BS: US & British war plans blocked

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 01:50 PM

McGrath: Ya' ever wonder why the US is so against a World Court? Hmmmmm?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 01:27 PM

Of course I'd like to see any bastard who makes war against other people and murders innocent people brought to trial. There are a lot of them around.

When two countries have a quarrel, and one of them helps arm and finance a neighbour to make war on the other, that's what I mean by a war-by-proxy.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 01:23 PM

Teribus - The guys on the other side of any issue one feels strongly about always sound wrong, ill-informed, prejudiced, and like they are being "apologists" for evil.

It's the nature of the human mind to see it that way. We're all subjective creatures, based on our past experiences and upbringing.

So don't get too worked up about it. You'd probably like me fine if you knew me under some normal situation and we didn't happen to get around to discussing politics.

Go ahead and argue your side as well as you can and I'll argue mine.

I just don't consider Saddam to be nearly as important or as dangerous as you do...it's not that I am apologizing for him. I consider the USA to be very important and very dangerous. I understand that you don't see it that way (the dangerous part, I mean), and I don't find that surprising. There are obviously going to be any number of people out there whose faith rests on the assumption that the USA is the protector of the world. After all, Rome had many supporters, didn't it? Millions and millions of them.

Just consider me to be a Briton on the northern side of Hadrian's Wall. That's why we see it differently. And we will probably continue to do so until the dollar ceases to exist or Hell freezes over, whichever happens first.

If you had been born in some other location, you might be enthusiastically supporting Saddam right now and/or joining Al Queda. Would that make you an evil person? Not if you did it in all innocence, believing you were fighting against evil.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 01:07 PM

Well, danged, T-ster, that's any easy one. With Bush having signaled his intention to *whack* folks a year ago in his stupid "axis of evil" speech, if I were Iraq, I would do everything I could to defend myself. Just as the US has done with smallpox and anthrax vaccines.

To do less would have been irresponsible on Saddam's part.

As to your other assertion that the inspector's are not in Iraq to try to find hidden weopons, I'd just ask what the heck are they there for?

Come on, T!!!

If you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 01:05 PM

Pleased to hear that you do not seek to excuse Saddam's attack on his neighbour (in this case Iraq). As someone on another thread asked you with regard to Saddam's attack on Kuwait - Do you think that he should be brought to account for for these criminal acts of aggression.

To describe the Iran-Iraq war as a war-by-proxy against Iran by America completely ignores the back-ground to the conflict and the primary reason for American involvement.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 12:48 PM

"Now go and compare that with Saddam's track record."

Neither of them come off exactly smelling of roses, especially taking Vietnam into account. And in one way the first Gulf War (Iraq versus Iran) was a war-by-proxy against Iran by America, so if you're balancing the two against each other it belongs on both sides of the scale. (And that is not in any sense seeking to excuse Saddam's attack on his neighbour.)

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST,jaze
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 12:24 PM

Frankly, I don't understand why it is so difficult for people to understand why so many Americans would like (1)proof and (2) UN backing in this. Americans are afraid and justly so. Never before have we had to worry about people using horrendous diseases against civilians. To go it alone will only anger and alienate more of the world and make the US look like a world bully. This-- we're the strongest so we can do any thing we like-- attitude is surely firghtening to other countries. Whose next?? From the sounds of the speech last night I'd say Iran and N. Korea better prepare. I predict that if we do this without full UN support, the terrorist attacks against the US and it's citizen's will be unimaginable. Is that not a legitimate concern? Helping countries like Kososvo,and Kuwait had a nobility to it. Where is the nobility in this?

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 12:21 PM

Bobert,

Hmmmmm, #947 is based on the incorrect premise that the job of UNMOVIC is to find Iraq's WMD.

The information that intelligence services around the world might have with regard to Iraqi weapons programmes and the existence of WMD on Iraqi soil may not necessarily pinpoint their location or status.

I'll give you a Hmmmmmm of my own Bobert (who is not an Iraqi apologist).

Saddam Hussein and his buddies have said that they do not possess any weapons of mass destruction be they nuclear, chemical, biological or bacteriological - Right?

The back end of last year Iraq bought/attempted to buy out Germany's stocks of Atropin (about one million ampules if memory serves me correctly). Thats an antidote used to counter the effects of chemical weapons (nerve gas, that sort of thing) - Still with me?

