colin Powell, Secretary of State Fox News Interview 6/8/2003 "No one ever said that we knew precisely where all of these agents were, where they were stored." - Condoleezza Rice, US National Security Adviser "Meet the Press" 6/8/2003 "What the president has said is because it's been the long-standing view of numerous people, not only in this country, not only in this administration, but around the world, including at the United Nations, who came to those conclusions ... And the president is not going to engage in the rewriting of history that others may be trying to engage in." - Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary Response to Question From the Press 6/9/2003 "Iraq had a weapons program ... Intelligence throughout the decade showed they had a weapons program. I am absolutely convinced with time we'll find out they did have a weapons program." - George W. Bush, President Comment to Reporters 6/9/2003 "The biological weapons labs that we believe strongly are biological weapons labs, we didn't find any biological weapons with those labs. But should that give us any comfort? Not at all. Those were labs that could produce biological weapons whenever Saddam Hussein might have wanted to have a biological weapons inventory." - Colin Powell, Secretary of State Associated Press Interview 6/12/2003 "My personal view is that their intelligence has been, I'm sure, imperfect, but good. In other words, I think the intelligence was correct in general, and that you always will find out precisely what it was once you get on the ground and have a chance to talk to people and explore it, and I think that will happen." - Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense Press Briefing 6/18/2003 "I have reason, every reason, to believe that the intelligence that we were operating off was correct and that we will, in fact, find weapons or evidence of weapons, programs, that are conclusive. But that's just a matter of time ... It's now less than eight weeks since the end of major combat in Iraq and I believe that patience will prove to be a virtue." - Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense Pentagon Media Briefing 6/24/2003 MS. BLOCK: There were no toxins found in those trailers. SECRETARY POWELL: Which could mean one of several things: one, they hadn't been used yet to develop toxins; or, secondly, they had been sterilized so thoroughly that there is no residual left. It may well be that they hadn't been used yet. - Colin Powell, Secretary of State "All Things Considered" Interview 6/27/2003 "That was the concern we had with Saddam Hussein. Not only did he have weapons - and we'll uncover not only his weapons but all of his weapons programs - he never lost the intent to have these kinds of weapons." - Colin Powell, Secretary of State "All Things Considered" Interview 6/27/2003 "I think the burden is on those people who think he didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are." - Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary Press Briefing 7/9/2003 snip------------------------- As self-inflicted punishment for the ridiculous length of this paste job, I will not post for two weeks. Bye. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 20 Mar 09 - 03:39 PM An interesting recapitulation of a huge falsehood, TIA. Thanks for taking the trouble. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 20 Mar 09 - 03:39 PM I haven't lied at all, T... You, on the other hand, refuse to allow your mind to open to the realities of the last 7 years... At the top of that list is your worship of a danged UN resoluton that was adopted by the UN as the only way to perhaps stop Bush's all-ready made-up-mind to invade Iarq... You don't want to accept that part of the story because it does not dovetail into your mythology... That is thew way it occured... That si the way historians will describe UN Resolution 1441... If me observing that part of history the way that most historians will write it does not make me some enemy of the truth... It makes you delusional... Now when we take 1441 and put it in proper perspective then the story changes bacdk around toward something that best resemebles what actually occured and ot what you wished had occured... You also never happen to address the fact that former Secretary of the Treasury O'Neil stated in his book that Bush made up his mind on attacking Iraq from the very beginning and well before 9/11... This is also a very telling part of the story that you rfuse to allow into your narrative... This is fact... It is a very important fact but seeing as it does not dovetail into your mythology then you just ignore it... That, my freind, is delusional... Then Blix comes to the UN and tells the UN Security Council that the Iraqis are cooperating fully with the inspectors and at first you challenge me to provide a source that Blix actaully did that and then once I provide the source you ignore the remifications of such a report on Bush's allready-made decsion to invade Iraq... The reson that you poopoo Blix's report is because, again, it does not dovetail into your mythological story... That, T, is delusional... I mean, these are all factual and when taken seperately or collectively trash your mythogy... Yet you and yer wramonging buddies have tried to make me out to be some kind of liar??? Get real, T... Wake up... Get medical treatment... Get whatever you need to get you jump started toward a life where reality is reality and mythology ain't reality... We've had 7 years of yer bogus arguments and they have been tarshed over and over as reality sets in... Give the heck up, my friend... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Stringsinger Date: 20 Mar 09 - 06:31 PM The burden is on Ari Fleischer to prove that WMD's did exist. His "evidence" is not credible. It is common knowledge now that Colin Powell lied to the UN with bogus maps and assumptions. He was pressured by the Bushies. Condi's "mushroom cloud" was inside her head. Bush's invasion of Iraq would not be mitigated by anything the UN had to say. He wanted his "political capital". No one is defending Saddam, Mussolini or Hitler here. That is a specious argument. There is no real comparison. First of all, Saddam had an ongoing relationship with the US prior to his belligerence that involved American export of arms to Iraq to offset the threat of invasion by Iran. This could not have escalated into a world war. Saddam was not interested in taking over the world. He was a dictator but not on the scale of Muss or Hit. That said, America had a relationship with Hitler that had nothing to do with the League of Nations. The American Bund was quite active here in the States and at one time the Graf Zepplin flew across the country sporting the swastika. When ever there is a conservative political power in the US, there are often rapprochements with dictators. As it was, a took a lot to get even FDR involved. It's too easy to hide dirty hands in foreign policies. As to the UN mitigating the effects of the Second World War, there is nothing that can be stated to prove this contention that they could have. As to the proposed "Bobert lies, 1-4" there is no evidence to support the claim that these are lies. Al Queada has been made stronger by the military presence in Iraq. Bush killed more Iraqis then Saddam. The "war" was a contributing factor in the economic crisis we now face in the States. Billions have been lost. More to come because the US can't extricate itself from a double quagmire. Finally, quoting Rumsfeld, Powell, Fleischer or any of the Bush apologists is like accepting opinions on child raising from the Marquis de Sade. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 20 Mar 09 - 06:49 PM Thanks for that post, Stringsinger... The axis of evil (they know who they are) here in Mudville have thrown the "liar" tag at me going back 7 years because they think that if they can get that tag to stick then all their wrong-headed support fot Bush/Blair's invasion of Iraq will be justified... History has shown that the anti-war folks here were right back in '02 and early '03 and continue to be right... The axis-Catters can call me anything they want... They can play yes-no games... They can try to change the subject... They can beat 1441 to a pulp... Their denials and games won't change history any more than the brownshirts loyalty changed history... It is what it is... And what it is is that there are a lot of folks with blood on their hands... I thought it pitiful that one of them would have actaully accused the anti-war folks for the invasion??? That is delusional thinking at its best... But I would invite any of the axis-Catters to repent... I'm not trying to be funny or cute here... One just can't carry that kind of ill-will and blood but so long before it will eat them alive from the inside out... In other words, "The truth will set you free..." B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 21 Mar 09 - 05:29 AM Taking Amos's post "The Good, the Bad & the Ugly" of 19 Mar 09 - 07:28 PM: His two opening quotations are both perfectly correct and perfectly truthful; I have raised them before although in stating what Condoleeza Rice said I actually quoted Colin Powell and Dick Cheney, who imparted exactly the same information only five days after the attacks of 11th September, 2001. I asked Amos before to explain in what way the two statements are linked, or indeed why they should be linked at all. "The purpose, according to Bush, was "to disarm Iraq, to free its people, and to defend the world from grave danger."" • Iraq has been disarmed, it has renounced the use of WMD, it no longer pursues research & development of WMD weapons or delivery systems for such weapons. That we now know for definite to be the case. • The people of Iraq are now free to exercise their political will for the governance of their country; they are no longer ruled by a brutal and oppressive minority. They have taken part in numerous elections since 20th March 2003, the biggest difference the people voting would have noted would be the number of names and the variety of choice on their ballot papers as opposed to the old days where there was only one. This plus the added frisson that they actually get to put the cross next to their choice instead of having it already printed on the paper. • Iraq identified on two occasions as posing the greatest potential threat to the United States of America, her interests, her allies and the middle-east region as a whole has been rendered safe. Iraq no longer sponsors terrorist organizations, Iraq no longer threats the peace of the Persian Gulf region and her immediate neighbours "Yet of course, there were no weapons to disarm and no "grave danger" to defend against." – Amos, or whoever wrote Amos's cut'n'paste. That is pure 20 x 20 hindsight, and the latter part of it still lurks. The greatest threat to the United States of America today remains to be an asymmetric attack by an international terrorist organization armed with WMD assisted and supported, logistically, technically and financially by a rogue state. Only today, as a direct result of actions taken seven years ago, the list of likely candidates who would be prepared to step forward to fulfill the role of "rogue state" is significantly lacking. "spawned more terrorists"?? Really?? In that case what have they all been doing?? How do you know that there are more terrorists if they aren't doing anything?? There again Amos has not put a date on this piece. "al Qaeda -- the main threat to the U.S. when the war was launched -- "has organized to pre-9/11 strength" because Bush turned his back on Afghanistan, a war in which the U.S. and its allies are not currently winning." I would dearly love to hear the rationale for the declaration that Al-Qaeda could ever be descibed as being the main threat to the U.S. A news flash for you Amos, Al-Qaeda has NEVER been considered any serious threat to the US, let alone THE MAIN threat. Look at it logically; what could Al-Qaeda in isolation possibly "hit" the United States of America with? How could they possibly hope to make any sort of significant or lasting impact on the U.S.? Compared to what was identified as actually posing the main threat to the U.S. the attacks of 9/11 horrendous as they were, pale into insignificance. As for, "Afghanistan, a war in which the U.S. and its allies are not currently winning", which was the latest pronouncement by your new "makee-learnee" Commander-in-Chief, but that doesn't actually paint the picture and in terms of describing the situation, the leader of Afghanistan's Taleban in exile, Mullah Omar, has put it a damn sight more accurately. Barack Obama's rather idiotic public remarks on the situation had his equally idiotic Vice-President scrambling for words to correct the error, by stating the rather lame, "We're not winning it, but we're far from losing it". Mullah Omar's statement of a "stalemate" is far more accurate and encompassing. Now then all the students of history who keep prattling on about previous incursions into Afghanistan and the lessons of history to be learned. At what time during the nine years that the Soviets were in Afghanistan did you ever hear the word "Stalemate" used to describe the situation? In terms of counter-insurgency "stalemate" is the beginning of the end for the counter-insurgents. In the coming months your Commander-in-Chief is going to send some 19,000 combat troops to Afghanistan. Currently there are around 66,000 troops serving with ISAF and with US Operation "Enduring Freedom", if composition of that force is "standard", as I believe it will be considering the durations involved, that means that only about 30% of that 66,000 will be "combat" troops, i.e. people who actually toddle about doing the actual fighting on the ground. Barack Obama is going to almost double that number and the 20,000 you have there at the moment backed by ANA and APF have forced an admission of a "Stalemate" from the Taleban? I believe that if the Taleban do not start engaging politically, they are going to be in for a very hard time in the next 18 months, both in Afghanistan itself and in the FATA of Pakistan. Withdrawal from Iraq will be in accordance with what the situation dictates and on the advice and recommendations of the military commanders on the ground. Obama's "all troops home within 16 months" as a campaign promise is a dead duck, it was always a non-starter. The size of the "stay back party" at 55,000 is staggering, I think the size of the UK's who will stay on to train up Iraqi Naval Forces is only 400. A little snippet from the "UGLY" Section relating to Iraqi journalist Muntader al-Zaidi, who valiantly attempted to avenge the humiliation Bush levied on the Iraqi people. "This is a farewell kiss, you dog," al-Zaidi said. ..."(The PRogress Report). Now prior to this "heroic" act, Muntader al-Zaidi, a Shia Muslim, never felt compelled to act to avenge the humiliation levied on the people of Iraq by Saddam Hussein. Not surprising really, if he had his treatment at the hands of Saddam's security apparatus would have been markedly different – I would have actually put this in the "GOOD" section, it's one of the best indicators of the "freedom" that the Iraqi's have been given on record. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 21 Mar 09 - 06:02 AM "And what it is is that there are a lot of folks with blood on their hands..." Yes, Bobert- there are- and they are the ones yelling the loudest about others, aren't you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 21 Mar 09 - 06:58 AM Bobert, ----------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 19 Mar 09 - 01:51 PM That is the logical fallacy of the "false choice", wherein opposition to Bush's invasion is equated with support for Saddam's brutality. Remember, "you're either with us, or with the terrorists!" Here's another example for you: "If you support the invasion, then you are happy about the 4300 dead, and over 100000 wounded coalition soldiers" --------------------------------------------------------------------- So if I have any blood on my hands, it is exceeded by your own, IMHO. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 21 Mar 09 - 07:55 AM There you go again, bruce... That is equivalent to blaming the Holocost on the Jews... More delusional, twisted thinking... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 22 Mar 09 - 12:52 AM No, Bobert, it is not. It is more like blamng the Holocaust on the national leaders, and the people who did not protest Hitler's actions, who let Hitler do what he wanted without taking action, until too late to prevent a world war with 27 million dead. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 22 Mar 09 - 12:56 AM blow·hard [ blá¹" hrd ] (plural blow·hards) noun Definition: empty boaster: somebody who boasts but is considered ineffectual. Example: "I might be an amatuer in yer little narrow minded view but I called the consequences in Iraq some 7 years ago" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Barry Finn Date: 22 Mar 09 - 01:39 AM BB: "No, Bobert, it is not. It is more like blamng the Holocaust on the national leaders, and the people who did not protest Hitler's actions, who let Hitler do what he wanted without taking action, until too late to prevent a world war with 27 million dead." That's exactly what happened here BB. Not enough people protested against Bush's invasion into Iraq. Bush had it set up so folks were afraid to be considered traitors. Now 7 yrs later most of the nation agrees that it was a terrible mistake with the exception of a few. and you have the nerve to put the blood on the hands of those that protested this war, when the blood should be staining the hands of those that allowed it to happen be doing nothing to stop it or worst by supporting it. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 22 Mar 09 - 04:09 AM "Saddam had an ongoing relationship with the US prior to his belligerence that involved American export of arms to Iraq to offset the threat of invasion by Iran" - Stringsinger Have you got any proof at all for that?? Open the link and see who did supply Saddam with his arms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq_1973-1990 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 22 Mar 09 - 10:07 AM Barry, "the blood on the hands of those that protested this war" Yes, because those people did nothing to tell Saddam to comply with the UNR, or honor his cease-fire commitments.They did nothing to stop the war- only to tell the world that Saddam could do whatever he wanted, without cost- just like Chamberlin. Had Saddam thought he would be attacked, he would have complied with UNR, and there would have been no war- so the protests, and the other governments blocking US action are a contributing cause to the war. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 22 Mar 09 - 10:10 AM "most of the nation agrees that it was a terrible mistake with the exception of a few." Present figures ( March 21, 2009) are 52% against, 40% in favor of the war. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 22 Mar 09 - 11:49 AM "The United States did not supply any arms to Iraq until 1982, when Iran's growing military success alarmed American policymakers. It then did so every year until 1988. Although most other countries never hesitated to sell military hardware directly to Saddam Hussein's regime, the United States, equally keen to protect its interests in the region, adopted a more subtle approach. Howard Teicher served on the United States National Security Council as director of Political-Military Affairs. According to his 1995 affidavit and other interviews with former Regan and Bush administration officials, the Central Intelligence Agency secretly directed armaments and high-tech components to Iraq through false fronts and friendly third parties such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Kuwait, and they quietly encouraged rogue arms dealers and other private military companies to do the same: "The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq. My notes, memoranda and other documents in my NSC files show or tend to show that the CIA knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, munitions and vehicles to Iraq." The full extent of these covert transfers is not yet known. Teicher's files on the subject are held securely at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and many other Reagan era documents that could help shine new light on the subject remain classified." (From T's reference pthread). "Now, in early August of 1986, when Bush was in the Middle East, C.I.A. officials in Baghdad for the first time began directly providing the Iraqi military with highly classified tactical intelligence information. The C.I.A. also provided Saddam with equipment to receive intelligence information from satellites, which would help him assess he effects of his air strikes on Iran. According to one official, the intelligence provided to the Iraqis during and after the summer of 1986 "was specific to assisting them in their air war."* Saddam's suspicions of the United States may have been eased somewhat by the involvement of an emissary as highly placed as the American Vice-President. *(Jonathan Pollard comments: This is only half the story. The amount and type of intelligence transferred to Iraq was far greater than what was reported here. The transfer also started a lot earlier than August 1986. In fact, I first saw this material headed for Baghdad back in the Spring of 1984. And it very definitely included information pertaining to the Israeli Defense Forces, not just Iran.) On August 5th, Bush returned to Washington and was debriefed by Casey. "Casey kept the return briefing very close to his vest." One of his aides says. "But he said Bush was supportive of the initiative and had carried out his mission." On the same day, however, the covert machinations almost came undone. Low-level American Embassy officials in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, had learned of the Saudi transfer of United States arms to Iraq earlier that year. Unaware that the Reagan Administration had secretly authorized the arms transfer, the officials went so far as to question Prince Bandar Ibn Sultan, the Saudi Ambassador to the United States, who told them that the transfer had been accidental and the amount had been small. The day Bush returned to Washington, the State Department sent a secret cable seeking further information about the bomb sales to Saddam. The cable warned that the that the Arms Export Control Act required the State Department to report the arms transfer to Congress. It said, "We shall be forwarding such notification in the next few days in classified letters to the Speaker of the House and the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee." Exposure of the arms transfer could have had significant consequences for Saudi Arabia. President Reagan had recently notified Congress that he intended to transfer the first of five AWACS planes, worth $3.5 billion, to the Saudis. The State Department cable warned that the AWACS sales could be endangered by disclosure of the Saudi's arms transfer. It added: We are concerned, naturally, about possible reactions to this unauthorized transfer. Section 3 provides for the possibility of a presidential determination of ineligibility of such a country for further FMS credits and guarantees, although Department has always taken the posture the President is not required to do so. The same section also gives the Congress the opportunity, by adoption of a Joint Resolution, to declare a country ineligible for FMS sales. This is a possibility we must treat seriously given the previous debate on arms sales. In the end, the Reagan Administration had little to worry about. The White House sent a notification letter to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Richard Lugar, claiming that the arms sales were "inadvertent," that only a "small quantity of unsophisticated weapons" had been transferred, and that the transfers were "unauthorized." In fact, the sales were done purposefully; the Administration knew that fifteen hundred bombs had been sold to Iraq; and most important, the sales had been covertly authorized by the Reagan Administration. One senator said he approached Lugar about rumors that Saudi Arabia was sending United States arms to Iraq. "Dick Lugar told me there was nothing to it, and so I took his word," the senator told us. There the matter ended. The senator said that Lugar told him he was relying on the word of the White House." From Pollard in the New Yorker "When Bush became President, in January ,1989, he increased aid to the regime of Saddam Hussein. Why, after the end of the Iran-Iraq War, the Reagan and Bush Administrations accelerated their support for Saddam has never been fully explained. But classified documents and interviews with senior officials indicate that the relationship between the United States and Saddam Hussein became strained after the revelations that the Reagan Administration had also sent arms to Iran. "We had to work doubly hard to recoup the stature we lost with Saddam," one official told us in an interviews. As Whitehead had written in his memo, "It should be remembered...that we have weathered Irangate." More would need to be done to develop closer ties with "the ruthless but pragmatic Saddam Hussein." Once again, a failed covert policy -in this case, to arm Iran- led to another: increased covert support for Iraq that would facilitate its crash program to develop ballistic, chemical, and even nuclear weapons. Bush implemented the new policy despite the fact that several government departments had repeatedly warned of Saddam's massive military buildup, human-rights violations, and continued support for terrorism. In March, 1989, State Department officials told the new Secretary of State, James Baker, that Iraq was working on chemical and biological weapons and that terrorists were still operating out of Iraq. In June, the Defense Intelligence Agency sent a top-secret report to thirty-eight high-level Bush Administration officials, warning that it had discovered a secret military-procurement network for Iraq operating in countries around the world, including the United States. In September, the Defense Department discovered that an Iraqi front company in Cleveland was funneling United States technology to Iraq's nuclear-weapons program, but the Bush Administration allowed the company to continue operations -even after the invasion of Kuwait. On September 3rd, a C.I.A. assessment, classified "Top Secret," informed Baker that Iraq had a program to develop nuclear weapons and had "made use of covert techniques" to obtain the high technology it needed to build a bomb. The report identified some of the specific dual-use technology that Baghdad's procurement network was trying to obtain around the world for its nuclear-weapons program, including oscilloscopes, high-speed cameras, and centrifuges."...Ibid |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 22 Mar 09 - 12:02 PM "On September 3rd, a C.I.A. assessment, classified "Top Secret," informed Baker that Iraq had a program to develop nuclear weapons and had "made use of covert techniques" to obtain the high technology it needed to build a bomb. The report identified some of the specific dual-use technology that Baghdad's procurement network was trying to obtain around the world for its nuclear-weapons program, including oscilloscopes, high-speed cameras, and centrifuges."