Now as chemical, bacteriological and biological weapons form no part of the US or NATO's ordinance inventory - What does he need these massive stocks of atropin for??

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 11:45 AM

Impressive list JennyO, none of which involve use of weapons of mass destruction.

Now go through your list and remove those examples where the US is acting:

a) As part of a duly authorised UN force. (6)

b) Where they are supporting an existing ally.(10)

c) Where their contribution has been at the request of the duly constituted government of that country.(12)


You say:

"I can't think of one instance where these bombings led to the establishment of humane democracies in these countries."

Bombing places does not make them democratic - it never has. But immediately from your list - China (1945-46 & 1950-53), Korea (1950-53) - Taiwan and South Korea. The US bombings for the period 1950 - 1953 was a UN conflict.

Bosnia and Kosovo it certainly stopped a great amount of killing and democratic governments have been established.

Afghanistan now has an interim government in place with the prospect of becoming democratic.

Did you guys bomb Grenada? A guy I used to work with lives there and was having a barbeque when the Marines landed, he and his guests were quite bemused by it all. A platoon of US Marines came bimbling through his back yard - they looked equally bemused - he asked them if they fancied a beer, but they refused - said they were busy. He didn't mention anything about any bombing - it's not a big place I would have thought he would have heard it.

Sudan in 1998 was something Clinton had against powdered milk and Osama Bin Laden. Same with Afghanistan the same year although I don't think powdered milk had anything to do with that attack.

Now go and compare that with Saddam's track record. One question you may like to answer - How many Americans are living outside the US as refugees - There are estimates of between 3 to 4 million Iraqi's living outside Iraq as refugees - Now ask yourself why.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 11:35 AM

Teribus:
No, I'm not an apologist for the Iraqi governemnt. I am too busy alternating between embaressment of my own and apologizing for its short sighted and anti-human foriegn policy.

So, let me ask you a simple question that should not require one of your trademark "War and Peace" length answers:

Lets say that Bush does want to find a peaceful solution. And there are weapons inpectors in Iraq. Right? Well, if the goal is to disarm Iraq by finding their WMD, should they have them, then why in the name of the Lord wouldn't the US tell the inspectors where to look? Hmmmmm, #947? If the US has the knowledge and isn't providing it, then the only assumption that can reasonably be made is that they really don't want a peaceful solution afterall. Hmmmmmm, #948, and counting...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 11:12 AM

Missed the previous discussion, Teribus, so I don't know what currency the term had before the Bushies started using it to mean "nasty stuff that the other guys have".

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 11:04 AM

Iran is in that list. Still shooting down the Iranian airbus on July 3rd 1988 wasn't technically bombing, since a missile was used and the plane was airborne at the time. It still resulted in 290 dead civilians. And of course the USA wasn't ar war with Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 10:43 AM

APC - neither are WMD. Napalm was described as a terror weapon, Agent Orange although horrendous was not deployed as a chemical or biological weapon.

I can remember this being discussed previously on the forum. The discussion was quite detailed and extensive as most things are here.

Again if memory serves me correctly the upshot of it was that the stuff was deployed purely with the intention to defoliate jungle, not to kill people and at the time no-one knew what the side and long term effects would be. As soon as they were known its use was abandoned.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: JennyO
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 10:41 AM

Teribus, since WW11, the U.S.A. has bombed 21 countries:

China (1945-46 & 1950-53)
Korea (1950-53)
Guatemala (1954 & 1960 & 1967-69)
Indonesia (1958)
Cuba (1959-61)
Congo (1964)
Peru (1965)
Laos (1964-73)
Vietnam (1961-73)
Cambodia (1969-70)
Grenada (1983)
Lebanon (1983-84)
Bosnia (1985)
Libya (1986)
El Salvador (all of the 1980's)
Nicaragua (all of the 1980's)
Panama (1989)
Iraq (1991-????)
Sudan (1998)
Afghanistan (1998 & 2001-2)
Former Yugoslavia (1999)

I can't think of one instance where these bombings led to the establishment of humane democracies in these countries.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 10:32 AM

Napalm? Agent Orange?

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 10:00 AM

So from the Blair Dossier we have photographs of a missile engine test site (page 29 Figure 6 of the Dossier) that clearly shows a new engine test bed constructed by the Iraqi's after UNSCOM had supervised the dismantling of the other two engine test beds. JIC evaluation of the new test bed, based on size and position, indicated that this could be used for testing more powerful engines than would be required for missiles that Iraq would be permitted to retain.

From Dr. Hans Blix's Report to the UNSC on the 27th January we have the discovery in Iraq of 380 rocket engines (sorry got the figure wrong in my post above) that had arrived in Iraq post 1998 in clear contravention of existing UN sanctions. UNMOVIC also found technical evidence of moves on the part of Iraq to increase the diameter of existing Al-Samoud II and Al-Fatah missiles from the allowed 600mm to 760mm - again in clear contravention of a UNSC Resolution that restricts any Iraqi missile to a maximum range of 150km and a maximum outside diameter of 600mm. Documentary evidence is currently in the possession of UNMOVIC that Iraq has carried out a test firing of both missile types at ranges greater than the 150km allowed under UNSC stipulations.

I would venture to suggest that there is not a vast difference between what UNMOVIC have discovered with regard to Iraq's missile programme and the evaluation made by JIC. McGrath of Harlow contends that this does not constitute a counter example - I'd dearly then love to know what would. The JIC evaluation presented by Tony Blair to the House of Commons also predicted the shift by those involved with the Iraqi missile programme from liquid fuelled to solid fuelled engines. 380 of them have been illegally imported by the Iraqi's. The reasoning given by the JIC is that solid propellant affords greater ease of storage, handling and MOBILITY. They are also quicker to take into and out of action and can stay at a high state of readiness for longer periods.

Other inconsistancies include the removal from inspected sites of equipment, decommissioned under UNSCOM supervision, to other locations where the equipment previously decommissioned has been repaired and put back into use - currently the useage of this equipment is still under investigation.

What degree of co-operation is being enjoyed by UNMOVIC is due solely to the current military presence in the region. The cost of keeping them there being marginally greater than if they were quartered in their normal bases.

Still not addressed by MGOH is the request for details relating to governmental interference with UNMOVIC inspections on the part of the USA and UK.

No doubt Saddam's leading apologist will come up with something given time, but I tend to think that nothing UNMOVIC reports, no matter how damning, or no matter how thought provoking, will ever be sufficient.

I would ask JennyO for some examples of US use of weapons of mass destruction please?? Don't trot out Hiroshima and Nagasaki - completely different scenario to what is faced by the world today.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 08:47 AM

What I said was that the allegations about specific sites on the ground where weapons development work was going on turned out not to be accurate. The example Teribus gave didn't actually constitute a counter-example.

The weapons inspectors have said that there are still questions to be asked, and that they need to take their time. There seems no reason why they shouldn't be given as much time as they feel is necessary. All right, it is no doubt expensive and inconvenient keeping an Armada ready to invade, but it will be even more expensive and inconvenient, especially for those who get killed. And it'd be just as expesnive and inconvenient maintaining the occupation force in Iraq assuming the invasion goes according to plan.

So far as I can see the only reason for pushing ahead at this stage, rather than in a year or two years, is that that could be politically awkward for Bush. Does anyone really beieve that that this should be allowed to have any significance at all in relation to war and peace?

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: JennyO
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 08:06 AM

Teribus, you said

'I love the last bit.."just not to use them on someone". This phrase when used in conjunction with Saddam Hussein, given his track record is just absolutely laughable.'

What about the U.S's track record? They don't exactly hold back on using THEIR weapons of mass destruction, do they!

Jenny

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 05:04 AM

Little Hawk stated in one of his posts above:

"Iraq made a first strike on Kuwait in 1991, and paid the price for it."

Did it really? The UN manadate covering Desert Storm unfortunately only covered the expulsion of Iraqi troops from Kuwait - That was accomplished and a cease fire agreement signed - note cease fire agreement. Under the terms of that cease fire agreement Iraq undertook to do certain things detailed by a number of UNSC Resolutions - Not one of which has been complied with and verified to the satisfaction of the UN Inspectors put in place at the time.