...Ibid" You don't say, Amos.... You keep saying that Saddam did not have such a program. Which is it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 22 Mar 09 - 12:06 PM Bullshit, Bruce. I never said he had no program back in the 80's. Your blind commitment to adversarial positions is fogging your glasses. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 22 Mar 09 - 12:11 PM More details on the Western contribution to Iraq arms can be found here. Old GHB was a real operator, I tell ya! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 22 Mar 09 - 02:37 PM "ccording to two Senate Committee Reports that will be completed in 1994, one on May 25 and another on October 7, dual-use chemical and biological agents exported to Iraq from the US significantly contributed to the country's weapons arsenal. The initial May report will say the agents "were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction" and the October report will reveal that the "microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and removed from the Iraqi biological warfare program." The 1994 investigation also determines that other exports such as plans and equipment also contributed significantly to Iraq's military capabilities. "UN inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development program," Donald Riegle, the chairman of the committee, will explain. He also says that between January 1985 and August 1990, the "executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq."" Ibid |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Gervase Date: 22 Mar 09 - 03:42 PM But Amos, have you any proof? Senate reports are all well and good, but Teribus will need something concrete, like Wikipedia. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 22 Mar 09 - 04:04 PM Source: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 22 Mar 09 - 04:57 PM QUite so. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 23 Mar 09 - 12:45 AM The 400 interviewers who fanned out across Iraq last month found that the sense of security felt by Baghdad residents had significantly improved since polling carried out before the US announced in January that it was sending in a "surge" of more than 20,000 extra troops. ... Yet 49% of those questioned preferred life under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, to living under Saddam. Only 26% said things had been better in Saddam's era, while 16% said the two leaders were as bad as each other and the rest did not know or refused to answer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 23 Mar 09 - 08:19 AM As per usual, Sawz is clueless about what *The Surge* was all about and thinks that it was merely more boots on the ground... No wonder Saws can't make any cognitive contributions to this thread... Grabage in, garbage out... Oh well... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 23 Mar 09 - 11:30 AM As per usual, Bobert is clueless about what *The war* was all about and he insists that it was merely an issue of WMDs. Removing Saddam Hussein from power was the official policy of the United states since 1991 and put into law with the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. However Bobert the sage figures if he can bluster and put all the focus on WMDs and there were no WMDs he can win his egotistical I told you so argument that he was right about the war "some 7 years ago" and not have to accept the truth on the ground that even the majority of Iraqis say they are better off without Saddam Hussein. Grabage in, garbage out... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 23 Mar 09 - 11:54 AM Will anybody that knows anything about Bobert's mythological M-16 rifle that Rumsfeld allegedly gave to Saddam Hussein please raise their hand and state what they know about it? I cannot find anything anywhere that supports this "fact". Not in his claimed only sources of information: the Washington Post; the New York Times; TV news website or blogs or anywhere on the net. Therefore I believe that this is another imagined, made up "Bobert Fact" put forward to support his unsupportable rant against the war. Is this the Grabage in or the Grabage out? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 23 Mar 09 - 12:00 PM Even on the subject of WMD's with regard to Saddam Hussein and Iraq Bobert is clueless. Bobert being of the opinion that WMD had to be found when in actual fact they did not, all that had to be established in a verifiable manner was that Iraq no longer possessed any WMD, was no longer activiely seeking to acquire WMD or develop delivery systems for WMD. All impossible to do while Saddam remained in power, by the man's own admission. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 23 Mar 09 - 12:02 PM Hey Bobert, indication of how bad things are in Iraq: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7957974.stm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 23 Mar 09 - 12:11 PM Correction to "the majority of Iraqis say they are better off without Saddam Hussein." That is incorrect. A minority said things were better under Saddam. 49% of those questioned preferred life under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, to living under Saddam. Only 26% said things had been better in Saddam's era. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 23 Mar 09 - 01:39 PM You stone-headed Bushians are really, really missing the point. You have so justified and rationalized things that you continuously spout on, fully in support of a deed of misestimation and extreme violence, an economic drain of magnitude, a level of force and destruction and the ruination of bodies, homes, families, minds and hearts on all sides of the conflict, far, far in excess of necessity. Yet you go around, and around explaining why it seemed a good idea at the time (which it was not)and asserting that everyone was fooled the same way (which they were not) into thinking it was the only possible choice (which it was not) for dealing with a major international problem of grave danger (which it did not do, and which arguably did not in fact exist). I think Bobert comes back to these fundamental disconnects between your screeds of rationalizing and the simple elements of reality at the time, and your screeds keep assaulting his cognitive filters with unreason, without apparently ever pausing to wonder why you are doing so. The invasion of Iraq was not a well-thought out act of national defense. It was a political act of gross opportunism and really slimy pools of unwarranted influence, conceived in blind ambition and executed in a miasma of stupidity and misunderstanding. It has only one redeeming aspect to it, the passing of Saddam and the Ba'athist regime. The price is comparable to using an RPG to punish a littering offence in terms of scale. Wake up and smell the humanity, guys. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 23 Mar 09 - 01:42 PM The Oxford Research Group Overall, how would you say things are going in your life these days - very good, quite good, quite bad, or very bad? Overall -------------Good-------....--------Bad------..No ..........NET..Very..Quite..NET.Quite.Very...opinion 2/25/09...65....21....44....35...19....16.....* 2/20/08...55....13....41....45....29....16....* 8/24/07...39.....8....31....61....34....26....* 3/5/07....39.....8....31....61....32....28....0 11/22/05*.71....22....49....29....18....11....1 6/14/04...55....12....43....45....29....16....* 2/28/04...70....13....57....29....14....15....1 *05 and. previous, Oxford Research International, on all questions ----------------Good-------....--------Bad-----.No ...........NET..Very..Quite..NET..Quite.Very..opinion Sunni 2/25/09....49.....8....42....51....23....28....0 2/20/08....33.....7....27....67....38....28....* 8/24/07....12.....2....11....88....36....51....0 3/5/07......7.....1.....6....93....38....55....0 Shiite 2/25/09....70....25....46....30....16....13....* 2/20/08....62....14....48....38....27....11....* 8/24/07....54.....9....46....45....31....14....* 3/5/07.....53.....9....44....47....31....16....0 Kurdish 2/25/09....73....32....41....27....23.....4....0 2/20/08....73....24....49....27....20.....7....* 8/24/07....49....16....33....50....36....14....1 3/5/07.....68....22....46....32....24.....7....0 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 23 Mar 09 - 05:31 PM You are absolutely correct, Amos... And, BTW, well written... There is a reason why I have tagged the 3 amigos the "axis of evil"... It fits them well... None has the mental capacity to actually, ahhhhh, think independly for themselves so they let others do it for them... And the beat goes on... And on... And on... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 23 Mar 09 - 07:09 PM And you the "appeasers", the any freedom at any price as long as I don't have to pay it crowd would have done what?? Exactly what would have been the price of your inaction Amos?? You witter on about humanity as though you have a monopoly on it. Where was you humanity in Rwanda? Where was it in Bosnia?? and in Kosovo?? Where is it now in Darfur?? and in Burma?? I'll tell you what Amos ould son all your so-called humanity hasn't and isn't doing much for the good of mankind. You are the ones who when they see evil shuffle about and go into a huddle to come up with some hypocritical theory as to why you should not act. Your fore-runners cost 72 million lives by not taking on the great dictators of the twentieth century when they should have done. Like you they saw the danger and blithely hoped it would just go away - it didn't, and it wasn't going to this time round either. Iraq? Mistake? Lets have a look at the magnitude of this mistake: The potential threat that was removed, the axis of evil as it was called: A rogue state with WMD or WMD technology and expertise links up with an international terrorist organisation to mount an attack using WMD on US centres of population. The stuff of horror stories, that was what your President was talking about when he referred to "The Axis of Evil". Amos would meaninglessly chase after terrorists who'd already given it their best shot - Al-Qaeda a threat to the US post 9/11 - Hells teeth they haven't been able to guarantee their next nights sleep since November 2001 - some threat to the US they are. No your President listened to what his predecessor had ignored. 9/11's, a whole string of them, had been on the drawing board since long before Iraq almost ten years in fact. But the Terrorist organisation is not the centre of gravity of the threat, they are the delivery system, the really dangerous part of the equation lies in the weapons that a rogue state could put in their hands. On evaluation Saddam's Iraq was the prime candidate to fulfill the role of rogue state and moves were made to it render safe. He really should have listened when GWB told the UN to act to address Americas concerns or the US will act unilaterally - big mistake, on the part of Saddam. By mid-summer 2003 could you name me any candidates for the role of "rogue state" Amos?? Certainly not Libya Certainly not Iran Certainly not North Korea Certainly not Syria No Amos they all tucked their heads back in, and that has kept the US extremely safe. Who, with an anti-American agenda now would volunteer to take on the role of likely "rogue state"?? I cannot think of anyone Amos can you?? Why Amos because they wouldn't f**king dare to thats why, and all because of Iraq. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 23 Mar 09 - 07:30 PM Ahhhhh, kinda like callin' the kettle black, T.... I haven't heard yer voice here about the conditions in Darfur or Rwanda... What, cat got yer tounge??? (No oil in them places, Boberdz...) My exact point... Three oil men, George Bush, Dick Cheney and Condi Rice called up the invasion of Iraq... I didn't hear them talking about Darfur or Rwand either... Why is that, T??? Yeah, you feel all smug about thread-drifting attack on Amos about stuff noy even related to Iraq but yer voice has been silent... George Bush's voice was silent... Cheney's... Rice's... All silent othe than an occasion purfunctatory, "Geeze, ya'll... Play nice" and not teeth... No UN 1441's... No nuthings... It is absolutely hypocritical, T, to hold Amos to a higher standard than you own... How about starting a Sudan thread and beg the Obama administration to invade... Or one on Robert Mugabee... There's a man worth a bullet... So I guess we are supposed to think Amos a bad person because he isn't 24/7 to get Rwnada invaded while you sit in the comfy of whereever you sit and haven't done any heavy lifting except when it comes to defending the stupid invasion or Iraq???? Give me a break... No make that give Amos a break and while yer at it... ...beam my up, Scotty... The Axis is a little more stupider than usual... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 23 Mar 09 - 10:23 PM Condi Rice an oilman? Cognitive thinking? LOL Last time I heard she was a female, a concert pianist, a figure skater and provost at Stanford University. Ah don't see see no hands up in tha air about Bobert's mythological M-16 rifle so that myth is busted. Bobert the rodeo clown jumps back in his barrel only to pop up later with another fact he refuses to support except with personal attacks. Another prime example of a misleading smokescreen diversionary Bobert fact: "we read accounts of road ways from Bahgdad to Syria, littered with one burned out car after another with burned corpses" Please guide us to the source where you read that Bobert? Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm? Washington Post____________ New York Times___________ TV News ______________ Thanks in advance for your sincere answers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 23 Mar 09 - 11:31 PM You guys sure know how to change a subject and flood the air with hypotheticals. You ever hear the story about the new oil tanker that got named after Condi? "Condoleeza Rice used to be a Chevron Corp. Director "In 1993 Chevron named a 129,915 tonnage oil tanker after her (scroll down). In 2001, this was publicly criticised. Quote: 'A Chevron spokeswoman said yesterday that the oil giant has no intention of renaming the Condoleezza Rice and noted that board member Carla Hills also had a Chevron tanker named in her honor before she was appointed former President George Bush's trade secretary -- and the vessel has kept the name. "It's part of a long-standing practice of naming (tankers) after members of the board of directors," a company spokeswoman said, citing other big ships named George Shultz, David Packard and Kenneth T. Derr." So, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 24 Mar 09 - 02:06 AM Point 1: "I haven't heard yer voice here about the conditions in Darfur or Rwanda... What, cat got yer tounge???" If you look for it Bobert you will find that as far contributions to the thread on Darfur goes Bobert mine amount to almost 10% of the total - While yours amount to - Zip - Cat got yer tongue Point 2: (No oil in them places, Boberdz...) No oil in Darfur Bobert?? Go away and look again you cretin, except in this particular case the big bad oilmen who are chasing it are Saddam's former trading partners the Chinese. You know the ones Bobert, they sit on that committee in New York and make sure bugger all can be done in places like Darfur and Burma because that is where their business interests lie. You condemn the USA for taking such positions but are rather silent when it comes to criticising others. Point 3: "My exact point... Three oil men, George Bush, Dick Cheney and Condi Rice called up the invasion of Iraq... I didn't hear them talking about Darfur or Rwand either... Why is that, T???" Ehmmm Possibly because Rwanda occurred in 1994 Bobert and the present episode of the conflict in Darfur which had its origins back in 1956 took advantage of the fact that the world's attention was focused elsewhere in February 2003. I am surprised that you did not hear anybody in the Bush Administration talk about Darfur Bobert. They were quite voluble about it in the UN. It was Colin Powell who called it "Genocide", and it was Kofi Annan who said it was not - the UN's former special representative for Rwanda obviously knew what he was talking about Eh Bobert. Because you see Bobert under the Charter of the UN if something is termed "Genocide" the UN is compelled to act to prevent it - and action Bobert is the thing that the UN under the stewardship of Kofi Annan was not very keen on - everything for the quiet life. Your former President, George W. Bush, and his Administration knew that only too well, which is why the US told the UN in no uncertain terms with regards to Iraq - You act or we will - again Kofi Annan and the UN did not act. But guess what Bobert the US did and you accuse GWB of being a liar. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 24 Mar 09 - 08:18 AM Come on, T... Get real... A few posts on a thread that fell off the board a long time ago ain't like the thousands of posts that you have posted supporting this dumb war... How 'bout Robert Mugabee??? Ain't he worth a couple thousand posts as well??? I mean, everything is relevant, ain't it??? As fir Darfur, tell the Peanut Gallery just what percentage of the world's oil reserves are there compared to Iraq's... Oh, and then tell ther good folks how much $$$ the US/UK have spent on the Iraq War... Then tell the folks how many barrels of oil we get from Iraq... Then divide that number into the costs of the Iraq war... Now take that number and factor in the 1,000,000 dead Iargis and the 5000 or so Americans/UK'ers (private and public) who have died... When you have done that then you'll better understand what we on this side have been talking about: Cost per barrel = Current cost + Cost of war per barrel + dead people + severly disabled people + rebuilding Iraq +++.... Get it yet??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 24 Mar 09 - 11:39 AM Sorry, Bobert. I pointed out some time ago that the Bush administration went to the UN ( like you keep saying he should have done) and demanded they declare it genocide- and the UN REFUSED. If youy want to say that Bush should have then gone on to unilateral action re Darfur, feel free ( that was my opinion) but that would eliminate any arguement you might have with his actions in Iraq- where he felt US saftey was endangered. But when I pointed it out, you had no comments.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 24 Mar 09 - 01:46 PM "Come on, T... Get real..." I wish you would try that Bobert 1 million "dead Iagris" your neck of the woods must be pretty cluttered. How big are they by the way? Or are they like "tumble-weed" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 24 Mar 09 - 04:26 PM LOL... ~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 25 Mar 09 - 08:53 AM An accusation from Mr no answer Bobert: "When we ask you for your sources all we get is either silence or the same old *bumper sticker* answers." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 25 Mar 09 - 04:15 PM Give it a rest, Sawz... Yer an embarassment to yer side... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: michaelr Date: 26 Mar 09 - 12:58 AM This horse still breathing? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 26 Mar 09 - 02:05 AM Still bimbling along michaelr, as the situation in Iraq improves daily, within four months all UK troops with the exception of those engaged by the Iraqi Government to train up their Navy will have left. Basra Airport is now under full Iraqi control and has been accepting both domestic and international flights since the beginning of the year. No civil war No break-up as predicted by Joe Biden and many here In the recent local elections secular parties were preferred to the religious theocratic parties. Nothing seems to suggest that that trend will be bucked in the Parliamentary elections. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 26 Mar 09 - 08:12 AM Improve??? Curious word to use for a country where there are still over 100 terrorists incidents a week, a corrupt governemnt, electricity availability worse than the pre-war day and a civil war looming after the occupation is ended... But like the man who had just jumped off the Empire Sate Building yelled back to the reporter who had yelled "How are things goin'?" out the 95th story window, "Purdy good, so far..." Bottom line, things are still a mess... Not only for the Iraqis but for the US and our troops... Dumb war... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 26 Mar 09 - 12:01 PM "100 terrorists incidents a week" - Source?? "a corrupt government" - most are to one degree or another, live with it, you're not going to change it. "electricity availability worse than the pre-war day" - Source?? Apart from what the left-wing anti-war bloggers want to depict the only place in Iraq that was guaranteed electricity 24 hours per day in pre-war Iraq was wherever Saddam Hussein happened to be. "a civil war looming after the occupation is ended..." - Well no trouble there Bobert if your predicted "civil war" depends on a non-existent occupation coming to an end. Even Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq has given up the ghost in trying to get the "civil war" going |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 26 Mar 09 - 03:41 PM The Insanity of Mismamanagement:How the IRaq Army was Forced to Fight the Americans. AN interesting series of interviews with some of those who were there the day the Iraq Army was disbanded by Wolfowitz, possibly Bush, and a few other select unqualified meatheads with painful consequences. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 26 Mar 09 - 05:26 PM My bad... That was 100 terrorists incidents per "month", not week... That was reproted on NPR just last week... I listen to NPR all day long because the radio is my only company where my office has been for the last month or so which continues to be the under belly of the 200 year old hotel that I am having to replumb... No, al qeada gave up because the Sunnis came to the realization that al qeada didn't need to be in Iraq... Period... As for electricity, T, you can Google it up yerself... It has been a constant story on NPR over the course of the war so it shouldn't be too hard for you to find sources... You have nothin' but time on yer hands... BTW, the new joke is about the Green Zone where they have electricity 24 hours a a day... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 26 Mar 09 - 10:53 PM Hey Mr. infinite source of wisdom Amos: Do you know anything about those mythological accounts Bobert asserts that "we read about road ways from Bahgdad to Syria, littered with one burned out car after another with burned corpses"? When we ask him for sources all we get is either silence or the same old *bumper sticker* answers. Perhaps you can confirm that these accounts ever existed and his source. Otherwise this myth is busted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 27 Mar 09 - 08:06 AM The incidents were well reported, Sawz... But the Bush administration did a fine job of keeping certain pics outta the media, including pics of caskets at Dover Airforce Base... But I'm sure that with all the time you have on your hands that if you spent just a few minutes you could find the pics somewhere on the internet... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,*bumper sticker* Date: 27 Mar 09 - 10:49 AM From the American Friends Service Committee: "Several convoys of Christian Peacekeeper Teams (CPT) and Voices in the Wilderness volunteers and staff have left Baghdad in the past week {late March, 2003}. They've all taken the main road that leads from Baghdad to Amman, Jordan. The pictures on this page show images of war and destruction encountered by one CPT group along that road. Pictures here: http://www.afsc.org/Iraq/ht/d/ContentDetails/i/2989 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 27 Mar 09 - 12:52 PM What I asked for is the source of "we read about road ways from Bahgdad to Syria, littered with one burned out car after another with burned corpses" in one of the three sources Bobert claims to get all his stuff from. In short, reported where? I see some pics of burned out cars on the road from Baghdad to Jordan in the link above similar to burned up vehicles I have seen along the highways here in the US. I guess Bushco let a few slip through after all, or more likely they were not suppressed at all, just non-existent except in conflated propaganda that Bobert cannot reveal the source of like his mythological M-16 rifle. Everybody is invited to participate. Anyway we need to get this myth confirmed or busted so we can move on the "US even provided the bad gas that was used against the Kurds" Myth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 27 Mar 09 - 01:21 PM "the Bush administration did a fine job of keeping certain pics outta the media, including pics of caskets at Dover Airforce Base" Defense Chief Lifts Ban on Pictures of Coffins February 26, 2009 WASHINGTON — In a reversal of an 18-year-old military policy that critics said was hiding the ultimate cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the news media will now be allowed to photograph the coffins of America's war dead as their bodies are returned to the United States, but only if the families of the dead agree. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 27 Mar 09 - 01:28 PM Republican and Democratic administrations have upheld the ban, but have also made notable exceptions, which some observers view as politically expedient. For example, under President Bill Clinton in October 2000, the Pentagon distributed photographs of coffins arriving at Dover bearing the remains of military personnel killed in the bombing of the USS Cole. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 27 Mar 09 - 02:20 PM Sawzall: It was not, as far as I know, a gold M-16, but multiple gold-plated gold AK-47s. By the way, here's a description you should read of the kind of new reality Bush initiated when he started the invasion. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 27 Mar 09 - 03:12 PM Ok Amos, Bobert has changed his claim to a non gold plated m-16 and he refuses to disclose the source. Where did you learn about those gold plated AK-47s and who gave them to Saddam? And where is the source for Bobert's claim that "we read about road ways from Bahgdad to Syria, littered with one burned out car after another with burned corpses" Now he has added the claim that the Bush administration has suppressed photos of that may somehow comfirm his mythical story. Hey Bobert the plumber, the burden of proof is on you. That is what you want others to do. Do your own heavy lifting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 27 Mar 09 - 05:49 PM Seems to me you were shown pictures and description of burned out cars and wartime destruction along the roadway, and you scoffed at them because you have seen burned out cars in the US. Are you saying Iraq is as safe and happy as the US? Have you been there? Will you be vacationing there? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 27 Mar 09 - 06:39 PM Seems that every step you take, Saws, there a steaming pile of fresh dung just awaiting for you... Maybe you ougtta just give it a rest, man... You are an embaressment to your side... BTW, thanks to GUEST, "Bumper Sticker" and Amos for providing the sources... I've got a good memory and am an NPR-addict so I listen to lot's of stuff while I am ***working***... Hey, I can remember the stories but I it's either work or sit there and make notes on every source... Unlike a couple of the axis of evil dwellers here I have to work... Thanks again, guys... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 27 Mar 09 - 06:49 PM Well Guest TIA if he wanted to he has the choice of three airports he could fly into Irbil, Baghdad or Basra. Irbil has been open for tourists since 2005. The link I advised Bobert to look at was from the BBC covering the story of a party of tourists who flew into Irbil and travelled the length of Iraq visiting the all the main tourist sites, they were there for 17 days with no escorts, no security. Now would you like to try that down by the Mexican border? Where I believe since 2008 over 6000 people have been killed, now that is in 15 months Guest TIA, since Afghanistan what has been the number of US fatalities fighting two wars over a period of eight years? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 27 Mar 09 - 07:34 PM Oh, so now Iraq has been elevated as the new playground for the rich and famous??? A real tourist trap... The place to be... Smoke another joint, T... (But, Boberdz... That's why all those American service people are there... It's r & r for them...) Oh??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 27 Mar 09 - 07:42 PM Yo, bumper sticker... That addie didn't work... Not that I really want to see the pictures, mind you, but seems as if Sawz missed all of 2002 thru 2009 so I thought maybe a refresher course might be in order... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: TIA Date: 28 Mar 09 - 12:48 AM Teribus, Which of those three airports will you be flying into for holiday this summer? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 28 Mar 09 - 02:16 AM "so now Iraq has been elevated as the new playground for the rich and famous??? A real tourist trap... The place to be... Smoke another joint, T..." - Bobert Naw Bobert I'll leave that sort of puerile crap to you judging by the effect its had on your brains. Rich and famous eh?? The party consisted of 5 British, 2 Americans and 1 Canadian, among their occupations: - Civil Servant - Businessman - Retired Sub-Postmaster - Former U.S. Probation Officer - Archaeologist The last one there Bobert is 77 years old and normally goes on her holidays to ..................... AFGHANISTAN In answer to your question TIA none. My holidays this year are booked up with anniversaries and Folk Festivals. But there again I was not the one suggesting that anybody should go to Iraq - maybe you should go yourself and actually find out what is going on there rather than sit on your backside gulping down as gospel everything you read in all those left-wing anti-war blogs you read. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: TIA Date: 28 Mar 09 - 08:49 AM You have no clue what I read. Apparently you have no clue what you read either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 28 Mar 09 - 09:17 AM Normal... The Mudville Axis-of-Evilers ain't into reading much other than rightie blogs for fear that the truth might find them and then they would have to reconsider their support for this most immoral war... I doubt seriously if Sawz, for instant, bothered to look at the pics that I had made reference to... Just doesn't fit into his mythology... Garbage in, garbage out... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 30 Mar 09 - 02:00 PM Bobert: "Now as fir other blogs???? I don't go to any of them... What you get from me is gleaned strictly from the Washington Post, The New York Times and the TV news... Nuthin' more!!! Allnatural, here... If I happen to see things the same way as some anti-Bush blogs see things then, hey, means we're both payin' attention.... But I swaer on my daddy's grave that these are my sources and I don't need nobody to tell me what to think or how to defend the postions I take... And I take that very seriously..." Bobert: "When we ask you for your sources all we get is either silence or the same old *bumper sticker* answers." Source of the M-16 gold plated or otherwise Please? Source of the road ways from Bahgdad to Syria, littered with one burned out car after another please? Source of US even provided the bad gas that was used against the Kurds please? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 12 Apr 09 - 09:52 PM Obama January 19, 2007: "I cannot in good conscience support this escalation. It is a policy which has already been tried and a policy which has failed. Just this morning, I had veterans of the Iraq war visit my office to explain to me that this surge concept is, in fact, no different from what we have repeatedly tried, but with 20,000 troops, we will not in any imaginable way be able to accomplish any new progress." Obama April 7, 2009: "You have given Iraq the opportunity to stand on its own as a democratic country, we have made enormous progress working alongside the Iraqi government" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 12 Apr 09 - 10:00 PM WSJ: Mr. Obama's Surge He'll need some of Bush's fortitude to resist the crossfire from left and right. President Obama unveiled his strategy for the war in Afghanistan yesterday, and there is much to like in it. Our main question -- and, we suspect, the world's -- is whether the new Commander in Chief is really prepared to devote the resources and political capital that his plan will need to succeed. Such fortitude is essential because this new Afghan-Pakistan campaign will be both long and expensive. The President's claim yesterday that "the situation is increasingly perilous" overstates the immediate trouble; Afghanistan has nowhere near the level of violence that consumed Iraq in 2006 before President Bush's surge. But denying the "Afpak" border as a safe haven for al Qaeda and the worst Taliban elements will tax the patience of an already war-weary American public. All the more so because Mr. Obama himself has spent so much time questioning America's antiterrorist mission abroad. While he tried, during the campaign, to distinguish Iraq (Bush's war) from Afghanistan (the good war), the truth is that they are both exercises in counterinsurgency and nation building. The irony is that both tasks are arguably easier in Iraq, because of its denser population and history of a stronger central government. Mr. Obama barely mentioned foreign policy in his recent address to Congress. And with his vast domestic agenda, the temptation of political adviser David Axelrod will be to have Mr. Obama give this one speech and drop the subject. That is a good way to discover a year from now that he has opponents emerging on both his left and right in Congress. The left is already restless, with Les Gelb now writing that "We can't defeat the Taliban" and we should thus gradually withdraw. That is the same Les Gelb who was Vice President Joe Biden's strategic partner in writing in 2006 that the surge was doomed and Iraq had to be partitioned. Mr. Biden was reportedly an internal skeptic about Mr. Obama's new strategy. On the right, many Republicans will also begin to question the mission, much as Tom DeLay opposed Bill Clinton on the Balkans. Mr. Obama could help here if he could manage to bring himself to speak well of our success in Iraq. The Baghdad surge shows the U.S. can learn from its mistakes and prevail in a long counterinsurgency, and a President should celebrate that achievement. Yet Mr. Obama kept falling back yesterday on his campaign trope that Afghanistan would be going well now if not for the detour in Iraq. It's more accurate to say that Afghanistan got markedly worse after Pakistan's government cut its 2006 deal in Waziristan that created a Taliban sanctuary. Mr. Obama is not going to sustain GOP support by continuing to campaign against George W. Bush. For all of those political caveats, we believe the war is winnable. And Mr. Obama's strategy takes some important steps. The most significant is to reclaim the battle from NATO, which never really wanted the job. The U.S. will create a new command in Southern Afghanistan, where U.S. and Afghan troops will apply the lessons of Iraq. The irony here is that Mr. Obama is asserting U.S. primacy from the failing "multilateralism" of the Bush Administration, which made the mistake of assuming Europeans really believed in the fight. In the end, as usual, the 60,000 or so Yanks will have to do the bloodiest fighting and the Germans can man the supply lines out of harm's way. Another step forward is the commitment of 4,000 more GIs to train and expand the Afghan army to 134,000 troops by 2011. We agree with strategists who say the ultimate goal should be 250,000 or more -- making the army a major employer and source of national unity. But Mr. Obama is right to say that Afghans will eventually have to learn to defend their own country. Mr. Obama made much yesterday of an allegedly new willingness to engage elements of the Taliban. This is hardly as revolutionary as it sounds, since U.S. troops did something similar in Anbar Province in Iraq. It makes sense to try to peel away tribal chiefs and others who may be "Taliban" only because they are paid to be, or afraid not to be. But over time this will only work if the U.S. and Afghans can persuade these Taliban-for-hire that the allies can provide security against al Qaeda and the real Taliban. Also mark us down as skeptics about his new call for "benchmarks" for the Pakistan and Afghanistan governments. As we learned in Iraq, benchmarks can measure the wrong things amid larger progress, and they also make it easier for Congress to find fault. No doubt both Kabul and Islamabad can do more as allies, but the best way to ensure that is with a broad, sustained U.S. commitment, not with what sound like orders from Washington. Perhaps the best news in yesterday's speech is that Mr. Obama has now taken ownership of this war. One lesson he can learn from Iraq is that -- as hard as the fighting may get and as vociferous as the opposition at home may become -- Mr. Obama now has an obligation to stay the course until our soldiers can return home in victory and with honor. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 13 Apr 09 - 07:47 AM Taking ownership came with the job... What was Obama to do??? Tell Bush he could have an office down the hall just for the purpose of running an immoral war??? Some serious fuzzy thinking out there... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 13 Apr 09 - 11:25 PM You got the damn source for burned cars along the roadway, and you just scoffed. No point in wasting time reading the newspaper to a bag of hammers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 14 Apr 09 - 07:34 PM Yeah, TIA, Sawz hates it when he's wrong... You'd think that he'd have grown accustomed to it by now... Go figure??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Barry Finn Date: 14 Apr 09 - 07:59 PM Are you talking to "HammerHead"? Cuz if you are everything to him looks like a nail & he's gonna strike it, right or wrong. And his beat goes on,,and,,on,,,and,,on Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 14 Apr 09 - 08:49 PM "You got the damn source for burned cars along the roadway, and you just scoffed." I did noy get the source for the Source of the road ways from Bahgdad to Syria, littered with one burned out car after another in any of the three sources you swear on yore Daddy's grave you get your "facts" from. Nor have I seen the source for the M-16 nyth and the bad gas myth. Instead you scoff and post bumper sticker answers. "When we ask you for your sources all we get is either silence or the same old *bumper sticker* answers." Mr two faced Bobert says this forum should be called the Deadcat Cafe. He likes to come here and light up stink bombs and laugh at the jerks. "But I still drop by and mess with 'em jus' fir fun Author: Bobert Date: 06-05-03 22:17 Heck with the Catbox. They done messed it up when they made the riff-raff satnd outside. Now they can have their little shack back and discuss how many angels will fit on the end of a pin until the cows come home..... They ougtta call it "DeadCat Cafe". This joint has more class in its dandriff than that joint had in its hayday! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 14 Apr 09 - 09:01 PM West warned on nuclear terrorist threat from Pakistan Paul McGeough April 11, 2009 The next few months will be crucial in defusing a global terrorist threat that would be even deadlier than the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, a leading Washington counter-terrorism expert warns. David Kilcullen — a former Australian army lieutenant colonel who helped devise the US troop surge that revitalised the American campaign in Iraq — fears Pakistan is at risk of falling under al-Qaeda control. If that were to happen, the terrorist group could end up controlling what Dr Kilcullen calls "Talibanistan". "Pakistan is what keeps me awake at night," said Dr Kilcullen, who was a specialist adviser for the Bush administration and is now a consultant to the Obama White House. "Pakistan has 173 million people and 100 nuclear weapons, an army which is bigger than the American army, and the headquarters of al-Qaeda sitting in two-thirds of the country which the Government does not control." Compounding that threat, the Pakistani security establishment ignored direction from the elected Government in Islamabad as waves of extremist violence spread across the whole country — not just in the tribal wilds of the Afghan border region. "We have to face the fact that if Pakistan collapses it will dwarf anything we have seen so far in whatever we're calling the war on terror now," Dr Kilcullen told The Age during an interview at his Washington office. Late last month, when US President Barack Obama unveiled his new policy on Afghanistan and Pakistan, he warned that al-Qaeda would fill the vacuum if Afghanistan collapsed, and that the terror group was already rooted in Pakistan, plotting more attacks on the US. As the US implements its new strategy in Central Asia, Dr Kilcullen warned that time was running out for international efforts to pull both countries back from the brink. Special US Envoy Richard Holbrooke has been charged with trying to broker a regional agreement by reaching out to Iran, Russia and China. Dr Kilcullen spoke highly of Mr Holbrooke's talent as a diplomat: "This is exactly what he's good at and it could work. "But will it? It requires regional architecture to give the Pakistani security establishment a sense of security, which might make them stop supporting the Taliban," he said. "The best-case scenario is that the US can deal with Afghanistan, with President Obama giving leadership while the extra American troops succeed on the ground, at the same time as Mr Holbrooke seeks a regional security deal." The worst case was that Washington would fail to stabilise Afghanistan, Pakistan would collapse and al-Qaeda would end up running what he called "Talibanistan". "This is not acceptable; you can't have al-Qaeda in control of Pakistan's missiles," he said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 14 Apr 09 - 10:20 PM 99% of all readers here don't read stuff with red letters or are obviously cut 'n posts... Try again, Sawz... Maybe if you spoke for yourself then people would read yer stuff... I don't... And the other 99% don't either... Try again, Sawz... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 14 Apr 09 - 10:54 PM I assume Bobert speaks for 99% of the mudcaters when he says: "Don't worry nuthin 'bout dem cats, Dog. Most of 'em ain't worth a good chase. They get their noses up in the air 'bout folks funnin'. Yeah you want to talks about the origins os Scotish folk music fir hours upon end, then that's the joint fir ya. When I first started going over there I'd mess with em' and they'd get all upset and jump up an' down but these days they they ignore me like I'm Casper, 'er something. But I still drop by and mess with 'em jus' fir fun. Now, don't gey me wrong. Some is purdy cool, ahhh,, like Amos, Little Hawk, Bee-Dubya, Kendall, Jerry Rassmussen, Nicole, CarolC and JtS, but most of collectively add up to a big ol, ahhhh, snore! Except the big jerks like Teribus, troll and DougR, who think that George Junior is God.... Enough, let me go on over there, light a stink bomb and skeee-adddle" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Barry Finn Date: 15 Apr 09 - 01:48 AM Well, I didn't bother. I can't stand to read some one's cut & paste Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 15 Apr 09 - 07:21 AM Do you have a point, Sawz??? You certainly have amrginalized yourself on this thread with yer little games... (BTW: I couldn't give a rat's ass about your cyber-obsession with with me... You know, finding stuff that I wrote on other websites years ago and dragging it over here as if you have discovered some deep, dark secret... That kinda of obsessive behavior is best left for you and your shrink to deal with...) B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 16 Jun 09 - 07:16 AM I ain't namin' any names but: "If you think marijuana is harmless, you might be suffering from the delusional tendencies caused by smoking pot, as revealed in a health study published in The Lancet on Friday (late July of 2007)...The research team, based in England, found that weed smokers have on average a 41 percent increased risk of developing psychotic disorders later in life. The heaviest users doubled their risk; yet even infrequent smokers had a modest increased risk. The findings imply that smoking marijuana may be the cause of more than 10 percent of schizophrenia cases. The analysis challenges the myth that ganja is no worse than alcohol and is safe to smoke in moderation. Although "most people who use cannabis will not develop such an illness," according to one of the study's author's, Dr. Stanley Zammit of Cardiff University, he warns that anyone developing mental problems or who has a family history of mental disease should punt the habit. Zammit's group, led by Dr. Glyn Lewis of the University of Bristol, analyzed 35 published cannabis studies and controlled for confounding effects, such as personality traits that might be more of a determinant of psychosis than pot. Indeed, the researchers found that the habit was associated with psychosis—one of many risky behaviors seen among pre-psychotic patients—but it was not a direct cause of the disease in about half of the cases analyzed. Carefully removing confounding factors, however, the researchers uncovered the first definitive cause-and-effect relationship. Cannabis use appeared to be the primary cause of several psychotic symptoms, from personality changes and disorganized thinking to hallucinations and serious disconnects with reality.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 16 Jun 09 - 07:40 AM Danged, Sawz, where ya' been... Drug treatment??? That's a good thing 'cause you were gettin' purdy bad off... Don't miss none of yer out patience therapy groups, ya hear... And keep them 12 Steps in yer thinkerator at all times... You can beat this one... I got faith in ya'... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 16 Jun 09 - 12:21 PM Why, Sawzall--what a charming innuendo! How clever to post a scientific, rational piece to serve such a passive-aggressive intent!! Your slime techniques are definitely maturing. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 16 Jun 09 - 07:29 PM It's amazing what 90 days of inpatient treatment can do for a feller, Amos... Just amazing... B;~) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 17 Jun 09 - 09:15 AM Marijuana linked to DNA damage. June 17, 2009 For those of you whom have sons in their mid-twenties living in your basements, garages or attics, you may have to break some bad news to them It seems that Cannabis smoke damages DNA and may initiate cancer. Awww, bummer dude. In a recent study published by the University of Leicester, researchers focused on the toxicity of acetaldehyde, which is contained in both marijuana and cigarettes. Though marijuana and tobacco may share some similarities, there are some significant differences. According to authors of the study, "…because of its (cannabis) lower combustibility it contains 50% more carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons including naphthalene, benzanthracene, and benzopyrene, than tobacco smoke." It has been known for some time that marijuana smoke contains several times as much tar, as well as causes about 6-7 times damage to bronchial mucus membranes as cigarettes. Another factor is the tendency of marijuana users to inhale the smoke more deeply than typical cigarette smokers. Both cannabis and tobacco have been changed from their initial natural form by mankind's ability to alter the crops we grow. And though cigarettes include many more additives than marijuana, it seem that to live a healthy life and avoid wasting money, you must avoid both. This work was done by Rajinder Singh, Jatinderpal Sandhu, Balvinder Kaur, Tina Juren, William P. Steward, Dan Segerback and Peter B. Farmer. The study has been published in Chemical Research in Toxicology. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 17 Jun 09 - 12:55 PM Geeze Loise, Sawz, it certainly is impressive how seriously you took yer rehab but this thread ain't about marijuana... Might of fact, the entire fiesko known generally as the Iraq War had and has nuthin' to do with marijuana... Maybe you need to start a marijuana thread seein' as you are obsesses with, ahhhhhh, the evil weed... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 17 Jun 09 - 01:33 PM Mayhap this is a subtle projection on Sawz' part--there are certain applicable elements, to be sure--the confusion, the out-of-touchness, and so on. It is an intricate job of rationalization, though, I will say that much. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 17 Jun 09 - 04:34 PM Far as I can tell it is about how Bobert thinks he has a better grasp on facts and reality than other people and is therefore superior to anybody that disagrees with him. The Obama Administration's official Marijuana 'Myths and Facts: The Truth Behind 10 Popular Misperceptions' Myth #1: Marijuana is harmless Myth #2: Marijuana is not addictive Myth #3: Marijuana is not as harmful to your health as tobacco Myth #4: Marijuana makes you mellow Myth #5: Marijuana is used to treat cancer andother diseases Myth #6: Marijuana is not as popular as MDMA (Ecstasy) or other drugs among teens today Myth #7: If I buy marijuana, I'm not hurting anyone else Myth #8: My kids won't be exposed to marijuana.. Myth #9: There's not much parents can do to stop theirkids from experimenting with marijuana........... Myth #10: The government sends otherwise innocent people to prison for casual marijuana use......... Use of marijuana has adverse health, safety, social, academic, economic, and behavioral consequences. And yet, astonishingly, many people view the drug as "harmless." The widespread perception of marijuana as a benign natural herb seriously detracts from the most basic message our society needs to deliver: It is not OK for anyone to use this or any other illicit drug.Effects of marijuana use include memory loss, distorted perception, trouble with thinking and problemsolving, and anxiety. effects of marijuana use include memory loss, distorted perception, trouble with thinking and problemsolving, and anxiety. COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT That marijuana can cause problems with concentration and thinking has been shown in research funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the federal agency that brings the power of science to bear on drug abuse and addiction. A NIDAfunded study at McLean Hospital in Belmont, Massachusetts, is part of the growing body of research documenting cognitive impairment MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS Smoking marijuana leads to changes in the brain similar to those caused by cocaine, heroin, and alcohol. All of these drugs disrupt the flow of chemical neurotransmitters, and all have specific receptor sites in the brain that have been linked to feelings of pleasure and, over time, addiction. Cannabinoid receptors are affected by THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, and many of these sites are found in the parts of the brain that influence pleasure, memory, thought, concentration, sensory and time perception, and coordinated movement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 17 Jun 09 - 04:57 PM Seems to me, Sawz, that by posting all this anti-pot data into a thread about why Iraq was a political error, you are, yourself, demonstrating a great disjointedness of mind and an inability to correctly associate and differentiate, and other fundamental cognitive abilities. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 17 Jun 09 - 05:29 PM Couldn't agree with you more... One thing that hasn't changed since Sswz strange 3 month disappearance is his uncanny ability to make himself look very silly... He still has that down to an art... But this obsession with drugs does have me a little concerned this time around... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 18 Jun 09 - 01:34 AM College of Social Work Course It's Only Weed, Right!? Home > Training for Professionals > Training Calendar > It's Only Weed, Right!? May 5, 2009 9:00 AM â€" 12:15 PM 3 CEU/clock hours Location: 115 Stillman Hall Marijuana use is on the rise, and so are the number of myths and misunderstandings about this drug. As a result of this workshop, participants (except Bobert) will be able to separate fact from fiction by learning the latest research on both health and impairment effects. We will discuss immediate, lingering and long-term effects of use on the human body. This will include effects on brain functions such as memory, reflexes, judgment, perception, attention and cognitive skills. We will also discuss health risks such as cancer and addiction, as well as effects on the heart and the reproductive, respiratory and immune systems. Objectives 1. Identify commonly held views about marijuana and evaluate the accuracy of these views based on current research findings. 2. Counteract harmful and misleading information that is circulating about marijuana and contributing to the lack of perceived risk associated with its use. 3. Understand why abstinence is the only recommended choice for marijuana. Allison Sharer, OCPS II, has worked in the prevention field since 1983. She currently works part-time as Assistant Director at Drug Free Action Alliance, and is an independent trainer and consultant. She has worked with programs doing peer, community-based and environmental prevention, and she has developed and presented educational opportunities for a wide variety of audiences. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 18 Jun 09 - 08:14 AM Bong hits 4 Sawz and... ...700!!! B;~) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 18 Jun 09 - 08:59 AM But, here's the rub... Sawz seems to think that folks who opposed the Iraq1 war opposed it becuase they were users of cannibus??? Yeah, I don't understand that logic but I don't understand how TV works either... But I didn't undertand how TV works long before the evil weed and I were introduced... So, I'm fuguring that my reasons for opposing the Iraq War are not actually cannibus induced but logical... Experts know now that weed affects your logic and blurs fact and fiction to the point that "Stoner Bobert" as he calls himself keeps coming up with Bobert facts like Rumsfeld gave a M16 rifle to Saddam and then conflates that into being a reward for gassing the Kurds and then conflates that into the US sold the bad gas that was used. Yet he seems to have forgotten where he read these facts and has nothing to support them due to the effects of THC on the brain. Undauntedly, fecklessly, he states things like Gaza is the most populated area in the world, 1% of the population in Haiti holds all the wealth, on and on. If someone tries to tell him he is wrong he threatens them with physical violence, another manifestation of drug use along with the lousy typing. Bottom line is Bobert has an Ego the size of Eniac, a pickled up brain like the ones you see in the jars down at the Smithsonian and cannot tell fact from fiction yet claims to hold some sort of moral high ground in all matters. Even Obama the Great admitted that during high school he used marijuana, cocaine, and alcohol, which he described at the 2008 Civil Forum on the Presidency as his greatest moral failure. Even the professional Social Workers, which Bobert claims to be, recognize pot as a drug that fucks up your brain. But after your brain is fucked up on weed you think you are smarter than the non smokers. You think you have reached a higher level of intelligence and are somehow better than non users. What they say doesn't mean anything and what you say is always true and you don't have to provide anything to support it. get me off the hook on opposing the dumbasss Iarq War... Bobert has every right in the world to oppose the 'Iarq' War, even though he didn't volunteer to go over there and be a human shield like a real antiwar protester. But does he have the right to continuously deride other people who dare point out that his facts are not facts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 18 Jun 09 - 02:29 PM " But does he have the right to continuously deride other people who dare point out that his facts are not facts. " Of course he does. 1. He holds the same opinions as a majority here, and minorities have no right to have opinions contrary to the majority. 2. What else is an Ubermensch for??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 18 Jun 09 - 08:02 PM Boohoo, ya'll losers... Yer just pissed 'cause Obama won... That had nuthin' to do with me smokin' a little pot now and then... I mean, if you think that Obama won because I somoke a little pot now and then then ya'll is dillusional... I mean, 96 proff dillusional... That's purdy dillusional in my book... But nevermind yer dillusions fir a minute... Bush was also dillusional... And Rumsey... And Rice... They all bought into Cheney's dillusions... That was a very bad thing for US 'cause it got us in the biggest mess since, ahhhhhh, amybe forever... BTW, that mess we are in ain't go one thing to do with me smokin' a little pot... As fir ego??? Nah, I ain't all that eat up with myself... But I am eat up with stupid people who get US into immoral wars... If that makes me some bigass ego-guy, then, well, I reckon I gottta revist what ego is all about... No, Sawz may think this is about ego... It ain't, unless it is about his ego... Folks who have met me know that that accusation just don't fit me... Ya' see, I played blues in a barbershop every Saturday for years with older and mostly black blues players and I wouldn't have been able to survice that setting if I had come in with this bigass ego thing going... So, as per usaul, Sawz is just plain wrong... (Oh, Boberdz, that sounds egotisical...) No, it's just Sawz being wrong... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: mg Date: 19 Jun 09 - 12:56 AM I confess to not reading this thread, but I will say one thing..and that is thanks be to all that is holy that Saddam is gone with what is going on right now. He would be A's best friend and things would be even more dangerous than they are now. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: TIA Date: 19 Jun 09 - 01:12 AM "minorities have no right to have opinions contrary to the majority" You got the right, but you may be called upon to defend them cogently. Too much to ask? Sorry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 19 Jun 09 - 07:57 AM Why would Saddam be A's best friend, mg??? I don't get that at all... As for minority rights... Hey, when the Repubs had control of the all three branches of government I didn't see them hand the keys over the Dems and say, "You drive"... No, that ain't they way our system of governemnt works... What the Dems are facing is 8 years of failed policies and one heck of a mess to clean up... As for the minority having opinions: that's fine with me... Somefar their opinion has been to "Just Say No" to whatever the Dems want to do... Thay are beyond obstructionists, bb... They have become marginalized by just not wanting to play, period... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 19 Jun 09 - 01:13 PM Why would Saddam be A's best friend, mg??? Now I am dying to hear the answer to that question. Personally my take on it, had Saddam not been removed from power - - UN sanctions would have been lifted or just plain ignored in 2003 - Saddam would have resurrected his WMD programmes and continued all R&D work associated with them - Saddam would have rearmed and re-equipped his Armed forces this would have taken two years - 2005 he would have attacked Iran and started the second Iran/Iraq War. There is no way on earth that Saddam Hussein in Iraq would ever permit Iran to develop and build any nuclear capability - Hells teeth this was the man who started a war and invaded Iran in 1980, because the Iranians had stated that they wanted meetings to resolve their differences over the Shat-Al-Arab waterway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Jun 09 - 01:18 PM "You got the right, but you may be called upon to defend them cogently" Why?? I don't see the mojority here doing so. "They have become marginalized by just not wanting to play, period..." Perhaps if they were asked for their view BEFORE the announcement of how it was going to be done, they might have some ownership of the policies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 19 Jun 09 - 01:45 PM I believe that was tried, repeatedly, during the first 100 days, and obstreperous obstruction was the usual response. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 19 Jun 09 - 01:46 PM Yep, this thread is not about the Iraq war, it's all about Bobert the Alpha male. Man is he pissed because Bush and Cheney have not been impeached. So pissed he keeps beating the drum after the parade is over. Anyway getting back to Bobert's gold plated M16 type dillusions, how come Obama follows the same GWB policies on Iraq Afghanistan and Pakistan? Mr. Obama authorizes Predator strikes that kill innocent women and children. Is that OK with the Bobert? Seems like a morally righteous guy like Bobert should be calling him a war criminal and calling for his arrest for war crimes. The 2009 supplemental spending request from the Whitehouse also points towards the increased use of the MQ - 1 Predator and the MQ-9 Reaper drones in the war. Obama seeks $57.4 million to acquire 742 Predator Hellfire missiles and $196 million for ten new MQ-9 Reapers. I never heard of a Reaper but it sounds even more vicious than waterboarding which never killed anybody. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Jun 09 - 02:02 PM " I believe that was tried, repeatedly, during the first 100 days," Sorry to disagree with your religious worship of Obama, but it was NOT tried- Obama would not even post the bills online ( as promised) or allow time to let even his owwn party read them before the votes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 19 Jun 09 - 03:09 PM Don't be an ass, Bruce. Sounds to me like we both carefully selected out the parts of the timeline that fed our presuppositions. I don't think either of our two descriptions is uniformly the way it was, and it is far more likely that both were in play at different times. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 19 Jun 09 - 03:37 PM Amos, "Don't be an ass, Bruce. Sounds to me like we both carefully selected out the parts of the timeline that fed our presuppositions. I don't think either of our two descriptions is uniformly the way it was, and it is far more likely that both were in play at different times." Implying, since you admit "BOTH" that YOU are/were being an ass? Or was that just your normal Liberal method of addressing someone? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 19 Jun 09 - 05:46 PM T is right... Saddam and Akemadingaling wouldn't be buddies... Sawz is wrong... I had no problems supporting Obama's stated promise to gpo after al qeada in Pakistan if the Pakistani's wouldn't... He has and in doing so forced the Pakistanis to do a little heavy lifting on there own... But wait... Sawz wrong again... I know, how can that be??? I wasn't a proponent of impeachment... I have posted many times about it being a political trap for the Dems... But wait, Part B... Sawz is wrong yet again... Holy Moly... Yes, this thread is very much about the Iraq War... It is Saws "obsession" with me that prevents him from seein' that... I asked him to talk it over with his theapist/shrink but looks as if they aren't making any progress... As for the Repubs??? The stimulis package was debated for a long, long time and the Repubs had plenty of opportunity to weigh in with their ideas... They chose to sandbag... That's the way it went down... This picture that bruce paints of Obama in not accurate... Right now in Congress there is more respect being shown the Repubs on Health Care than was shown the Dems on any major piece of legislation that went thr Congress during the Repubs 14 year lock on it... Remember the Medicare Perscription Drug Plan??? Prime example of the difference between what the Repubs did and the respect that is being afforded them now that the Dems have control of Congress... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 20 Jun 09 - 09:15 AM It's the people with chemical dependencies the need to talk thing over with the "theapist/shrink". People that believe Rumsfeld gave Saddam a gold plated M16 for instance. Once you make a dumbass (your choice of words) unsupportable statement and swear it is the truth, You ignore any challenge to prove it and go into personal attack mode, thinking up fantasies of drug rehab and mental illness. Now this thread is about the stimulus package? Hey Bobert, if you put your ego on hold and stub out that reefer you will see that the war didn't happen because of the stimulus package. And it is obvious that you do approve of Obama ordering Predator strikes that kill innocent women and children but you gush like a little girl because he opposes waterboarding which does not kill anybody. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 20 Jun 09 - 09:25 AM Bite me, Sawz... The only ego around here is yours but yer too vain to see it... Everyone else sees it, though... As for this thread being about the stimilus package, that is another dillusion on yer part... I was answering another criticism of the Obama administratioon posted by bb... Hey, if ya'll want to take cheap shots having nuthin' to do with the Iraq war you can take it to the bank that this ol' hillbilly is gonna block... Basic self defense... No cheap shots will go unanswered... Yers included... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 20 Jun 09 - 11:38 AM Sawz: As a loyal supporter of the Bush regime you have no standing to pass judgement on or moralize about the death of innocents, you bleeding hypocrite. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 26 Jun 09 - 12:05 AM Another Bobert prediction: "Now back to the economy... Obama is going to have to accept McCain's proposal to buy up forclosure loans where the homeowner can reasonably pay at 6% fixed for 30 years... This will stabilize the housing market and is exactly what FDR did in 1933 with his Home Loan Corp.... But Obama is going to have to take this one step further and sell the American people on a perminent Home Loan Corp. and use the principle tyo repay the4 taxpayers initial outlay and the interest to go into shoring up Social Security...." When Bobert? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 26 Jun 09 - 12:24 AM Read back about eight years, and you will find that Bobert's prediction's have been correct at a rate that far surpasses the people who regularly try to crap on him. Sorry, it's true. Why not Google up who predicted that there would be no invasion of Iraq because "{the grown-ups are in charge now}", or how about "{the estimate of 100,000 Iraqi casualties is ridiculous}", or "{where is the house-to-house urban warfare Bobert?}". Sheeesh. Don't count on a short memory from this quarter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 26 Jun 09 - 08:54 AM "I wasn't a proponent of impeachment... I have posted many times about it being a political trap for the Dems" Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Bobert - PM Date: 16 Feb 03 - 08:45 AM Hey, I thought I'd never vote for anything related to the knothead but hey... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Stringsinger Date: 26 Jun 09 - 02:37 PM Again at the risk of being called a wanker, a device used to deflect from the value of a discussion I enter again. Personally my take on it, had Saddam not been removed from power - "- UN sanctions would have been lifted or just plain ignored in 2003" I don't think so. This is entirely speculative. No proof for this. "- Saddam would have resurrected his WMD programmes and continued all R&D work associated with them He wouldn't have gotten to first base. He was all talk as was shown. "- Saddam would have rearmed and re-equipped his Armed forces this would have taken two years" But not with WMD's. This is not provable. "- 2005 he would have attacked Iran and started the second Iran/Iraq War." No, I think that he would have united with Iran against US occupation. Again, this is pure conjecture. Nobody knows for sure. "There is no way on earth that Saddam Hussein in Iraq would ever permit Iran to develop and build any nuclear capability - Hells teeth this was the man who started a war and invaded Iran in 1980, because the Iranians had stated that they wanted meetings to resolve their differences over the Shat-Al-Arab waterway." But this is a different issue then building nuclear facilities. Water disputes would not have sparked a nuclear confrontation. Iraq did not have the means to employ WMD's and probably wouldn't because as crazy as Saddam was, he knew that he couldn't win that conflagration. He wasn't a Hitler in that his designs over Kuwait were not to take over the world. It was to defend his turf. Saddam's designs were overrated and overreaction over them ensued through the Bush Administration. Junior just wanted to avenge his daddy and used that as a Captain Ahab approach to going after the white whale. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: ard mhacha Date: 26 Jun 09 - 03:01 PM http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/06/ap_Iraq_bombings_shootings_062209w/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: ard mhacha Date: 26 Jun 09 - 03:06 PM "Americans will remain ready to help, as they were in the aftermath of Saturday's bombing, but many Iraqis fear their departure after two years of a steady urban presence will prove deadly" From the above clicky. How can this be as success?. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 26 Jun 09 - 03:34 PM "BAGHDAD — Bombings and shootings killed at least 33 people in Baghdad and surrounding areas Monday, including a group of high school students on a bus headed for final exams, as violence intensified before a planned withdrawal next week of U.S. troops from urban areas. The bombings, nearly all in Shiite areas of the capital, came just two days after the year's deadliest attack — a truck bombing that killed at least 75 people in northern Iraq. Violence has declined drastically over the past two years, but the recent attacks have raised concerns about the Shiite-dominated government's ability to provide security around the country without the immediate help of the remaining U.S. troops in Iraq. More than 100 people have died in three days of bloodletting, mostly from bombings but also from shootings. Starting June 30, most of the 133,000 American troops left here will be housed in large bases outside the capital and other cities — unable to react unless called on for help. The withdrawal is part of an agreement under which all U.S. troops are to leave Iraq by the end of 2011. The reclusive Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr called on the Shiite-led government to take whatever steps necessary to protect Iraqis from attacks. But in a statement, the anti-American cleric blamed the violence on the continued presence of U.S. troops in the country and demanded a faster withdrawal. "The Iraqi people are heading toward a new phase that might lift them out from their suffering," the cleric said in a statement. He also called on his followers to remain peaceful. Last August, he ordered militiamen of his Mahdi Army to lay down their arms and take up social work. The edict came just after U.S. troops working with Iraqi soldiers routed the militia in its stronghold in Baghdad's Sadr City." Hmmmm. Ripsnorting win all around, I reckon. Good thing we exercised our superiority of arms and all that. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 29 Jun 09 - 01:41 PM "...By Tim Cocks and Muhanad Mohammed BAGHDAD, June 29 (Reuters) - U.S. troops pulled out of Baghdad on Monday, triggering jubilation among Iraqis hopeful that foreign military occupation is ending six years after the invasion to depose Saddam Hussein. Iraqi soldiers paraded through the streets in their American-made vehicles draped with Iraqi flags and flowers, chanting, dancing and calling the pullout a "victory". One drove a motorcycle with party streamers on it; another, a Humvee with a garland of plastic roses on the grill. U.S. combat troops must pull out of Iraq's urban centres by midnight on Tuesday under a bilateral security pact that also requires all troops to leave the country by 2012. All had left the capital by Monday afternoon, Major-General in Staff, Abboud Qanbar, head of Iraqi security forces in Baghdad, told Reuters. Another Iraqi official who would not be named, said some units in cities outside Baghdad would leave at the last minute. Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said 30 bases remained to be handed over. There are still some 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. Addressing military leaders in Baghdad, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said: "Our sovereignty has started and ... we should move forward to build a modern state and enjoy security which has been achieved." Many Iraqis were elated even though they feared militants might use the withdrawal as an opportunity to step up attacks. "The American forces' withdrawal is something awaited by every Iraqi: male, female, young and old. I consider June 30 to be like a wedding," said Ahmed Hameed, 38, near an ice cream bar in Baghdad's upmarket Karrada district. "This is proof Iraqis are capable of controlling security inside Iraq," added the recent returnee from exile in Egypt. The government has declared June 30 a national holiday, "National Sovereignty Day". "BIG JOY" A spate of bombings in recent days, including two of the deadliest for more than a year that killed 150 people between them, have raised fears militants will try to step up the pace of attacks. Yet few Iraqis see that as reason for the Americans to stay. "It is a big joy to see them leaving," said Abu Hassan, 60, a shop owner. "There might be some more attacks because of struggles between the different parties, but Iraqis are controlling security now. It's up to our forces now." At a ceremony outside central Baghdad's old defence ministry building, the last Baghdad location to be handed over by U.S. forces, a military band played while soldiers and army college students paraded through a square festooned with Iraqi flags...." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 02 Jul 09 - 11:10 AM The real reason Iraq was a mistake is made clear int he recently released post-capture interviews of SaddamHussein by the FBI: "Hussein, in fact, said he felt so vulnerable to the perceived threat from "fanatic" leaders in Tehran that he would have been prepared to seek a "security agreement with the United States to protect [Iraq] from threats in the region." Former president George W. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq six years ago on the grounds that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and posed a threat to international security. Administration officials at the time also strongly suggested Iraq had significant links to al-Qaeda, which carried out the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. Hussein, who was often defiant and boastful during the interviews, at one point wistfully acknowledged that he should have permitted the United Nations to witness the destruction of Iraq's weapons stockpile after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. The FBI summaries of the interviews -- 20 formal interrogations and five "casual conversations" in 2004 -- were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the National Security Archive, an independent non-governmental research institute, and posted on its Web site yesterday. The detailed accounts of the interviews were released with few deletions, though one, a last formal interview on May 1, 2004, was completely redacted. Thomas S. Blanton, director of the archive, said he could conceive of no national security reason to keep Hussein's conversations with the FBI secret. Paul Bresson, a bureau spokesman, said he could not explain the reason for the redactions. The 20 formal interviews took place between Feb. 7 and May 1, followed by the casual conversations between May 10 and June 28. Hussein was later transferred to Iraqi custody, and he was hanged in December 2006. ad_icon The formal interviews covered Hussein's rise to power, the Kuwait invasion, and Hussein's crackdown on the Shiite uprising in extensive detail, while the subject of the weapons of mass destruction and al-Qaeda were raised in the casual conversations, after the formal interviews. Blanton said this suggests that the FBI received new orders from Washington to delve into topics of intense interest to Bush administration officials. The FBI spokesman did not know why those subjects were raised in the later meetings. In an interview last year on CBS's "60 Minutes," George L. Piro, the agent who conducted the interviews, said he purposely put Hussein's back against the wall "psychologically to tell him that his back was against the wall," but he did not use coercive interrogation techniques, because "it's against FBI policy." The interviews released yesterday do not suggest any use of coercive techniques. During the interviews, Piro, who conducted them in Arabic, often appeared to challenge Hussein's account of events, citing facts that contradicted his recollections. He even forced Hussein to watch a graphic British documentary on his treatment of the Shiites, though that did not appear to shake the former president. At one point, Hussein dismissed as a fantasy the many intelligence reports that said he used a body double to elude assassination. "This is movie magic, not reality," he said with a laugh. Instead, he said, he had used a phone only twice since 1990 and rarely slept in the same location two days in a row. Hussein's fear of Iran, which he said he considered a greater threat than the United States, featured prominently in the discussion about weapons of mass destruction. Iran and Iraq had fought a grinding eight-year war in the 1980s, and Hussein said he was convinced that Iran was trying to annex southern Iraq -- which is largely Shiite. "Hussein viewed the other countries in the Middle East as weak and could not defend themselves or Iraq from an attack from Iran," Piro recounted in his summary of a June 11, 2004, conversation. "The threat from Iran was the major factor as to why he did not allow the return of UN inspectors," Piro wrote. "Hussein stated he was more concerned about Iran discovering Iraq's weaknesses and vulnerabilities than the repercussions of the United States for his refusal to allow UN inspectors back into Iraq." " Full story at WaPo. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 02 Jul 09 - 11:56 AM While the invasion of Iraq was hamhanded, bloodthirsty, misconceived and wasteful in the extreme, the question remains what it will evolve into after the troops from the US leave. There is a good possibility it will degenerate into armed factionalism. There are sect militias that have been kept in check and in hiding by the presence of the US forces there and their actions following the pullout are unpredictable. The capability of Al Qeda to revive is not clearly known. Foreign Policy magazine discusses the imponderables of Iraq's future. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 14 Oct 09 - 11:10 PM Associated Press Wed Oct 14 BAGHDAD â€" Iraq's government said at least 85,000 people were killed from 2004 to 2008, officially answering one of the biggest questions of the conflict â€" how many perished in the sectarian violence that nearly led to a civil war. What remains unanswered is how many died in the 2003 U.S. invasion and in the months of chaos that followed it. A report by the Human Rights Ministry said 85,694 people were killed from the beginning of 2004 to Oct. 31, 2008 and 147,195 were wounded. The figures included Iraqi civilians, military and police but did not cover U.S. military deaths, insurgents, or foreigners, including contractors. And it did not include the first months of the war after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion. The Associated Press reported similar figures in April based on government statistics obtained by the AP showing that the government had recorded 87,215 Iraqi deaths from 2005 to February 2009. The toll included violence ranging from catastrophic bombings to execution-style slayings. Until the AP report, the government's toll of Iraqi deaths had been one of the war's most closely guarded secrets. Both supporters and opponents of the conflict have accused the other of manipulating the toll to sway public opinion. The 85,694 represents about 0.3 percent of Iraq's estimated 29 million population. In a sign of how significant the numbers are, that would be akin to the United States losing about 900,000 people over a similar period. The ministry's report came out late Tuesday as part of a larger study on human rights in the country. It described the years that followed the invasion, which toppled Saddam Hussein's regime, as extremely violent. "Through the terrorist attacks like explosions, assassinations, kidnappings and forced displacements, the outlawed groups have created these terrible figures," it said. Violence in Iraq has declined dramatically since the height of the fighting but almost every Iraqi family has a story of relatives killed, maimed or missing. One Baghdad resident, Ali Khalil, 27, from the Sadr City neighborhood whose father was shot in late 2006 by gunmen said he was not surprised by the government's figures. "I expect that the real numbers of the people killed are higher than this," Khalil said. He added that he did not think the country would return to the high numbers of dead in the future because security has improved. "We have already lost dear ones, and we hope that our sadness and losses will cease." Iraq's death toll continued to climb on Wednesday when three near simultaneous blasts struck the southern Shiite holy city of Karbala, killing at least six people. According to the ministry's report, the dead included 1,279 children and 2,334 women. At least 263 university professors, 21 judges, 95 lawyers and 269 journalists were killed â€" professions which were specifically targeted as the country descended into chaos. According to the report, 2006 was the deadliest year with 32,622 killed or found dead. The toll for 2004 was 11,313, rising to 15,817 the next year. The second deadliest year in the period covered was 2007 with 19,155 killed or found dead. The toll fell to 6,787 in 2008, the lowest yearly count for the period. The count also included 15,000 unidentified bodies that were buried after going unclaimed by families. An additional 10,000 people were also listed as missing although Human Rights Ministry official Kamail Amin said it was not known whether there was overlap between the missing and unidentified counts. Amin said the missing figures were based on people who came to the ministry to report a missing relative, something that many Iraqis, who feared reprisals and were hesitant to draw attention to themselves, were loathe to do. Significantly the report does not contain figures from 2003, a period during which there was no functioning Iraqi government. "The situation was chaotic and there was an absence of government institutions. The whole country was in total anarchy," Amin said. The violence that has gripped Iraq made it increasingly difficult after 2003 to independently track death figures. Records were not always compiled centrally, the brutal insurgency sharply limited on-the-scene reporting. The U.S. military never shared its data. At best, the numbers released by the Human Rights Ministry and those obtained by the AP are a minimum of the number who died. Emmanuel d'Harcourt from the New York-based International Rescue Committee, who's participated in mortality surveys in such places as Sudan and Sierra Leone, said the figures are undoubtedly low and that considering the challenges associated with counting those killed in the Iraq conflict, a true figure might never be reached. "I would think that Iraq would be one of the most difficult places on Earth to count the dead," he said. The official who provided the data to the AP at the time estimated the actual number of deaths was 10 to 20 percent higher. Combined with tallies based on hospital sources and media reports since the beginning of the war and an in-depth review of available evidence by the AP, the figures showed that more than 110,600 Iraqis had died in violence since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion and up through early 2009. The most recent numbers from Iraq Body Count, a private London-based group that has tracked civilian casualties since the war began, puts the number of civilian casualties as of Oct. 14 at 93,540. The toll released Tuesday was based on death certificates issued by the Health Ministry. The tolls measure only violent deaths â€" people killed in attacks such as the shootings, bombings, mortar attacks and beheadings that have ravaged Iraq. They exclude indirect factors such as damage to infrastructure, health care and stress. Some experts favor cluster surveys, in which conclusions are drawn from a select sampling of households. The largest cluster survey in Iraq was conducted in 2007 by the World Health Organization and the Iraqi government. It concluded that about 151,000 Iraqis had died from violence in the 2003-05 period, but that included insurgents. A more controversial cluster study conducted between May and July 2006 by Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, published in the Lancet medical journal, estimated that 601,027 Iraqis had died due to violence. Critics argue that such surveys are flawed in Iraq because the security situation prevents a proper sampling. They also have margins of error that could skew the numbers by the tens of thousands. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Stringsinger Date: 18 Oct 09 - 01:23 PM After all these years of inefficiency, corruption, loss of life, innocents abused, no change in attitudes is there any one who is rational that wouldn't consider this incursion a mistake? Obviously, it has accomplished nothing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 18 Oct 09 - 04:48 PM Only 85,000 people??? Geeze, reckon maybe George Bush should have been considered for a Nobel Peace Prize... (Not...) No matter, 85,000, 500,000 a million... A very messed up decision made for some even more messed up reasons... How do you spell "politics" or "Karl Rove"??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: CarolC Date: 18 Oct 09 - 05:56 PM 85,000 is the mininum, not the maximum. From the article... "At best, the numbers released by the Human Rights Ministry and those obtained by the AP are a minimum of the number who died. Emmanuel d'Harcourt from the New York-based International Rescue Committee, who's participated in mortality surveys in such places as Sudan and Sierra Leone, said the figures are undoubtedly low and that considering the challenges associated with counting those killed in the Iraq conflict, a true figure might never be reached." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Stringsinger Date: 18 Oct 09 - 06:15 PM Occupation of a country by any nation that doesn't want it is a form of violence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 19 Oct 09 - 12:11 AM So the "right war" is Afghanistan? Will Mr. deadly accurate crystal ball lay out his predictions please? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 19 Oct 09 - 07:47 PM No, still wrong, Sawz... Neither war is the right war... Ain't no right wars... Just stupid ones... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,Ben Franklin Date: 19 Oct 09 - 11:23 PM "There never was a good war, nor a bad peace..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 20 Oct 09 - 09:08 AM MSNBC: Joe Biden:, "When the president announced his surge, I made the case that he should be surging in Afghanistan, not in Iraq. Chris [Matthews], I know you know a lot about this. Imagine if we fail in Afghanistan. What that will mean is Musharraf will cut even a closer deal with al Qaeda and with the Taliban, and if he doesn't, he puts himself in the position of being overthrown more than he is now. That is a radicalized country. It has nuclear weapons and it will be a disaster. If there was a totally just war since World War II, it is the war in Afghanistan, and we are not—we are not—dealing with it properly. We have diverted resources to Iraq from the beginning. And if anything, we should be increasing resources in Afghanistan which I called for three months ago. " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 21 Oct 09 - 12:46 AM Mr. "I predicted" falls silent. When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland. The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I introduced a plan in January that would have already started bringing our troops out of Iraq, with a goal of removing all combat brigades by March 31, 2008. If the President continues to veto this plan, then ending this war will be my first priority when I take office. There is no military solution in Iraq. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 21 Oct 09 - 08:29 AM Who is this "Mr I Predicted" person, Sawz??? (Shhhhhhh, Bobert... He's Sawz, you know, "special friend" (wink, wink...)... Nevermind, I withdraw the question... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 06 Mar 10 - 12:01 PM Joe Biden Feb 2002: "But we can’t seem to talk about what comes next without talking about Iraq. It’s obvious we must end the reign of Saddam Hussein. It would be unrealistic, if not downright foolish, to believe we can claim victory in the war on terrorism if Saddam is still in power". Joe Biden Feb 2007: the next president will "be the guy landing helicopters inside the Green Zone, taking people off the roof" Joe Biden June 2007: "The surge isn't going to work either tactically or strategically" Iraq one of Obama's 'great achievements' Los Angeles Times February 11, 2010 Many Americans recall the ex-Sen. Biden's Democratic primary plans to give in to Iraq's fractious factions and carve the country into three territories. And even more probably recall Biden's boss' plan to halt the Iraq war years ago. As long as it got started anyway without the permission of the then state senator.Plus, of course, the vehement opposition of the Nobel Prize winner to the 2007 American troop surge of you-know-who from Texas that Obama knew for certain was only going to worsen sectarian strife there. "I think he's wrong, I think the American people think he's wrong" Well, of course, it didn't turn out that way, thanks in large measure to the brave service of hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops who served in that war-torn land and helped peace to break out despite the loud political acrimony back home over their role. Now, the Obama-Biden pair that opposed the Iraq war and its tactics and predicted their failure is prepared to accept credit for its success. It seems that Biden, who's from Delaware when he's in Delaware and Pennsylvania when in Pennsylvania, is certain now that Iraq will turn out to be one of the Obama-Biden administration's greatest achievements. BidenFeb 2010: I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government. I spent -- I've been there 17 times now. I go about every two months -- three months. I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society. It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences. Biden did not elaborate on what all the administration's other "great achievements" were so far. No doubt, Iraqis too are very thankful for that 2008 U.S. election. More Here |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 06 Mar 10 - 12:26 PM So Iraq is now this bigass success story??? Pee in the cup, Sawz... The final chapter has not yet been written yet and tho I hope that it does succeed that hope dodesn't change the fact that the war was a miserable mistake... Gordon Brown just yesterday said that had he known there were no WMD he wouldn't have favored the invasion... The problem with that statement is that the evidence that was used to suggest that their might be WMD was trumped up by Bush & Co. and Blair & Co.... Even the final piece of so-called evidence that Busdh used in his Sate of the Union Adress about Saddam having anuclear weapons program was soon after described as a college kids term paper that intellegence people thought was very amatuarish... So that's why Bush and Blair pulled the string on the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis??? A college kids 20 year old term paper??? Give me a break, ya'll... That is about the most childish excuse for a war that has ever been dreamed up... A 20 year old C+ college kids term paper???? But like I said, the final chapter has not been written here but I ceratinly hope it's alot better than the first couple hundred... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Royston Date: 06 Mar 10 - 12:45 PM You try and sell that sack of shit, Sawzaw, to the half a million or so innocents that lost their lives in the Blair/Bush chaos. It was Reagan/Thatcher that created Saddam to begin with, and Bush snr. that decided to keep him in play after Gulf 1. The reasons for that will be come all too apparent when we leave the stage. The last 7 years will have been for nothing, when we should have been concentrating on the real enemies of human civilisation over in Afghanistan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 06 Mar 10 - 05:43 PM But, Royston, Halliburton made out purdy good... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 07 Mar 10 - 01:37 AM So Iraq is now this bigass success story??? 'Cordin' to that Joe the fumbler guy that you voted for: "Iraq looks to be a major success story" You know Bobert, it's going to take you days and days of posting all kinds of crybaby propaganda stuff about Cheney, oil, Halliburton etc etc in an effort divert people's attention away from the facts and piss in Iraq's candles. Right now, that other guy you voted for is callin' in Predator and Reaper strikes that's killing innocent men women and children in Pakistan and Afghanistan [did we officially declare war on Pakistan or Afghanistan?] In an effort to establish some kind of self rule in Afghanistan. Are you gonna piss on that one too and bring up all the shit Obama did that was war crimes when Bush did the same thing? Better get started on your Afghanistan was wrong thread. You have your work cut out for you and you still won't change a damned thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 08 Mar 10 - 12:31 AM Barack Obama hails Iraq election 'milestone' The completion of the election was plenty to celebrate for some voters US President Barack Obama has hailed a "milestone" in the history of Iraq, as it completed its second parliamentary election since the 2003 invasion. He praised the courage of voters who turned out despite bomb and mortar attacks that killed at least 35 people. Two buildings were destroyed in Baghdad, while there were also attacks in Mosul, Falluja, Baquba and Samarra. "Today's voting makes it clear that the future of Iraq belongs to the people of Iraq," Mr Obama said. "Today, in the face of violence from those who would only destroy, Iraqis took a step forward in the hard work of building up their country."..... Iraqis Vote |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 11 Mar 10 - 11:29 PM New York Times ...Former President George W. Bush’s gut instinct that this region craved and needed democracy was always right. It should have and could have been pursued with much better planning and execution. This war has been extraordinarily painful and costly. But democracy was never going to have a virgin birth in a place like Iraq, which has never known any such thing. Some argue that nothing that happens in Iraq will ever justify the costs. Historians will sort that out. Personally, at this stage, I only care about one thing: that the outcome in Iraq be positive enough and forward-looking enough that those who have actually paid the price â€" in lost loved ones or injured bodies, in broken homes or broken lives, be they Iraqis or Americans or Brits â€" see Iraq evolve into something that will enable them to say that whatever the cost, it has given freedom and decent government to people who had none. That, though, will depend on Iraqis and their leaders. It was hopeful to see the strong voter turnout â€" 62 percent â€" and the fact that some of the largest percentage of voting occurred in regions, like Kirkuk and Nineveh Provinces, that are hotly disputed. It means people are ready to use politics to resolve disputes, not just arms. We can only hope so. President Obama has handled his Iraq inheritance deftly, but he is committed to the withdrawal timetable. As such, our influence there will be less decisive every day. We need Iraqi leaders to prove to their people that they are not just venal elites out to seize the spoils of power more than to seize this incredible opportunity to remake Iraq. We need to see real institution-builders emerge, including builders of a viable justice system and economy. And we need to be wary that too big an army and too much oil can warp any regime. Iraq will be said to have a decent outcome not just if that young boy whose mother let him cast her ballot gets to vote one day himself. It will be a decent outcome only if his life chances improve â€" because he lives in a country with basic security, basic services, real jobs and decent governance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 12 Mar 10 - 11:17 AM Now let us see how much of this that Bobert has got wrong: Gordon Brown just yesterday said that had he known there were no WMD he wouldn't have favored the invasion (No surprise there Bobert everything that man has touched has turned to shit, he is renown for his poor judgement and lack of understanding of real problems)... The problem with that statement is that the evidence that was used to suggest that their might be WMD was trumped up by Bush & Co. and Blair & Co (Well No Bobert it wasn't. The evidence that was used relating to what WMD Iraq may, or may not have had came from UNSCOM, your pal Doctor Hans Blix helped write the Report quantifying the WMD and highlighting the discrepencies).... Even the final piece of so-called evidence that Busdh used in his Sate of the Union Adress about Saddam having anuclear weapons program was soon after described as a college kids term paper that intellegence people thought was very amatuarish (Wrong)... So that's why Bush and Blair pulled the string on the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis??? A college kids 20 year old term paper??? Give me a break, ya'll (No Bobert you give us a break and do a bit of honest research instead of just spouting out the first thing that crosses that soup that passes for your brain)... That is about the most childish excuse for a war that has ever been dreamed up... A 20 year old C+ college kids term paper???? (Any idea what the paper was about Bobert? any idea who wrote it? Going by what you are telling folks here you haven't got the foggiest clue) The paper that the British Intelligence Agencies were guilty of plagiarising concerned the systems and networks set up by Saddam Hussein's regime to hide his weapons programmes and networks for purchasing prohibited items. The person who wrote the paper was a Post-Graduate Student, not a 20 year old college kid. His source material was over a million documents captured from the Iraqis. At the time in question the paper was 12 years old and according to its author still highly relevant. The author's own opinion at the time was that it was perfectly correct to use the information contained in the paper, his only complaint was that he was not credited for his work. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 12 Mar 10 - 11:35 AM And rightly so, he should have been credited. He got that part right. Believing the 12-year old data was still current reflects a serious myopic self-indulgence on the part of the studen6t, though, and on the part of Bush for failing to notice the data was OBSOLETE INFORMATION. The REAL reason we should have invaded Iraq is that, according to reliable sources, the men there all use HUGE wooden clubs and some of them even have flint-headed bone axes. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 12 Mar 10 - 05:13 PM Believing the 12-year old data was still current reflects a serious myopic self-indulgence on the part of the student, though, and on the part of Bush for failing to notice the data was OBSOLETE INFORMATION. Well Amos I take it that you too have not really researched what the Post-Grad's Paper was on have you? It detailed ways and means of hiding things inside Iraq and abroad, and although things would not be exactly the same it provides excellent study material to indicate how things can be done and what to look out for. Like the IED's being encountered in Afghanistan, the Taliban could learn some lessons from Kesselring's troops in Italy when it comes to setting booby-traps, how they did things could be considered as OBSOLETE INFORMATION by clowns who feel the need to re-invent the wheel every two decades, but without a shadow of a doubt they were a damn sight more clever and more resourceful than the Taliban are today, so does that mean we shouldn't study their methods? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 12 Mar 10 - 07:51 PM The bottom line, good T, is that WMDs and delivery systems for them were claimed, as a casus belli and when looked for were not found to exist. The claim, sad to say, was false. One key executive skill that we expect leaders to have is the ability to manage data and realize, for example, when false data is being mixerd in, to be alert enough to realize what is likely and what is not. Bush and Blair and many others failed this test miserably. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 13 Mar 10 - 04:51 AM Like a great number of people in both the UK and in the USA Amos, you appear to have read what was reported as being said, forgetting to take a look at what was actually said. This is evidenced by: The bottom line, good T, is that WMDs and delivery systems for them were claimed, as a casus belli and when looked for were not found to exist. Now take a look at what the UNSCOM/UNMOVIC position was on the subject of Iraq disarmament, and Amos there was no single casus belli, the actual casus belli as far the UK was concerned was Iraq's refusal to honour the ceasefire commitments it agreed to at Safwan in April 1991. The UNSCOM report of January 1999 and their previous reports while inspectors were still inside Iraq listed discrepencies and items that Iraq could not account for which is why they always spoke in terms of: what WMD Iraq MAY, OR MAY NOT HAVE" On the basis of the content of the UNSCOM reports it is not surprising that many involved in UNSCOM, with security, intelligence and in Government around the world fully believed that Saddam and Iraq still possessed these weapons. Saddam openly admitted in prison while waiting trial that he did everything in his power to foster that very impression. The main objective of Safwan was to see Iraq disarmed so that it could not threaten the peace of the region or its neighbours. Finding WMD was not the primary goal, to verify beyond doubt that Iraq had disarmed was. If you cannot make the distinction between the two then there is little point in continuing the discussion. One key executive skill that we expect leaders to have is the ability to manage data and realize, for example, when false data is being mixed in, to be alert enough to realize what is likely and what is not. Bush and Blair and many others failed this test miserably. Utterly ridiculous Amos, you are stating that we should expect our "Leaders" all to be infallible - I have got news for you, that person does not exist. For the above to be possible your "Leader" would have to be an expert in all fields, which of course is impossible. As described by Rear Admiral Richard Cobbold of the RUSI, the job of the JIC is to gather and analyse intelligence information and from that on any subject they submit and present that information from the best and worse case scenarios. It is then up to Cabinet to decide which to adopt, or where in between policy is set and defined. In matters of security it is normal, the default position if you like, that the worst case scenario is adopted. By the bye, Amos, you mentioned delivery systems. British Intelligence analysis of test sights prior to the return of the inspectors indicated that Iraq had resurrected its missile development programme, and this was later confirmed by UNMOVIC. The rocket motor test beds were constructed to a specification for testing rockets four times the range of the Scuds previously used to hit targets in Israel in 1991. Work was being done with regard to changing propellant from liquid to solid and 384 rocket motors were found in Iraq that had been illegaly imported. Bottom line Amos was that none of these were allowed according to what Iraq had signed up to. Another part of the Safwan agreement related to the repatriation of those people that Saddam had abducted from Kuwait during his brief occupation of the place. There were 605 of them, and unfortunately to Saddam they represented a major stumbling block as far as proving compliance when, primarily because by March 2003 he had, with the exception of three of them, had them killed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 16 Mar 10 - 01:11 AM New York Times "Speaking as a wounded Marine combat veteran of Vietnam, I believe the recent election in Iraq has provided some meaning and justification to the sacrifice of America's brave soldiers and Marines in that war. Mr. Friedman's column is a breath of fresh air in that regard. But stating that President Obama has handled his Iraq inheritance deftly is folly. Had it not been for former President George W. Bush's courage in ordering the surge, civil war would reign in Iraq today. Mr. Friedman credits the U.N., the U.S. military and the Obama team for overcoming the obstacles to this election. Try as he may, Mr. Friedman cannot rewrite history as to who really deserves credit. Eugene M. Ogozalek, Scranton, Pennsylvania " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 17 Apr 10 - 02:05 AM A deal with Bobert on revealing the source of one of his "facts" that he never made good on: "Tell ya what, Sawz, I'll find the source if you'll agree that when I find it that you admit that you are wrong... Unless I get that then it's not worth the time it will take to dig it up..." "OK Bobert, I will admit that I am wrong about Saddam being given a gold plated M16 if you can show it in one of the sources you cited. Ya got a deal." He changed his claim somewhat and said he did what he was supposed to do but he never produced the source. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 17 Apr 10 - 08:32 AM "Same old Shit" from, Sawz... Can't debate the contents of a thread without trying to divert attention away from the subject at hand... How do you spell "personality disorder"??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 17 Apr 10 - 09:18 AM "Subject at hand" In this case Iraq Has the country dissolved into a bitter sectarian civil war - No it most certainly has not Is Iraq still a state sponsor of international terrorism - No it most certainly is not Does Iraq still seek to acquire or manufacture WMD - No it most certainly does not Does the regime in Iraq pose a threat to citizens within its own borders or to its immediate neighbours and the region in general - No it most certainly does not And the bringing about of the above (all of which were perfectly true under the rule of Saddam Hussein and his Ba'athist cronies) Bobert counts as being a mistake. Not because all those things were brought to an end, but because all those things were brought to an end by a man called George W. Bush. That and that alone is what sticks in his craw. Bobert consistantly waves this flag about one million dead Iraqis, who of course never did actually die (the number Bobert quotes as fact was in fact only an estimate of the number who MAY HAVE died - those words featuring large in the report that Bobery claims is his source). The actual figure is more like around one tenth of that figure, and most of those people were killed by foreign jihadist groups; Ba'athist insurgents; sectarian militias and criminal gangs. Had Saddam or his sons remained in power the number of innocent dead Iraq civilians who would now be dead had the regime maintained it averages would be up arround the 800,000 mark Was Iraq a mistake Bobert - NOT ON YOUR LIFE - Doubt that?? Then ask the Iraqi's themselves they have got no doubts at all about the benefits of the removal of Saddam Hussein from power, and they acknowledge that they could never have succeeded in accomplishing it on their own. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 17 Apr 10 - 01:54 PM "Can't debate the contents of a thread without trying to divert attention away from the subject at hand" Your claim about the M-16 and your promise to reveal the source are all contained within this thread. You brought up the subject and now you claim it is a diversion. Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert - PM Date: 10 Feb 09 - 10:20 PM Ahhhhh, didn't matter much that the Kurds were trying to take him out... But wait, fir an extra $2.95 (plus shipping and handling) you'll get documentation that the US government had promised the Kurds they would support them against Saddam... Hmmmmmmk???... Heck, the US even provided the bad gas that was used against the Kurds... Even rewarded Saddam ****afterwards**** with all kinds of booty, including a gold plated M-16 rifle... Hmmmmmmmmm???? You got it wrong, Sawz... But what is new here??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 18 Apr 10 - 02:45 AM http://www.ak-47.us/Gold_AK47.php |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 18 Apr 10 - 08:34 AM See yer shrink, Sawz... Yo, T... When exactly was Iraq this hotbed of international terrorism??? While yer at it, please enlighten us about Saddam's extensive WMD program... I'm sure that Dick Cheney would love to have anything you know that no one else knows... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 18 Apr 10 - 10:10 AM Gold-plated AK47 Gold-plated H&K MP5 SD. submachine gun There were dozens of gold and silver plated weapons discovered in 2003. INcluding rifles, submachine guns and assault rifles. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 18 Apr 10 - 11:00 AM Ah we now have two NEW BOBERT FACTS: 1. Saddam Hussein NEVER sponsored Palestinian Suicide Bombers in the West Bank to attack Israel (Rather odd that as evidence exists that the bounty paid by Saddam to the bombers family was something in the order of US$25,000) 2. Iraq under Saddam Hussein NEVER had any WMD or WMD capability (Again rather odd that as he most certainly developed, manufactured and used such weapons, and real bitch is that you cannot univent science, once you have acquired the knowledge and capability to manufacture such weapons, the programme can be resurrected at any time) So we Gold plated weapons given to Saddam as presents by his sons (AK-47s & H&K MP5) now what about the Gold Plated M-16 that Bobert was wittering on about Rumsfeld giving Saddam, I believe that is what Sawzaw was asking about. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 18 Apr 10 - 07:12 PM Well, it's true that one of Iraq's scientists, hid critical parts in his rose garden - well certain vigilantes bombed critical nuclear infrastructure, as I remember, stopping it from working years before. But the ability to manufacture sufficient naughty stuff to make nuclear weapons was never proved - other than in the minds of those inciting war and invasion. I well remember the lies about 15 Minutes! though.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 18 Apr 10 - 11:04 PM Ya know, It reallly doesn't matter if Donnie Rumsfeld presented Saddam with a gold plated M-16, Ak-47 or a turd that Donnie had dropped that morinin', fished out of the toidy and had gold plated... The fact is that Donnie Rumsfeld gave Saddam, a good US foot souldier, a gold plated ______________ (fill in yer own)... I mean, lets get real... If you listen to T then you'd think that because this ol' hillbilly wasn't there in Baghdad during the presentation of the gold plated _____________, that it never happened??? Hey, folks... It did happen!!! That is the facts here... Gold plated M-16, gold plated AK-47, gold plated Daisy BB gun, gold plated turd, it happened!!! Yeah, t, doesn't want to address that aspect of history becauase it doesn't fit in with his mythology... The facts are the facts... Saddam was "our guy"... Saddam did our bidding against Iran (with our help)... Saddam was rewarded with gifts... Saddam was gievn a wink-wink on Kuwait and then the Bush I and Bush II, for reasons that only their psychiatrist knowm decided that Saddam wasn't our man after all... I mean, what did Saddam do??? Gas the Kurds??? That's purdy flimsy... Yeah, he did it but was rewarded afterwards by the US for being a good citizen??? I mean, this entire story smells like week old dead fish... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 18 Apr 10 - 11:48 PM "Tell ya what, Sawz, I'll find the source if you'll agree that when I find it that you admit that you are wrong... Unless I get that then it's not worth the time it will take to dig it up..." "OK Bobert, I will admit that I am wrong about Saddam being given a gold plated M16 if you can show it in one of the sources you cited. Ya got a deal." Bobert's end of the deal: "It reallly doesn't matter" It really doesn't matter if Bobert makes a deal and weasels out. He has no pride in that respect. What matters to Bobert is that his ego stays in tact by never admitting he was wrong about his "facts". Anybody that points it out to him needs a shrink. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 19 Apr 10 - 12:11 AM "Saddam was "our guy"... Saddam did our bidding against Iran (with our help)... Saddam was rewarded with gifts... Saddam was given a wink-wink on Kuwait" Funny, that's way us Aussies remember it too... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 19 Apr 10 - 01:01 AM The facts are the facts... 1. Saddam was "our guy"... No he was not 2. Saddam did our bidding against Iran (with our help)...The Iran/Iraq War started in 1980, Rumsfeld met Saddam in December 1983, the actual softening of relations between Iraq and the USA did not occur until November 1984, so whose bidding was Saddam doing until that point (mere than half wat through the War. Like Soviet Russia, the USA gave assistance to both Iran and Iraq during the course of the war 3. Saddam was rewarded with gifts...Only thing is Bobert cannot provide any information about them, the meeting notes of the encounter between Saddam and Rumsfeld are in the public domain, uncomfortably and inconveniently for the likes of Bobert weapons were not even mentioned 4. Saddam was gievn a wink-wink on Kuwait....No he was not 5. and then the Bush I and Bush II, for reasons that only their psychiatrist knowm decided that Saddam wasn't our man after all...Well it could only have been Bush I and Bill Clinton really 6. I mean, what did Saddam do??? Gas the Kurds??? That's purdy flimsy...So Kurdish lives and Iranian war dead mean nothing to Bobert 7. Yeah, he did it but was rewarded afterwards by the US for being a good citizen???...Rewarded how? from the US Iran got weapons, Iraq got information 8. I mean, this entire story smells like week old dead fish... Yes Bobert your version does smell like week old dead fish because it is a tissue of lies, one piled on top of another |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 19 Apr 10 - 01:45 AM All this I'm right you are wrong can go on for as long as the Internet functions. What matters is the truth. Let Bobert provide some facts. Every time somebody provides facts he denies them with his pompous sagacity. Example: "the US even provided the bad gas that was used against the Kurds" I have provided every thing I could find about where the gas came from but that just bounced off like bullets off of Superman. You see, I research before I make an assertion. The closest things I can find to your assertion is a Dutch guy that got jail time for selling tons of ingredients to Saddam for making the bad gas and one of the ingredients came from a company in Baltimore. U.S. authorities say the defunct company, Alcolac Inc. effectively supplied both sides during the Iran-Iraq war. Alcolac pleaded guilty in 1989 to knowingly violating export laws in the case of a shipment of thiodiglycol that ultimately went to Iran. Alcolac turned a blind eye to abundant evidence in its files that this chemical was not going to the final destination that its customers stated in documents filed with customs. The other thing I found was that a non profit group gave some germ specimens to some medical group in Iraq that requested them for research. It was approved by the US government. Do you think these could have been hyped until it turned into the US selling the poison gas and Bio WMDs? Facts don't mean shit to Bobert, what matters to him is that anybody that disagrees with his unproven, unsupportable "facts" is wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 19 Apr 10 - 03:59 AM I love this screwy logic straight out of Warner Bros cartoons... "U.S. authorities say the defunct company, Alcolac Inc. effectively supplied both sides during the Iran-Iraq war. Alcolac pleaded guilty in 1989 to knowingly violating export laws in the case of a shipment of thiodiglycol that ultimately went to Iran. Alcolac turned a blind eye to abundant evidence in its files that this chemical was not going to the final destination that its customers stated in documents filed with customs." "The other thing I found was that a non profit group gave some germ specimens to some medical group in Iraq that requested them for research. It was approved by the US government.The other thing I found was that a non profit group gave some germ specimens to some medical group in Iraq that requested them for research. It was approved by the US government." Definitely proves that the US did NOT supply the stuff to Iraq at all, at all, at all ... WOW! No wonder the Road Runner always gets away! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 19 Apr 10 - 08:00 AM More unsubstantiated ***proclamations*** from the T-Bird... More ***obsessive compulsive*** postings from the Sawz... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 19 Apr 10 - 10:23 AM More ignore the real facts from Bobert. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 19 Apr 10 - 10:29 AM Top al-Qaeda leader in Iraq has been killed Al-Qaeda's top man in Iraq, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, was killed alongside another terror chief in a government raid in the northern Iraqi province of Salaheddin, the country's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has confirmed....... ....Maliki told reporters that Baghdadi and Masri's identities had been confirmed after medical tests.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 19 Apr 10 - 04:26 PM More unsubstantiated ***proclamations*** from the T-Bird... Ah Bobert, I thought you would have learned by now. I can substantiate by verifiable sources every single one of those so-called ***proclamations*** Which is a damn sight more than you have ever been able to do. Remember: 3000 Patriot Missiles raining down on Baghdad (Bobert) Heads on sticks on the WHite House Lawn (Bobert) Gold-Plated M-16 (Bobert) 1,000,000 dead Iraqi's (Bobert) And ALL of the above are total crap, apologies total unsubstantiated crap. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 19 Apr 10 - 08:40 PM I particularially like the "head on the sticks" analogy, T... Heck, the way I heard it it would have been purdy easy with Saddam in that word on the street is that his head actaully came off during the hanging... I wonder if the World Court were to prosecute George Bush for his war crimes against the Iraqi people and George Bush was hnaged if his head would come off??? What do you think, T??? Head off or not??? The million people killed has been substantiated by more than one source, T... SAeems we've been down this road before... The gold plated _______________... Who really gives a flyin' fig if it was a gold plated M-16, Ak-47, Daisey BB gun or a friggin' water gun from the Walmart??? The fact is that after Saddam gassed the Kurds he was presented with gifts from the US government and Donnie Rumsfeld delivered them to Saddam... That is the real story here... 3000 Patriots missles is what we are down to then... Okay, maybe it wasn't all Patriots missles... Last I heard there were over 30,000 (that's more than 10 times the 3000 figure you claim as the Holy Grail) sorties frown over Iraq during the invasion and in the weeks afterwards... Now, I ain't no rocket surgeeon here (and neither are you, T) but over 30,000 sorties, each carrying multiple bombs is a shit-load of munitions dropped on the Iraqi people, don't ya think??? Well, I do... So when you ppost figure that maybe 14,00 Iraqis died during this period (which you did a few years back) that is not a believable number... That is like a number that only someone on drugs or is mentally deficient might accept as fact... But that was your number??? That's about it, T-zer... Please get back to us on yer thoughts about Bush's head comin' off v. not coming off... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 20 Apr 10 - 01:47 AM Bobert promised to reveal his source on the gold plated _____________. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 20 Apr 10 - 02:06 AM Ah the unidentified, and totally unverifiable WORD ON THE STREET that Bobert so relies upon and that everybody else has to take as being the gospel truth without question. Comparing track records Bobert: 1. When you came out with your statement on the Patriot missiles showereing down on Baghdad it was pointed out to you that the patriot missile system is an anti-missile defence system that did not have the range to reach Baghdad or anywhere close to it. None of these facts actually deterred you though did they Bobert you still persisted in your fantasy. Now the air campaigns of 1991 and 2003 were different in many respects, that your source (the man with no connection to the US military and a rather shakey Divinity Degree from Colorado, who claims to be an expert in air warfare) totally missed out on, such as: - 1991 campaign was far more intense and wide ranging. I know why Bobert, do you? The reason is as plain as a pikestaff. - 2003 campaign was much shorter and more restricted. Again I know why Bobert, do you? Again the reason is blindingly obvious. 2. The Heads-on-Sticks that you stated that GWB had demanded that he wanted displayed on the lawn of the "White House" were those of Saddam's sons. Of course there was never ever any such demand or order given, that fact again did not deter seeker of truth and honesty Bobert from continuing to advance the myth. 3. The Gold-Plated M-16 which you Bobert stated in all seriousness had been presented to Saddam Hussein by the US Government. This of course was yet another Bobert Fact (read LIE) and you were called out on it, you were asked to substantiate it, this you agreed to do. Guess what Bobert we are all still waiting, and we will continue to wait until hell freezes over as no such Gold-Plated M-16 exists does it Bobert? By the way what were all these gifts that were showered upon Saddam Hussein by the US for gassing the Kurds? Another Bobert LIE, which I ask him to substantiate. In fact Bobert if you read the meeting notes and minutes from the initial meetings between Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein and Tarik Aziz you will find that it was mentioned that material US assistance could not be given precisely because of Iraq's use of Chemical and Biological Weapons. Easily checked Bobert it is after all in print and it has been in the public domain for years. I know that you won't do so because it actually involves you doing a bit of work and means that you have to physically read and attempt to understand something that is not some wild fantasy from your addled brain. 4. And finally The-Million-Dead-Iraqis you claim that were killed by the US invasion. Fair enough if this number is indeed fact: 1. Show me where they are buried 2. Death certificates are where Bobert? 3. Explain why in the original report the study is referred to as an ESTIMATE 4. Explain why in the original report it states that the figures given are THE NUMBER OF IRAQI CITIZENS WHO MAY HAVE BEEN KILLED Please do not attempt to deflect the discussion from your lies. You have stated categorically that over a million Iraqi citizens were killed, despite all the evidence to the contrary, OK Bobert PROVE IT. In Desert Storm which involved a far larger air warfare campaign over a far greater range of targets Iraqi deaths both military & civilian numbered around the 110,000. Between March and May 2003 the number of Iraqi deaths both military and civilian numbered around 12,000 with approximately one-tenth of those killed being civilians. Now for every single one of those there exists reports of the deaths and the incidents in which they died, there are bodies and it is known where they are buried. In short Bobert they are REAL and can be verified. Since March 2003 as the dust has settled Iraqi Authorities have worked to quantify the losses and along with other organistaions dealing in fact not fantasy or estimates the death toll arrived at is about one-tenth of the figures you brandish and wave like a flag. Again all can be proved to be REAL and factual, and most interestingly, out of their total figures 80% over the period between March 2003 to date have been killed not by the US but by Ba'athist insurgents; foreign Jihadists; sectarian militias & criminal gangs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 20 Apr 10 - 06:31 AM 1. 3000 Patriots missles is what we are down to then... Okay, maybe it wasn't all Patriots missles... No Bobert, number of Patriot Missiles expended against targets in Iraq was 0. And as I have pointed out on numerous occasions in the past the Patriot is a DEFENSIVE System it has NO ATTACK capability. The Patriot System was used in defence of Kuwait when on the evening of the 20th March the Iraqi's launched surface-to-surface missiles at targets inside Kuwait (Missiles the Iraqi's were not supposed to have had) The missiles that were used offensively were BGM-109 Tomahawk Cruise Missiles and of those the massive number of 802 were launched by US and UK forces. Last I heard there were over 30,000 (that's more than 10 times the 3000 figure you claim as the Holy Grail) sorties frown over Iraq during the invasion and in the weeks afterwards... One minute you are talking about missiles (albeit the wrong type) and now you are wittering on about Sorties. In actual fact Bobert 41,404 sorties were flown, a sortie being the word used to describe an aircraft taking off, performing its assigned task (not necessarily a combat role) and landing. The word sortie does not mean that any attack was made, or that any munitions were expended. Of the Sorties flown, 20,228 were flown by fighter aircraft; 9,064 were flown by refueling tanker aircraft; 7,676 were airlift missions; 1,656 were recce flights; AND FINALLY BOBERT 505 were bomber missions. All that lot takes the grand total of sorties flown up to 39,229, the others (2,175) were miscellaneous transfers, transport, leaflet dropping missions; rescue missions and communications flights. Now, I ain't no rocket surgeeon here (and neither are you, T) but over 30,000 sorties, each carrying multiple bombs is a shit-load of munitions dropped on the Iraqi people, don't ya think??? Well Bobert you ain't no rocket scientist, that's for sure, at times I am in serious doubt if you are actually aware of which way is up. Now the US-led Coalition had some 1801 aircraft of all sorts of different types, many of which could carry no bombs whatsoever. So let us see what could accurately be described as having been dropped on the Iraqi people both as military targets and as civilians. Guided Munitions : 19,948 munitions of various types, the bulk of which were laser guided bombs directed at military targets, in all only 804 cruise missiles were fired again primarily at military and Government targets. Targets were assigned as being Time Sensitive Targets of which there were 156 (4 Terrorist targets/50 Leadership Targets/102 WMD Site targets), and Dynamic Targets of which there were 686 all over Iraq (Mainly military bases, formations and armour) Unguided Munitions : 9,251 unguided bombs were dropped against military targets 20mm Ammunition : 16,901 rounds expended against military targets 30mm Ammunition : 311,597 rounds expended against military targets All the above is from the audited report of the Assessment and Analyses Division of USCENTAF. Now I will take their word over yours as to what aircraft did what, what it was carrying and whether or not it dropped it on anybody. The air campaign that covered the 2003 invasion basically ran from the attempted decapitation attacks on the 19th March and ended by the 14th April. Humanitarian flights started landing at Baghdad on the 16th April. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 20 Apr 10 - 07:20 AM Well, gol danged, T... Thanks fir proving my point... The essensce of my posts all along is that a shit-load of stuff was fired at the Iarqis and here you go and post just what I've been sayin' all along... That's why when you posted yer 14,000 dead number a few years back and other sources had the number much higher and as much as a million I was thinking that with that much stuff fired at folks that the US/UK armies must be some terrible shots... I mean, lets get real here, T... BTW, do have the death certifciates for the 14,000 and have you been to their grave sites??? Well, of course you don't and haven't... So when there are credible sources (Johns Hopkins, BTW, ain't no slouch) on the deaths it is unreasonable for you to think I can furnish you with death certificates and take you to each and every grave... I mean, that is well beyond either of our means... Yours or mine... Now back to the George Bush head issue... I don't recall you weighing in on whether or not George Bush's head would come off if he were hanged for war crimes??? Okay, I understand that you being a UKer you might not have enough information at hand on George Bush's head... So how about Tony Blair's head... I mean, he's quilty of war crimes, too... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 20 Apr 10 - 09:16 AM T... BTW, do have the death certifciates for the 14,000 and have you been to their grave sites??? As I stated earlier Bobert everything in my posts to this thread can be substantiated, death certificates, eye-witness accounts of incidents and where the people were buried. So much for Well, of course you don't and haven't... But that is all besides the point chum - you are saying that I am wrong and that over a million Iraqi civilians have been killed by US forces - All YOU HAVE TO DO IS PROVE IT But of course anyone who knows you, knows that its just a complete and utter crock of shit (rather like the Gold-Plated M-16), and that nobody is going to get jack by way of substantiation from you. Bush/Blair guilty of war crimes - No, absolutely not, I mean you guys made such a concerted effort to get GWB impeached didn't you? Care to let us all in on the secret as to how successful you all were? Care to tell us how many years Rove got sentenced to? Cheney is he going to prison or is he just enjoying his retirement? Tel leader of Al-Qaeda-In-Iraq isn't is he Bobert? Neither is his predecessor. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 20 Apr 10 - 01:18 PM No, T, that's where you are wrong... I don't have to prove it... You have to prove I am wrong... I have given my sources in the past and you haven't proven those sources to be wrong... All you done is pontificate and proclaim that yer sources are better than mine... That is rediculous argument on yer part... I mean, this whole "prove it" game is jsut a diversion away from the reality that Blix gave Bush and Blair the perfect out but they were too dumb to take it... That is why they are both guilty of war crimes... This was not a war of necessity... It was a war of choice... BTW, there was no such thing as al-qeada in Iraq until Bush and Blair opened the doors for them to come in... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 20 Apr 10 - 01:36 PM The best study a wall street fatcat hedge fund manager Boss Hogg can buy: "The 2006 Lancet report states only, "Funding was provided by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Center for Refugee and Disaster Response of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health." Soros is known for concealing his massive political donations, and the Lancet was complicit on this occasion." By the way, I like Mike Bloomberg. I wish he would run for president. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 20 Apr 10 - 03:37 PM So tell me then Bobert why did the John Hopkins Study refer to their numbers as an ESTIMATE. You keep dancing away from this point, but I am going to keep dragging you back to it. An ESTIMATE is an educated guess, the educated guess made by the man who was responsible for conducting and overseeing this "STUDY", was comprehensively discredited by IraqBodyCount.org, who made some fairly cogent and relevant points. When the 2006 Study was published (perfectly timed in an attempt to influence an election process somewhere) others working in the field challenged it and guess what Bobert your man at John Hopkins refused to release such details as to what questions had been asked; he refused to allow independent third party verification of the data recovered from what was a "batched sample" Iraq Body Counts ripping to bits of your source is here Bobert: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/reality-checks/ Here's the Summary: Summary A new study has been released by the Lancet medical journal estimating over 650,000 excess deaths in Iraq. The Iraqi mortality estimates published in the Lancet in October 2006 imply, among other things, that: 1.On average, a thousand Iraqis have been violently killed every single day in the first half of 2006, with less than a tenth of them being noticed by any public surveillance mechanisms; 2.Some 800,000 or more Iraqis suffered blast wounds and other serious conflict-related injuries in the past two years, but less than a tenth of them received any kind of hospital treatment; 3.Over 7% of the entire adult male population of Iraq has already been killed in violence, with no less than 10% in the worst affected areas covering most of central Iraq; 4.Half a million death certificates were received by families which were never officially recorded as having been issued; 5.The Coalition has killed far more Iraqis in the last year than in earlier years containing the initial massive "Shock and Awe" invasion and the major assaults on Falluja. If these assertions are true, they further imply: - Incompetence and/or fraud on a truly massive scale by Iraqi officials in hospitals and ministries, on a local, regional and national level, perfectly coordinated from the moment the occupation began; - Bizarre and self-destructive behaviour on the part of all but a small minority of 800,000 injured, mostly non-combatant, Iraqis; - The utter failure of local or external agencies to notice and respond to a decimation of the adult male population in key urban areas; - An abject failure of the media, Iraqi as well as international, to observe that Coalition-caused events of the scale they reported during the three-week invasion in 2003 have been occurring every month for over a year. In the light of such extreme and improbable implications, a rational alternative conclusion to be considered is that the authors have drawn conclusions from unrepresentative data. You have stated that over 1 million Iraqis were killed by US Forces - PROVE IT. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 21 Apr 10 - 10:44 AM The silence from Bobert is almost deafening |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 21 Apr 10 - 12:40 PM Estimate is the best that anyone can do, T... Estimates are generally considered to be numbers that fall within a 10% deviation... As fir silence, T... Give my poor ol' jillbilly butt a chance... Unlike you, I have to, ahhhhhhh, "work" (look that word up in Webster's if you need to...lol)... But back to sources... Hey, I'll be the first to admit that figuring out how amny Iragis died is purdy much a crapshoot... I tend to see the upper ends as more believabler strictly from the fire power... Back in military school we had to take M.S.T. (Military Science Training) so I understand the realtionship between fire power and casualties... Of course, maybe all the folks who were sent over there forgot how to shoot straight... I mean, that's always a possibility but even if they had forgotten the rounds had to go somewhere... Then we're down to the "if these assertions were true" whioch is what I have been saying all along here... That "if" become a monsterously bigass word here... So when you have various organizations trying put a number on the death toll and it comes down "if these assertions are trus" then for you to expect me to prove, or vice versa, that one study is the correct one over another is simply, ahhhhhh, lacking in all logic... BTW, you never got around to giving an opinion on whether or not Bush or Blair's heads would come off if they were hanged as a result of being found guilty of war crimes??? I'm thinkin' that Tony's wouldn't but Bush's probably wood but it's kinda like the various sources that we have each referenced on the death toll... Kinda conjucture... But it's okay for you to voice an opinion on the head/no-head question... I won't ask you to "prove it"... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 21 Apr 10 - 01:22 PM I am willing to give Bobert a pass on the heads on sticks comment. Obviously it was a metaphor for collecting a trophy. However he has a disdain for stats. That is unless he wants to prove a point using stats. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 21 Apr 10 - 01:41 PM Estimate is the best that anyone can do, T While that may well be the case IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER INFORMATION. It most certainly IS NOT the best that anyone can do in the situation where it involves bodies piling up on the streets. - People are missed and inquiries are made, the fact that they are missing is reported. - People know where bombs, cruise missiles, etc land and explode. they know depending upon location, time of day or night, who is working or living at that location and then inquiries are made into the well being of those people who should have been there. A search of the location will reveal bodiee, body parts, or human remains. - Those wounded in any such attack can verify who was and who was not present. - Hospital mortuaries register bodies brought in - Hospitals register who is brought in for treatment There is a whole raft of information and sources to define and quantify those killed. And groups such as Iraq Body Count, UN and the Iraqi Ministries have done a far more thorough job of this than John Hopkins "batch sampled" ESTIMATE, especially the Iraqi Authorities as they have had to bury the dead and figure they give is nowhere near the number the John Hopkins Study is talking about. Same was true with the figures bandied about for Dresden, first there were wild propaganda claims about 250,000 to 350,000. The Gestapo at the time made it betweeb 18,000 and 25,000 a group specially commissioned after the war put the number at between 25,000 and 30,000. Little or no conjecture when it comes to official Iraqi figures, as I said before they buried them and compiled the reports of those killed and wounded in incidents and those who later died in hospital. Those numbers are not ESTIMATES, they are about as FACTUAL as you can get them. Now you said that US forces had killed over 1 million Iraqi's - PROVE IT. PS Bobert If you cannot prove it, then just say so and stop using figures that you cannot substantiate and stop wittering on about it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 21 Apr 10 - 10:31 PM No, T... First of all, we're going to have to ask you to pee in the cup 'casue yer thinkerator is gummed up an we suspect that illegal drugs may be at play here... But seriously... Posting one organization's methodology is real nice... Maybe you'd go a little further and rather than use right wing blogs and web sites as yer compass try Googling other sites that might better expalin to you the methodology that others folks, such as the Johns Hopkin's study... Ya' know, somewhere in between my "upwards of a million" and yer "ahhhhh, maybe a couple dozen" is the truth and the truth is that one shit load of Iragis died... Can we at least agree on that??? (Note: Do not consider this as any changin' of thinkin' on my number... Jus' time to get beyond the same old stupid arguments) Now back to Blix and his stement to the UN... That's where the tire hits the pavement... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 22 Apr 10 - 12:25 AM Ah the same old Bobert tactic when you are being backed into a corner. 1. No, T... First of all, we're going to have to ask you to pee in the cup 'casue yer thinkerator is gummed up an we suspect that illegal drugs may be at play here... Coming from you that has got to be a joke!! 2. But seriously... Posting one organization's methodology is real nice... Nice it maybe, it most certainly is a damn sight more than you have EVER done in support of your ludicrous arguments. 3. Maybe you'd go a little further and rather than use right wing blogs and web sites as yer compass try Googling other sites that might better expalin to you the methodology that others folks, such as the Johns Hopkin's study... Another Bobert classic, please, please,please Bobert contact IraqBodyCount.org and tell them that you think that they are a Right Wing Blog. Don't know where either of you are located but on receipt of your message YOU will hear their howls of laughter down in your cellar. Iraqi Health Ministry; Iraqi Interior Ministry; WHO and other UN web-sites Bobert are similarly NOT BLOGS. 4. Ya' know, somewhere in between my "upwards of a million" and yer "ahhhhh, maybe a couple dozen" is the truth and the truth is that one shit load of Iragis died... Ah but Bobert that is not what you repeatedly state is it? You always come out with the lie that 1 million Iraqis were killed by US forces. I ask you again - PROVE IT. 5. Can we at least agree on that??? Most certainly we can agree that one shit load of Iragis died, 80% of them having been killed NOT by US Forces but by their fellow countrymen and fellow muslims. 6. Now back to Blix and his statement to the UN... That's where the tire hits the pavement... Attempted deflection of argument in order to change the subject, not buying it Bobert, you are as wrong on Blix (have you read his book by the way? - No, thought not) as you are on US forces having killed over 1 million Iraqis. We can discuss Blix any time after you have learned to read. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 24 Apr 10 - 08:30 PM US Soldier apologises to Iraq people after WikiLeaks 'Collateral Murder' video |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 24 Apr 10 - 08:33 PM QUOTE After the WikiLeaks story broke and he realised what he'd been part of McCord, together with Steiber, penned an open letter of apology to the people of Iraq, claiming such atrocitiies weren't the reason behind their enlisting. Reading from it on the World Today, McCord said: "I pulled your daughter and son from the van and when doing so saw the faces of my own children back home. "There is no bringing back all that was lost. All we seek is to learn from our mistakes. "The people of the United States need to realise what we have done and are doing to you and the people of your country. "We humbly ask you what we can do to repair the damage we have caused." McCord said he enlisted to go to Iraq and help the Iraqi people. "I was living in a fairytale, obviously," he said. "Our job was not to protect the Iraqi people, it was more along the lines to out-terrorise the terrorists." UNQUOTE |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 24 Apr 10 - 09:07 PM You can dismiss what I say as the same old, same old, T, but what the hell kinda stuff you puttin' in the pot... Yeah, the same old, same old on my side is that Dr. Blix reported to the UN Sdecurity Council on January 27, 2003 in which he said, and I quote, "the most important... is that the Iraqia are cooperating fully"... Exactly what is it in that partion of the report that you don't understand??? I mean, on this side of the pond "the most important" means "the most important" yet you have never answered wny in yer book "the most important" means nothing to you as you gleefully bounce from one "less important" flower to the next like a bumble bee??? You have evaded and avoided Blix's "most important" aspect of the report like it was a radiation pit... Hey, I know why... You can't bring yourself to say, "Geeze, maybe we didn't have to go to war afterall"... And I understand that... Sheet fire, man... If I had that much blood on my hands I'd prolly do excatly what you are doing and that is the same as yer buddies Tony "Balony" Blair and George "Cokehead" Bush: try to lie yer way outta this life into the next one... Problem is that killers don't get a next life... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 24 Apr 10 - 09:08 PM Apache helicopter gunners talk good game 'so the people don't seem real' QUOTE The soldiers joke and jeer as they shoot: "Look at those dead bastards," one helicopter pilot says. Another replies: "Nice . . . good shootin'." Reports yesterday said many veterans who viewed the footage made the point that soldiers cannot do their jobs without creating psychological distance from the enemy. One reason that the soldiers seemed as if they were playing a video game is that, in a morbid but necessary sense, they were, experts told The New York Times. "You don't want combat soldiers to be foolish or to jump the gun, but their job is to destroy the enemy, and one way they're able to do that is to see it as a game, so that the people don't seem real," Bret A. Moore, a former US army psychologist and co-author of the forthcoming book Wheels Down: Adjusting to Life After Deployment, told the newspaper. Military training is fundamentally an exercise in overcoming a fear of killing another human, Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman, author of the book On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, told the paper. Combat training "is the only technique that will reliably influence the primitive, midbrain processing of a frightened human being" to take another life, the colonel writes. "Conditioning in flight simulators enables pilots to respond reflexively to emergency situations even when frightened." UNQUOTE |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 24 Apr 10 - 09:11 PM "Military training is fundamentally an exercise in overcoming a fear of killing another human" Or, learning to lose respect for others people as human beings, so when they come back into 'normal' society, they have already dehumanised others. Q.E.D. The USA and other countries I will not name... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 24 Apr 10 - 09:17 PM Activists targeted as secrets exposed ACTIVISTS behind a website dedicated to revealing secret documents have complained of harassment by police and intelligence services as they prepare to release a video showing a US attack in which 97 civilians were killed in Afghanistan. Australian Julian Assange, a founder of Wikileaks, has claimed that a restaurant where the group met in Reykjavik, the capital of Iceland, came under surveillance last month and one of the group's volunteers was detained for 21 hours by police. Mr Assange said he had been followed on a flight from Reykjavik to Copenhagen by two US agents. The group has riled governments by publishing documents leaked by whistleblowers. Last week, it released the cockpit recording from a US Apache helicopter as it killed Iraqi civilians, including a Reuters photographer, in Baghdad in 2007. Mr Assange claims surveillance has intensified as he and his colleagues prepare to put out their Afghan film. It is said to concern the so-called Granai massacre, when US aircraft dropped bombs on a suspected militant compound in Farah province on May 4 last year. Several children were among the dead. Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar. End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar. In messages on Twitter, the internet social networking site, Mr Assange complained of "covert following and hidden photography" by police and foreign intelligence services. There have been thinly veiled threats, he said, from "an apparent British intelligence agent" in a car park in Luxembourg. "Computers were also seized," another member of Wikileaks said on Twitter, raising alarm among supporters with a subsequent post: "If anything happens to us, you know why . . . and you know who is responsible." Their apprehension is perhaps understandable. The US defence establishment has made it clear that it would like to silence the site. In 2008, the Pentagon produced a report on how to undermine and neutralise Wikileaks. This, too, emerged on the website. Mr Assange, who is believed to be 37, founded Wikileaks three years ago with a group of like-minded computer programmers, academics and activists. The site says it has had more scoops since then than The Washington Post in three decades and has become a clearing house for sensitive documents. It has exposed crimes from toxic dumping and tax evasion to extrajudicial murders in Kenya. Mr Assange says the 38-minute Iraqi video broadcast by the group is evidence of "collateral murder" by US forces. It shows a group of Iraqi men being killed by gunfire from the helicopter. A helicopter then shoots at a van arriving to take the bodies away. The film has been seen by millions and the website, which claims to exist on a shoestring budget, says it has received more than $160,000 in donations since its release last Monday. Broadcasting such a film could expose Wikileaks to prosecution in the US but the organisation appears to have put itself beyond the reach of court injunctions by existing only in the digital sphere. The Sunday Times |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 24 Apr 10 - 09:21 PM QUOTE Soldiers and marines were taught to observe rules of engagement, and throughout the video those in the helicopter call base for permission to shoot. But at a more primal level, fighters in a war zone must think of themselves as predators first, not bait, the report said. That frame of mind affects not only how a person thinks, but what he sees and hears, especially in the presence of imminent danger, it said. The fighters in the helicopter say over the radio that they are sure they see a "weapon", even though the Reuters photographer, Noor-Eldeen, is carrying a camera. "It's tragic that this all begins with the apparent mistaking of a camera" for a weapon, David A. Dunning, a psychologist at Cornell University, told the paper. "But it's perfectly understandable with what we know now about context and vision. Take the same image and put it in a bathroom, and you swear it's a hair dryer; put it in a workshop, and you swear it's a power drill." To a soldier or a pilot, it can look like life or death. "I worked with medivac pilots, and vulnerability is a huge issue for them," Dr Moore told the paper. UNQUOTE |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 02 Oct 10 - 12:59 PM Well Well Well, Looks like the Bobert approved Chicago tough guy approves of the Iraq War: Nov 7 2008: MR. RUSSERT: Now, knowing that are no weapons of mass destruction, would you still have cast that vote? REP. EMANUEL: ...I still believe that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do, OK?... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Greg F. Date: 02 Oct 10 - 02:49 PM Source, please, and that was two years ago. A great deal has changed since then. Can you please try to be corrent, if not cogent? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Little Hawk Date: 02 Oct 10 - 03:24 PM And coherent would be good too... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 02 Oct 10 - 06:06 PM I that an order boss? Congressman Rahm Emanuel, had worked hard to guarantee that Democratic candidates in key toss-up House races were pro-war. In this he was largely successful, because of the money he commands and the celebrity politicians who reliably respond to his call, ensuring that 20 of the 22 Democratic candidates in these districts are pro-war. So the fix is in for the coming elections. In 2006, no matter which party controls the House, a majority will be committed to pursuing the war on Iraq--despite the fact that the Democratic rank and file and the general voting public oppose the war by large margins. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 02 Oct 10 - 06:14 PM Co authored by By Rahm Emanuel and Bruce Reed: "We need to use all the roots of American power to make our country safe. America must lead the world's fight against the spread of evil and totalitarianism, but we must stop trying to win that battle on our own. We should reform and strengthen multilateral institutions for the twenty-first century, not walk away from them. We need to fortify the military's "thin green line" around the world by adding to the U.S. Special Forces and the Marines, and by expanding the U.S. army by 100,000 more troops. Finally we must protect our homeland and civil liberties by creating a new domestic counterterrorism force like Britain's MI5. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,mg Date: 02 Oct 10 - 07:23 PM I know it is terribly painful to think about, but in two hundred years, we will probably not be asking this question, any more than people now ask was the American Revolution a mistake (and I am not convinced it was totally necessary) or was the French Revolution a mistake. We all can see the human wreckage that things like this produce, but we don't look and say, well, what if we hadn't done this or that. Would people have been kept in semi or real slavery? Used as cannon fodder in aggressive wars? Fed into paper shredders? The future will thank everyone who sacrified their lives, in the home country, in the supporting troops, in the countries who gave of their finest and endebted themselves so that, in addition to whatever assets they acquired, such as oil, water, etc...they also eventually had some version of freedom unknown to their ancestors..and no, I would never ever impose democracy on a people coming out of a repressive situation. I would impose martial law and let them work their way out of it. No one 200 years from now will say was it worth it because they will know that it ultimately was. I heard a song a couple of weeks ago about a coal miner and the man is talking about his father who I think says I was the last one of our line to live in slavery...so when were your ancestors able to get out of real slavery, such as the AFrican Americans had to endure, or near slavery, such as the Russians, Irish, English serfs had to endure? mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 03 Oct 10 - 12:03 AM QUOTE We need to use all the roots of American power to make our country safe. America must lead the world's fight against the spread of evil and totalitarianism, but we must stop trying to win that battle on our own. We should reform and strengthen multilateral institutions for the twenty-first century, not walk away from them. We need to fortify the military's "thin green line" around the world by adding to the U.S. Special Forces and the Marines, and by expanding the U.S. army by 100,000 more troops. Finally we must protect our homeland and civil liberties by creating a new domestic counterterrorism force like Britain's MI5. UNQUOTE Pay for it? What you talking about Charlie? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 03 Oct 10 - 04:54 AM 800 Up |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 03 Oct 10 - 06:02 AM Take a look at Iraq between 1979 and 2009 Iraqi population 1979 - 12.8million people income per capita over $10,000 - Saddam came to power. Iraqi population 1986 - 16.2million people income per capita $2,174 - Saddam's War with Iran. (In 7 years the population has increased by 26.5%, or by an average of 3.8% per year) Iraqi population 1991 - 17.9million people income per capita $705 - Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. (In 5 years the population has increased by 9.5%, or by an average of 1.9% per year) OK so tell us all where Saddam has been "leading" his country? All sweetness and light radiating from Baghdad, an Iraq where everyone has clean drinking water, everyone has electricity 24 hours a day. If you believe that you live in cloud-cuckoo-land. It was an Iraq in which incomes have shrunk over 90%, an Iraq that lives in terror, an Iraq in which no criticism is allowed on pain of death. Iraqi population 1996 - 22million people income per capita $450 - Iraq under Saddam + UN sanctions. (In 5 years the population has increased by 22.9%, or by an average of 4.6% per year) Iraqi population 2003 - 25.2million people income per capita $500 - Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist Regime removed from power. (In 7 years the population has increased by 14.5%, or by an average of 2.1% per year) Iraqi population 2009 - 31.2million people income per capita $2,108 - Result of "our near two decades of attacks and crippling sanctions" (In 6 years the population has increased by 22.6%, or by an average of 3.8% per year) The figures above do not lie, now you tell me on the trends evidenced are things getting better or worse? Compare population figures between Iraq 1979 to 2009 and your own country. Has your country's population increased by 144% - I somehow doubt it. USA 1979 225,055,000 - USA 2009 310,395,000 increase of 38% in 30 years UK 1979 56,242,000 - UK 2009 61,126,832 increase of 8.7% in 30 years Iraq 1979 12,800,000 - Iraq 2009 31,200,000 increase of 144% in 30 years. And this is the country where "estimates" proclaimed that 500,000 children under the age of 5 had died because of the effects of UN sanctions and the gullible swallowed it (An estimate is not the same thing at all as a recorded and documented death followed by a funeral). The country where "estimates" (batch sampled at that) proclaimed that between 1 and 1.2million people were killed in between March 2003 and November 2006. Yet for all this the population grew by 144% compared to the population of the place in 1979. Yet it was in the period of UN sanctions and invasion that the greatest increases in population took place, rather odd don't you think? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 03 Oct 10 - 09:59 AM Nothing else to DO, mate, nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more .... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Greg F. Date: 03 Oct 10 - 10:14 AM Attabioy, Saws- more made-up bullshit with no source. Keep up the good work. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 03 Oct 10 - 08:21 PM He knew that Amos and I were going to be at the Getaway this weekend, Greg, and so he figured that this would be a great time to show his ass yet again here in Mudville... I pity the guy myself... He has serious mental problems... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 05 Oct 10 - 02:52 PM Well Well Well, A prime example of "serious mental problems": "But wait, fir an extra $2.95 (plus shipping and handling) you'll get documentation that the US government had promised the Kurds they would support them against Saddam... Hmmmmmmk???... Heck, the US even provided the bad gas that was used against the Kurds... Even rewarded Saddam ****afterwards**** with all kinds of booty, including a gold plated M-16 rifle... Hmmmmmmmmm???? You got it wrong, Sawz... But what is new here???" I got my $2.95 ready to go whenever Bobert has the documentation he claims he has. Or was that made up bullshit with no source? Hmmmmmmmmm???? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 05 Oct 10 - 08:04 PM M-16, Ak-47, Daisy air rifle??? Don't much matter... That's what people who don't have good arguments do... They nitpick spelling and details that have nuthin' to do with nuthin'... Keep at it... Every time you do this, Sawz, you are just addin' yet another layer of evidence to the position that you are flailin' here... I'm kinda embarrassed fir ya'.... You are profving over and over that a fool is not known until he clicks on "submit"... Maybe you'd be better off above the line 'cause yer in over yer head down here... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 05 Oct 10 - 09:49 PM You said you had the documentation on whatever things were given to Saddam and proof that the US provided the bad gas. So it don't really of you try to backpedal by changing what you said. The fact is you brag about your accuracy and special knowledge of things and can't produce squat. The real matter here is you said you could do something that you can't do in a arrogant, belicose manner. Now what is your definition of someone like that? Someone who shoots his mouth off and can't do what he said? Here is how you described someone you believe to be that way: Bush came into the White House as a *blowhard* and he has never let up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 05 Oct 10 - 10:02 PM **********************Earth to Sawz*********************** **************Betty Ford is looking for you*************** ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 12 Oct 10 - 10:48 AM http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/11/basra-iraq-oil-city-transformed |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 12 Oct 10 - 10:51 AM What is her phone number Bobert? I will give her a call and see what she wants. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Oct 10 - 10:58 AM I think what she is really dying for is a date with Chongo.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 13 Oct 10 - 02:02 AM Maybe Betty Ford has the documentation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 13 Oct 10 - 08:02 AM Swaz... Don't play coy... You know darned well what the ol' gal wants... Fit starters??? Pee in the cup... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: andrew e Date: 13 Oct 10 - 05:46 PM I haven't read through all of this thread, but "Iraq" was never a mistake. It was all planned by the "powers", and they got just what they wanted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 13 Oct 10 - 08:25 PM Christopher Hitchen's Biography "Hitch-22" has an interesting view on Iraq during the ramp-up to the invasion. From his perspective the war was floated on poor arguments, but the moral core grounds for invading were very sound, given the briuutality of It is conceivable that had it been presented by a less manipulative cadre, the US would have supported it more. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 13 Oct 10 - 09:26 PM I wouldn't have cared if was Obama was president back then and he knocked on my door and tried to sell me the war sittin' right there in my livin' room... My answer still would have been a resounding, "No!!!"... Not even "No, thanks..." Just, "No!!!"... Now if Obama had said to me that Saddam was a very bad man and asked if it was okay to off him then I mighta considered that but war??? Hell no!!! B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 13 Oct 10 - 10:41 PM By executive order, Presidents just can't just blow away the leader of a country. It has to be done in the context of war, not assassination. They have to send their troops in to be killed off by the other guy's troops and so on. Ever watch the old revolutionary war reenactments? Two armies face each other. Everybody waits for the leaders to bring their sword down. One row on each side stands up to shoot and be shot at while another row squats down to get out of the way and reload. Total stupidity and you cannot just shoot the commander of the other side and end it immediately. That would be counter to the rules of war. Thousands of foot soldiers have to die to see which general won. I agree wars are stupid but I don't think they ever will go away. Now if you read up on what Obama said, he was always for the war in Afghanistan but not for the war in Iraq. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 13 Oct 10 - 11:01 PM No, they can't, Sawz... But they can order up an invasion of an entire country and kill upwards of a million innocent folks that ain't Saddam??? I don't buy that argument, Sawz... There is no logic or morality to it... Get real... Presidents do what they want to do... The US killed President Diem in Vietnam, didn't it??? Might of fact, the US kills all kinds of people for all kinds of reasons... But arguing that the only way to get Saddam was to murder on heck of a lot of innocent people, many of them women and kids and old people because we have some law is a flawed argument... And mudering on heck of a lot of people because Sawz says that wars won't go away is another seriously flawed argument... As for Obama and Afganistan??? That's purdy messed up on his part... I understand that he was politically boxed in but it does not make the Afgan War any less immoral... As for wars never going away??? Until people get a mindset that they are absolutely not acceptable, yeah, we'll have 'um but... ... in an ever tribalized and global world economy their days are numbered... At least for the countries that consider themselves to be modern and industrialized... But until moral people can have a piece (peace) of the microphone that culture won't change... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 13 Oct 10 - 11:07 PM Saddam could have gotten out alive and not one person would have died. He would have lived in luxury the rest of his life. All of his family would be alive. He chose otherwise. Damn man, I would have opted out even if I was right and Bush was wrong. Did the fool really think he would win? He got the big head. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 14 Oct 10 - 02:54 PM "And mudering on heck of a lot of people because Sawz says that wars won't go away is another seriously flawed argument" "I agree wars are stupid but I don't think they ever will go away." What is seriously flawed here? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 14 Oct 10 - 08:14 PM Oh, so now we are to believe that the US was to be trusted??? Hmmmmm??? Given the history in the region Saddam had every reason to not trust US... I mean, we didn't exactly have a good track record there... Saddam did what he was backed into having to do... He was bluffing Iran because he lived in daily fear that Iran was going to attack him... Now here was the good ol' US lieing A with a cowboy for presdient who everyone knew was itching fir a new war ("Wag the Dog") and Saddam did the only thing he could... Another completely bogus argument laid to rest... As fir wars... Think about it, Sawz... We are now into a globalized, interlocking world economy... That changes a lot of stuff... One of which is the real possibility that war is for 3rd worlders and not for major players... It is too disruptive to the moving of goods, services, labor, materials, etc... War interupts that flow... So we have an opportunity here to break the cycle... But as long as we have a culure that thinks, "Geeze, we hate war but it is inevitable" then we will have, ahhhhhhh, wars... Time to rethink rather than reload... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 28 Oct 11 - 09:57 AM I still never said wars won't go away. This is another example of Bobert putting words into other people's mouths while he accuses others of twisting the facts. 'we have a culure that thinks, "Geeze, we hate war but it is inevitable"' Bobert makes up a phrase, puts it in quotes and attributes it to others in an effort to stir up a verbal war. He thrives on his stinkbombs and brags about how many posts were made to such and such a thread. Have another toke and a pull on tha jug Bobert. Stay in outer space. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 28 Oct 11 - 10:22 AM Larry King interview with Joe Biden Feb 2010: "I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. [I missed that event]You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government. I spent -- I've been there 17 times now. I go about every two months -- three months. I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society. It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 29 Oct 11 - 03:06 AM How's Iraq doing since I last checked? "Iraqi population 2009 - 31.2million people income per capita $2,108 - Result of "our near two decades of attacks and crippling sanctions" (In 6 years the population has increased by 22.6%, or by an average of 3.8% per year - per capita income has increased 400%) Iraqi Population 2011 - 30.39million people, income per capita $3,800. So slight fall in population and income increased by 80% in two years. Now what were the predictions mentioned in this thread? The US would never leave? They will ALL be home by the end of this year. The US went into Iraq to steal Iraq's Oil? Of the operating, development and exploration licences awarded so far, and there have been dozens of them, how many have gone to US Companies? ONE and that only in partnership. The US pays for oil from Iraq at exactly the same price as everyone else does - Some theft eh? Who did get the licences? In the main Iraq's traditional trading partners - Russia, France, China. Iraq would fall apart? Hasn't happened and it doesn't look as though it is likely to happen. Was Iraq a mistake?? - Hell No. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: akenaton Date: 29 Oct 11 - 03:40 AM Did you ask the women Teribus? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Stringsinger Date: 29 Oct 11 - 11:26 AM It was good that the US were booted out of Iraq after trashing their country, destroying their museums, having stolen money from the reconstruction, while Blackwater, the inhuman contractors remain there to bully innocent Iraqis, the US Embassy about the size of the Vatican remains to dominate and oppress the Iraqi people and misleading stats, propaganda and accounting about what is really going on there persist. Iraq was a waste of innocent lives, infecting the country with radiation from bombs, useless corruption by the US military, and a whopping debt for the US which would have been better spent on infrastructure, education, economic equality while Wall Street robs our citizens, hospitals and affordable health care. In short, the incursion into Iraq was a total waste. I give little credence to any peculiar article of propaganda that turns up in the Guardian or elsewhere and these erroneous stats which sound like they come out of someone's behind. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 29 Oct 11 - 09:27 PM I love it... Now after those of us who who told you so have been 100% vindicated ya'll wrongies just never seem to get enough of having it rubbed in your faces... So to Sawz and T-Bird... Rub, rub, rub... Want more??? Keep posting to this thread... I'll bag up so cat poo to add to the rest of the rub... Ya'll is some sick people... Bad 'nuff being a wrong but ya'll gloat in ya'll's wrongness... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 30 Oct 11 - 04:54 AM Eh Bobert could we have that again in some sort of intelligible form? As for being wrong? Almost everything that you predicted has not come to pass. Where is the Arab Spring in Iraq? Doesn't need one does it? It was gifted its opportunity to embrace representative democracy in 2003. Think that what is happening in Ba'athist Syria today is bad? Just think how Saddam's Ba'athist Iraq would have reacted. Stringsinger anything at all by way of substantiation for what you claim to be the case in your little rant?? Anything to dispute the population figures or reported per capita earnings? I got mine from census information and the per capita earnings from economic reports So Iraq is infected with radiation from bombs is it? What bombs used against Iraq were capable of irradiating anything? I would love to hear the response to that question, but somehow doubt that I will get one. Did I ask the women comes the bleat from Akenaton Which women specifically Akenaton and ask them what? Are they pleased that they are no longer being pulled off the streets to be raped by the Fedayeen Saddam under the direction of Saddam's sons? Are they pleased that because of the departure of Saddam's regime that they can no longer be branded as prostitutes and beheaded without trial in public just because of the supposed political stances of the male members of their families? Shia Arab women in Iraq will today be as oppressed as they ever were in Saddam's time, they are oppressed not by the political rulers of the country but by the supposed religious dictat of their own menfolk. Is Iraq bettwe off today than at anytime since Saddam Hussein came to power? Of course it is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Donuel Date: 30 Oct 11 - 05:33 AM Most madmen fail to see their own irrationality. The few who do see, tend to blame objective mistakes made by others. It is but a rare individidual who examines their life and positions and atones by doing the right things for restitution and not retribution. I salute the rare individual. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 30 Oct 11 - 11:56 AM Upwards of a million Iraqis slaughtered by the US/UK to get rid of Saddam, T??? Hell no, Iraq isn't better off... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 30 Oct 11 - 12:05 PM Prove it Bobert, that is all you have to do - Prove it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 30 Oct 11 - 02:17 PM Upwards of a million Iraqis slaughtered by the US/UK to get rid of Saddam, T??? There were very few deaths that can be blamed on the coalition. There were many who died (though much less than a million) at the hands of the various insurgents, and many more would have died but for the efforts and great sacrifice of the coalition force. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 30 Oct 11 - 03:27 PM Oh really??? Where on earth did you get that mythology, Keith??? Fox??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 30 Oct 11 - 03:37 PM It is no myth that the death toll, especially of civilians, was very slight in the war against Sadaam. The horrors came after that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: akenaton Date: 30 Oct 11 - 05:01 PM I would agree with that Keith, but those who destroy the prevailing system of law and order, must bear responsibility for the resulting bloodbath. Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Libya,will form a Muslim axis, more will join them, There is a "fifth columb" in most western countries. The exercise was an unmitigated disaster, not only for the dead in these countries, but for the "Free", "Democratic", West. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 30 Oct 11 - 05:08 PM Other than making a proclamation, Keith, what are your sources... With 30,000 sorties flown over Iraq after the initial invasion it's not credible that the death toll was slight... Granted, the tribal warfare that the invasion brought about killed a lot of folks who wouldn't have been killed had the invasio not taken place but to dismiss the 30,000 sorties and millions of rounds of ammunition that were fired by the US/UK as "slight" defies logic... Maybe you'd like to provide your sources... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 31 Oct 11 - 02:18 AM "With 30,000 sorties flown over Iraq after the initial invasion it's not credible that the death toll was slight..." Bobert confuses the word "sorties" with the word "missions" 30,000 sorties means that on 30,000 occasions an aircraft took off and then that aircraft landed out of that number of flights there were only 505 assigned to bombing missions and those were almost totally against military targets the remainder were against time sensitive Government targets. Bobert wittered on about 3,000 missiles per day (Patriots IIRC) raining down on Baghdad in fact just over 800 missiles were fired in the entire conflict. Now then Bobert can explain how many of those 30,000 "sorties" were flown where the aircraft flying those sorties were not even armed, transport flights, helicopter troop movements, recon flights, flights by tanker aircraft required for air-to-air refuelling, etc. World War II = Tens of thousands of aircraft, over 1.5 million tons of bombs dropped on Germany alone and that resulted in slightly less than 600,000 fatalities in six years. Iraq = 1800 aircraft of all types used for less that six months, with far lower weapons payloads and Bobert wants to convince us that this effort by 505 aircraft resulted in fatalities exceeding 1 million people - laughable. Oh and before you wriggle Bobert your now totally discredited John Hopkins Study put those deaths down to US Bombing, the object of the George Soros financed study was after all to discredit the US administration of GWB and affect the 2004 Presidential election and the 2006 mid-terms. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 31 Oct 11 - 09:55 AM I don't have to "wiggle", T... The blood is on your hands... Not mine... Maybe you can provide us with your sources that that the US/UK invasion was only responsible for a "slight" number of deaths... But you won't because there is no such source... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 31 Oct 11 - 10:36 AM From, Iraq Body Count. Following the six week "Shock and Awe" invasion phase (March 19 - May 1, 2003), which alone caused the deaths of some 7,400 civilians, the violent death toll has steadily risen year-on-year. There were 6,332 reported civilian deaths in the 10.5 months following the initial invasion in year one, or 20 per day; 11,312 in year two, 55% up on year one's daily rate; 14,910 in year three (32% up on year two); and a staggering 26,540 in year four (78% up on year three, and averaging 74 per day). Not counting the 7,400 invasion-phase deaths, four times as many people were killed in the last year as in the first. And from the invasion to the present, at least 110,000 civilians have been wounded, 38,000 of them during year four. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 31 Oct 11 - 05:41 PM Sorry Bobert I am unable to respond but I refer you to Iraq Body Count for figures which agree roughly with everybody else's except for your discredited John Hopkins Study and the ORB one both of which are ripped apart by IBC.org. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 31 Oct 11 - 05:44 PM That source is so bogus that it is all but laughable... Google up "Iraq War Deaths" and you'll see that these numbers are the lowest of the lowest of the low... I mean, if just took the average of all the sites on the internet it would be on the plus side of 500,000 with several over a million... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 31 Oct 11 - 07:47 PM Only one study that admits that their figures are only estimates put the number at over 1 million. Estimates of those that may have been killed Bobert are not in fact deaths. A distinction that seems to be far beyond your grasp or comprehension All the rest seem to vary between 92,000 and 223,000 but all are actually based on bodies not batch sampled "estimates". Care to tell us Bobert why those who conducted those batch sampled surveys refused to allow peer review of their data, or provide anyone with the details of the questions asked? Iraq Body Count have two sets of figures, their lower figure represents actual deaths verified and substantiated by two independent sources, their upper figure represents actual deaths substantiated by only one source. From cross-checks with Iraqi Government Agencies and Ministries their figures have proved to be correct within + or minus 13%. Wikileaks War Logs could also add an additional 15,000 - so 112,726 + 13% + 15,000 = 142,381 civilian deaths Iraqi War Logs (wikileaks) - 109,032 to 2009 Iraqi Health Ministry - 104,658 to 2009 The Associated Press - 110,600 to 2009 Iraq Body Count - 178,000 civilian and combatant deaths to 2011 Iraq Family Health Survey - 151,000 "estimated" to 2006 Lancet John Hopkins Study - 654,965 "estimated" to 2006 Opinion Research Business - 1,033,000 "estimated" to 2007 Iraqi Security Forces - 16,623 to 2010 Iraqi Insurgents - 26,320 to 2011 Media & Aid Workers - 281 to 2009 U.S. Armed Forces - 4,404 to 2010 MNF - 318 to 2009 Contractors - 1,478 to 2011 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 31 Oct 11 - 07:55 PM Just using T-Bird's numbers, if you take the average of Iragis killed the average is in the 500,000 range... Just what I said... Thanks, T... You proved my point... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 01 Nov 11 - 01:34 AM No Bobert to correct your statement: .....if you take the average of Iraqis estimated to have maybe have been killed the average is in the 500,000 range If on the other hand you use actual number for those who had in fact been killed then the average is 103,158. But as previously stated "Estimates of those that may have been killed Bobert are not in fact deaths. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 01 Nov 11 - 08:48 AM Yer no good at math either, T... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Stringsinger Date: 01 Nov 11 - 03:20 PM And by whose estimates? The military who did the killing? Foxes are guarding the henhouse again. Truth is we will never know because the facts are being covered by propaganda. Bodies were not allowed even to be shown on TV. This is a shadow war that was never accepted unconditionally by the American people and the real casualty of the war are not just the amount of innocent iraqi civilians but the credibility of the US as an honest international participant. The military industrial complex showed us that they were not to be trusted as the rest of the world is finding out. Now Blackwater remains and the contractors outnumber the soldiers who are leaving. The Bush and Obama administration has not learned the lesson that world peace and justice is not achieved by sanguinary means. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 01 Nov 11 - 04:30 PM Oh no Stringsinger not just the military, or Fox News. There were after all only too many reporters from Western MSM who were out there hoping to see the US humbled and defeated and were telling us all that the "war" could not be won, the fact that after may 2003 we weren't fighting one seems to have escaped their notice. They're the same ones doing the same in Afghanistan, a band wagon they jumped on when the US defeat in Iraq didn't pan out and the "Surge" worked in 2006/2007. Bet Petraeus must laugh his socks off every time he sees Joe Biden. Lots of different organisations collected date regarding deaths in Iraq - that is actual data Bobert not batch sampled ESTIMATES. Blackwater does not even exist any longer and besides neither the Blackwater of old or any successor is no longer licenced to work inside Iraq and have not been for some time now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST Date: 02 Nov 11 - 01:06 PM Yer no good at math either, T..." Huh?? Let's take a look at the figures shall we Bobert? Iraqi War Logs (wikileaks) - 109,032 to 2009 Iraqi Health Ministry - 104,658 to 2009 The Associated Press - 110,600 to 2009 Iraq Body Count - 178,000 civilian and combatant deaths to 2011 Iraq Family Health Survey - 151,000 "estimated" to 2006 Lancet John Hopkins Study - 654,965 "estimated" to 2006 Opinion Research Business - 1,033,000 "estimated" to 2007 Iraqi Security Forces - 16,623 to 2010 Iraqi Insurgents - 26,320 to 2011 Media & Aid Workers - 281 to 2009 U.S. Armed Forces - 4,404 to 2010 MNF - 318 to 2009 Contractors - 1,478 to 2011 Now remove all the ESTIMATES because they mean the square root of S.F.A. and you get: Iraqi War Logs (wikileaks) - 109,032 to 2009 Iraqi Health Ministry - 104,658 to 2009 The Associated Press - 110,600 to 2009 Iraq Body Count - 178,000 civilian and combatant deaths to 2011 Iraqi Security Forces - 16,623 to 2010 Iraqi Insurgents - 26,320 to 2011 Media & Aid Workers - 281 to 2009 U.S. Armed Forces - 4,404 to 2010 MNF - 318 to 2009 Contractors - 1,478 to 2011 As we are talking about IRAQI Deaths we remove the "others" and we get: Iraqi War Logs (wikileaks) - 109,032 to 2009 Iraqi Health Ministry - 104,658 to 2009 The Associated Press - 110,600 to 2009 Iraq Body Count - 148,557 civilian deaths to 2011 Iraqi Security Forces - 16,623 to 2010 Iraqi Insurgents - 26,320 to 2011 Psst Bobert the last two giving Iraqi combatant deaths are from a common source so number of sources is 5 not 6 That lot totted up comes to 515,790 from five sources therefore the average is 515,790 divided by 5 = 103,158 [posted by Teribus] |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 02 Nov 11 - 01:24 PM Yo, T... Pee in the cup... The Opinion Research Business alone is over a million yet you say that all of them added up to 500,000 or so??? Fuzzy math... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 02 Nov 11 - 02:30 PM Bobert-" the average of Iragis killed" Teribus-" .....if you take the average of Iraqis estimated to have maybe have been killed the average is in the 500,000 range If on the other hand you use actual number for those who had in fact been killed then the average is 103,158. Bobert- " all of them added up to 500,000 or so???" AVERAGE is when you add them up AND DIVIDE BY THE NUMBER OF VALUES ENTERED. YOU brought up averages, T. gave you back a comment, and YOU distorted what he said. "A lie in the pursuit of something worthwhile is still a lie." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 02 Nov 11 - 05:08 PM Nah, bruce... T gave a list of various organizations that have attempted to put a number on this... If you take the entire list that T gave and average it out it's closer to the 500,000 number... T conveniently only used the lower numbers... Do the math... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 02 Nov 11 - 05:19 PM 109,032 104,658 110,600 178,000 151,000 654,965 1,033,000 --------- 2,322,255 divided by 7 = 331,750 average which happens to be closer to the 500,000 average that I claimed than the low ball number that T clings to... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 02 Nov 11 - 06:40 PM No, Bobert. He excluded specifically the estimates, for reasons he gave. He is right, you are wrong IN THIS CASE. To continue to argue when you have been caught in a falsehood devalues what ever else you might say, even when it is worth hearing. I seem to recall someone saying "I mean, these morons must think that everyone out there is as dumb as they are to believe that utter crap... I don't even read folks crap that begin that way because if the first 4 or 5 words are an out right lie than I know what is going to follow... ...... Just don't bullshit me with lies right out of the gate... It's insulting to anyone with an IQ greater than that of a box of animal crackers..." So YOU need to watch the fast and loose way you make claims as to facts. There were NOT more Palestinian refugees in 1948 than the entire population of Mandate Palestine. Because YOU see a picture that YOU don't see minorities in, a group is not racist- it was pointed out that 40% of those on the stage WERE black. The OWS have been shown with people with M-16s, yet you make claims for them being peaceful-the opposite of the tea party- without knowing what you are talking about, it seems from your standard rants- they are no more OR less peaceful than the Tea Party. As long as you insist on one set of rules for those you agree with, and another for those you oppose, even your good points are made to look unreasonable. Since your standard method of replying to a request for facts is to call someone racist, or blame the right wing for the faults of the world, you have lost a lot of credibility that your experience and knowledge would otherwise entitle you to. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 02 Nov 11 - 06:59 PM In other words, he get to pick and choose "his facts" but I don't get to do the same??? Uh huh??? Sounds like the same old story... BTE, why do "T's facts" get priority, especially in light of: Aluminum tubes Uranium cakes from Niger WMDs Saddam being part of 9/11 Ignoring Hans Blix etc... Seems that I was on the correct side then but now you and T think that "T's facts" are somehow "new 'n improved"... You both lack credibility here... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 03 Nov 11 - 07:26 AM No, Bobert, those comments of yours have been addressed, and you ignored all comments. YOU don't get to pick out NON-factual points to prove your point, and then deny others the right to use factual ones. As I said, your use of non-substantiated opinion as facts, and refusal to defend those opinions with facts, while ignoring all facts by others has damaged your credibility. Your experience entitles you to some respect, UNTIL you insist that lies have to be true because they support your opinion. THEN any statement you make has to be looked at far more critically, and many of your perhaps valid points are discarded for lack of obvious factual basis, even if you could support them if you tried. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 03 Nov 11 - 08:57 PM SSDD, bruce... Hey, man... Stick to stuff that you know about... I mean, T published right here in Mudburg a list of various organizations that have estimated the Iraqi war deaths but then went on to disqualify the ones that didn't fit his narrative... That is fact... Anyone with any critical thinking skills just needs to read the past few days posts and will see that T (and you) want to rig the game... Here are some other rigged games: Aluminum tubes Uranium cakes from Niger WMDs Saddam being involved with 9/11 45 minutes to Iraqi invasion of the US Blah, blah, blah... Blah, blah, blah... and... Blah, blah, blah... B~ |