The onus is on Iraq to disarm and prove to the satisfaction of the world community that is has done so - To date it has failed to do so, it has been given yet another chance to do so. I reiterate Dr. Hans Blix's comment that it is not the job of the UNMOVIC teams to find Saddam's weapons of mass destruction or find proof of Iraqi programmes that will lead to Iraq acquiring those weapons at some time in the future. The job of UMOVIC is to inspect and verify that Iraq has disarmed.

The security of the United States and its citizens has been threatened - of that there is no doubt - just listen to the declared and documented statements of Osama Bin Laden and his Al-Qaida organisation. They cannot do anything in isolation, to accomplish what they wish requires support. Remove that support and convincing countries, that may consider providing that support, against adopting that stance is essential not only for America, but for the world in general.

Kevin asks me:

"Fine, then come up with a single example of its being true."

He completely ignores the single example I gave him but qualifies what I have to come up with - Kevin perhaps you should advise UNMOVIC as to what parts of existing UNSC Resolutions they should ignore. With regard to Saddam's missile programme the Blair Dossier and JIC evaluation of intelligence regarding that site were spot on.

Bobert asks:

"..maybe some one will explanerate it to this ol' hillbilly. Ahhh, like the US has been furnishing socalled *intellegence* to the Arms Inspectors who in the last 6 weeks have made over 600 inspections at some 290 sites and not found anything that the US *intellegence* siad was there. Right?"

The jury is still out on that Bobert and Hans Blix mentioned that to the UNSC on 27th of this month. Analysis and testing of samples has not yet been completed.

LH, MGOH and Bobert have become nothing more than the apologists for one of the most repugnant regimes on this planet. A position they will adhere to irrespective of whatever rational questions or doubts that are raised.

If you are in any doubt about what I have said immediately above, just read again a couple of sentences from LH - you know "the stuff" from LH that so many of you seem to like so much:

Number 1:
"Any nation, especially any nation under constant threat of attack by larger nations, has the absolute right to have in its possession whatever weapons it is capable of arming itself with. It just doesn't have the right to a "first strike" on its neighbours."

Not only does this statement ignore past history, it denies it and laws of probability.

Number 2:
"As far as I'm concerned, Saddam Hussein's government has the same right to possess weapons of mass destruction as does the government of the USA...just not to use them on someone."

I love the last bit, "...just not to use them on someone." This phrase when used in conjunction with Saddam Hussein, given his track record is just absolutely laughable.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 02:45 AM

Their credo is, "The U. S. ...always wrong!"

DougR, that's really small of you. (I'm not going to comment on Claymore's tactics because he already knows how I feel about them.)

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: DougR
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 02:22 AM

Claymore: you are fighting a losing battle if you expect the majority of Mudcatters to choose the U. S. government over any other. Their credo is, "The U. S. ...always wrong!"

Don't give up, though, it makes for intersting reading.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 02:06 AM

Hey Don F, I appeciate in main the points you have made and for the most part agree with some portions of them. But the blanket assertion that those who agree with the Bush Administration's stance are sitting back and letting others do the thinking is the stupidist thought so far evinced. The elitist thought that "We are Thoughtful, They are Sheep" is beneath you. I questioned the Hell out of the previous Bag of Puss who infected the White House, when you folks were sitting back, just accepting what was said and done.

The long term moral abuses of the Clinton era led to the long term corporate scandals. His failure to set accounts for the Cole led to 9/11, and so on. Talk about sitting back...

Now make no mistake, there are some folks who make assertions that do not hold water (Axis of Evil speech "causes" N Korea build up; Someone does a blue clicky on an opinion article written in a Communist [with big C] magazine, about the Big Lie that has something to do with incubator scam and the twits who clicked the article didn't have enough memory cells to remember that the Wash Post had above-the-fold articles on the Kuwaiti Ambassador connection within two weeks of the original story and THREE MONTHS before first bomb fell - ain't facts a bitch).

As an interesting world view I would suggest an op-ed in the Sunday Wash Post, by an Italian reporter, Gianni Riotta. (Don't know how to do a blue clicky but an Italian comment has got to be better than a seven year old Communist one; haven't those twits heard they lost?)

My point is simply this, I tend to take the word of my own government over that of either a Korean wackoid dictator or an Iraqi wackoid dictator or any other nation, but not to slavish aquiessence. I have fought in several conflicts and do not advocate what I haven't experienced. I expect the three branches of government to engage in vigorous debate and consultation. I will watch for a sequence of facts which may cause me to agree or to disagree with the issue, and make my representatives aware of my choice. But I absolutely assure you that I am not sitting back...

Incidently, I recall the original quote ended, "May she always be right, but my country right or wrong" - (we don't want any of that slavish acceptance now would we?).

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: DougR
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 01:54 AM

L.H.: I think it is finally dawning on you what the stategy is! You indicated that a country would thing twice before attacking if the aggressor country KNEW the country being attacked had nuclear weapons! That's exactly the strategy the U. S. is using with Iraq! Hit them BEFORE they get the nukes. Which is what Clinton should have done with N. Korea! Congratulations!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 05:59 PM

Yup. That's what happened in Germany. Those who unquestioningly accepted the word of government served Hitler, Goering, Goebbels, and the rest of the rotten crew...and soon found themselves living in a dictatorship. And those who questioned the government and spoke out, as some of us are doing, either had to flee the country or were arrested, and generally executed in the long run. They were accused of being...unpatriotic. It's an accusation that can prove fatal under some circumstances, regardless of whether it has any merit.

I'd call it "guilt by slander". Remember Joe McCarthy? He would gladly have ordered the execution of millions, given the chance, and there are those now who think just the way he did. What worries me is that some of them may be in very high places of power.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 04:29 PM

Little Hawk strikes again. I like your stuff!

On the matter of "US aginers" and patriotism and who's un-American and who isn't, it's been quoted a number of times on various threads, but it seems that it needs to be repeated and repeated until it finally sinks in—and some people need to tattoo it backwards on their foreheads so that every time they look in a mirror, they can read it again. The well-known part of the statement is "My country, right or wrong." And that's what you usually hear it, or see on bumper-stickers.   But the full statement is, "My country, right or wrong; if right, to keep it right; if wrong, to set it right."

[Now, every time it's been quoted on Mudcat, the next dozen posts argue over who said it, apparently missing the point of the statement itself. It's been attributed to several people and it doesn't really matter, so for crap sake, let's not have a long discussion of where it came from. Just read it and think about what it says.]

People who don't want the government to turn the United States into the World Bully, or who don't like the direction the country is going and try to do their duty as citizens to "set it right" are, to my mind, a helluva lot more patriotic than those who sit back and accept anything and everything the government tells them. It was assumed by the Founding Fathers that this country would have an "informed electorate" and that governments in general are not to be trusted. That's explicitly set forth in the Declaration of Independence, and the limits that the Constitution places on what the government can and cannot do further reflects the concept. Those who unquestioningly accept the word of government—any government—should not be surprised when they suddenly find themselves living in a dictatorship.

Question authority!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: diesel
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 03:59 PM

Troll - your comments :What if we go in and he hits our troops with the chemicals and biologicals that y'all all say he hasn't got?
What will you say then?


I'ld say they shouldn't have gone in.

If we go in and it's a purely conventional war, I'll be the first one to admit that I was wrong and that we had no business there in the first place.

We're trying to say that before it's too late with thousands dead.

Everybody - step back from the brink, pause, and let the inspectors do their work.And if you can help by telling them where to look - especially if it helps your case - then help them!


Unless of course you're just making it up !

rgds

Diesel

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 03:10 PM

Excellent point, Little Hawk.

I find it incledulous that Iraq is cooperating at all given the fact that Bush has made it clear that he is in the mood to *whack* a few folks. If it were me, I'd be spending what energy I had getting ready to defend myself and wouldn't exactly want my attacker to know how I planned on doing it.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 02:45 PM

Any nation, especially any nation under constant threat of attack by larger nations, has the absolute right to have in its possession whatever weapons it is capable of arming itself with. It just doesn't have the right to a "first strike" on its neighbours.

It is the USA which is now claiming that right.

Iraq made a first strike on Kuwait in 1991, and paid the price for it.

The USA is now announcing its intentions to make a first strike on Iraq, a country the USA has already badly crippled over the last ten or more years.

In either case, it's naked aggression. As far as I'm concerned, Saddam Hussein's government has the same right to possess weapons of mass destruction as does the government of the USA...just not to use them on someone. That's why this whole brouhaha is so hypocritical in the first place. The American government which feels free to invade anyone it pleases and terrorize anyone it wants to, cannot accept a world in which its potential victims are allowed to arm themselves in a similar fashion to the way America does. What arrogance. What presumption.

It is because North Korea already has such weapons that the USA is disinclined to launch a first strike on them. This is quite a sharp lesson to other small countries. If you want the USA to keep its hands off you, get some nukes in your armoury, and do it fast would appear to be the lesson.

No one hastily attacks a country with nuclear weapons strike capability...not even the USA.

And when in history has a large aggressor been allowed to completely inspect the entire military infrastructure of its next target on the ground from A to Z...before launching an invasion? Wow. Talk about having your cake and eating it too!

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 02:17 PM

Ahhhh, troll, the "axis-of-evil" blunder by Bush preceeded NK pronouncement that it was withdrawing from the Nonproliferation Treaty by a year.

Ya' see, when a country as powerful as the US telegraphs their intentions to *whack* you, it doesn't exactly give you those warm and fuzzy feelings that makes you sit back and happily wait the *wacking*.

Like, what are you missing here?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 01:43 PM

I'd rather see some country that has a neutral stance be the ones to go in and look to avoid any appearances that we might have planted the chemicals and biologicals there ourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Troll
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 01:37 PM

So enlighten us Kevin. Where am I wrong? I wasn't aware that any of the promised fuel oil was turned back until after the nuclear program was revealed. Are you claiming that NK did not resume its nuclear program until after the US and others Failed to kep their end of the agreement?
Elecidation, please.
RE. the anthrax, I mis-spoke. There were several tons of the chemicals that are used in the manufacture of anthrax. They were supossed to be destroyed by Saddams people under the cease-fire agreement, but there is no record that they ever were.
Now for the $64 question.
What if we go in and he hits our troops with the chemicals and biologicals that y'all all say he hasn't got?
What will you say then?
I'll tell you right up front, that if we go in and it's a purely conventional war, I'll be the first one to admit that I was wrong and that we had no business there in the first place.
How 'bout it Bobert, Kevin, Carol; are you willing to do the same if the opposite is true?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 12:08 PM

Well, Danged. Here is what I don't get and maybe some one will explanerate it to this ol' hillbilly. Ahhh, like the US has been furnishing socalled *intellegence* to the Arms Inspectors who in the last 6 weeks have made over 600 inspections at some 290 sites and not found anything that the US *intellegence* siad was there. Right?

Now, Powell is huffing and puffing about all this stuff that Saddam is hiding and says, once again, that the US has *intellegence*. Kind of reminds me of a guy at the poker table with nothing who can't bring himself to *call* so he keeps on betting. Hmmmmm, Part #762?

So last week the US provided even better (Ha) *intellegence* and what did the inspectors find? Nothing but an olf chicken coup. Oh, how scarey. Maybe Saddam is planning on attacking the US with samonila infected chickens. Wow! That ought to get a few million folks to go running thru the streets in fear, you know... like they did in all those old horror movies with big bugs knocking over the Empire State building.

The centerpiece of Bush's push for war several months ago was the what we now learn fell into the *Big Lie* category. Nuclear Weapons. Remember Condi Rice's, "When are we gonna take Saddam seriously? When we see the mushroom cloud?". Man, what PR hysteria crap. Yep, the report yesterday pretty much rules out what a lot of us have thought all along. Condi Rice must have been on *shrooms* herself that night!
What a crock!

And how about the *Big Lie deJour*, Bobert? Well, looks as if the story is that Saddam is going to give up his WMD to bin Laden's buddies. Yeah, right! Okay, first of all, if he has anything at all he's going to save it to defend his country. And second of all, unless you just landed from another planet, there is no love lost between Saddam and the extremeists so why would he give them something that they might darned well turn around and use on him?

And so now we hear that the US is going to turn over yet more *intellegence*. Hmmmmmmmm? Like don't ya' think that if they had any real *intellegence* that they would have provided it first so that the would have that "smoking gun" that Bush wants so badly?

Lastly, you heard this here first. What we are going to get over the next week are lots of ariel photographs which prove absolute;ly nothing at all but look real sinister and scarey. But, hey, there's something about ariel pictures that seem so very convincing, even if they are of more and more chicken coups. Yeah, that ought to get another few million folks running andf screaming thru the streets of New York.

Beam me up...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 11:26 AM

Sorry Troll. What can I say. We're all entitled to define "patriotism" in our own way. I wouldn't have brought it up, but DougR was accusing people who are against war with Iraq as being "US aginers", which is, I guess, DougRese for being against the US. What's good for the goose is also good for the gander.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Bagpuss
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 11:24 AM

Troll, there were several tons of anthrax found after the last gulf war? And we just left it there???? and expected them to dispose of it themselves? Surely if it was found then, we would have destroyed it ourselves?

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 11:21 AM

I could be wrong though

Check the record and you will find yiu are.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 11:19 AM

My point about the bluff is that it wasn't a bluff. It appears pretty clear that he has no intention now, and never has had any intention, of not making war on Iraq regardless of the views of everyone else on the planet.

"All the allegations about sites on the ground identified in Tiny Blair's dossier have been shown to be completely unjustified."

That statement is simply Not True.

Fine, then come up with a single example of its being true. A single site which was identified in that dossier as being a place where weapons of mass destruction were being stored or manufactured, and where this proved to be the case.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Troll
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 11:17 AM

Right, Carol. Anyone who doesn't agree with your position is "anti-american". I had thought better of you but I guess that I was misled.
It seems to me that there were several tons of anthrax found after the first Gulf War. Where is it now? There seems to be no record of it or of its destruceion.
Bobert, I may be off on my timetable, but I think that the US began to "reneg" on the deal with NK AFTER they had admitted to having a nuclear program, which program had been started soon after NK signed the Carter-brokered deal in '95 or'96. I could be wrong though.
As far as France goes, the French will come around. Why? because their permanant seat on the Security Council is the only thing they have that lets them believe that they are a a "great power" and a force in world affairs. If they vote against carrying out the resolution that they have already voted in favor of, and the US goes on without UN support- which it will-, then the UN will have been proven to be virtually toothless and there goes Frances delusions of greatness.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 10:40 AM

These days, DougR, I think it's people like you who are anti-American. Those of us who don't want our current "government" to destroy whatever is left of our liberty and humanity through lies, deceit, and naked agression are the ones who are pro-US.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 09:04 AM

So far the Bush bluff has got the inspectors back into Iraq with the unanimous backing of the UNSC.

So far the Bush bluff has suceeded in securing the co-operation of the Iraqi Authorities to an unprecedented level, albeit with the reservations highlighted by Dr. Blix & Dr. AlBaredi (Note they are Blix's and Baredi's reservations not those of America or of the UK)

Reading what was in Hans Blix's report:
183 Rocket Motors that have been shipped to Iraq post 1991. Now they shouldn't be there, should they? Especially if Iraq was complying with the agreements they made after Desert Storm.

The high specification aluminium tubing, still under evaluation with regard to ultimate end useage - although Hans Blix himself is of the opinion that they are not related to centrifuges that could be used in the manufacture of weapons grade material. But once again they have been imported into Iraq post 1991 and they should not be there.

"All the allegations about sites on the ground identified in Tiny Blair's dossier have been shown to be completely unjustified."

That statement is simply Not True:

The UNMOVIC Inspectors have documentation relating to Iraq's missile programme that put it in non-compliance with UN Resolutions (Continued development of Al-Samoud II & Al-Fatah missiles). Indications of suspected Iraqi activity in this field were specifically mentioned in the Dossier that Tony Blair presented to the House of Commons. Hans Blix made specific mention of this proscribed programme in his report, he mentioned the more powerful motors and Iraqi technical papers that showed work towards development of those weapons with an increased diameter - indicative of an operational requirement for longer range or greater payload.


"...are the estimates of the amount of various weapons materials which were at one time said to be in existence correct, and how is it possible to verify the claims which have been made by the Iraqis that these have been destroyed."

The Iraqi documentation from the source of supply clearly states the quantity made and the number of rounds, bombs, rockets made. Iraqi documentation from their military clearly states the amount of this ordanence used. Iraqi and UNSCOM documentation details the amount subject to controlled and verifiable disposal. Taking those three sets of figures there is a shortfall - It is the responsibility of the Iraqi Government to explain exactly what has happened to this inventory - It is not the responsibility of the UNMOVIC Inspections Teams to find it, their responsibility ends with identifying that the discrepency exists.

"(Past claims by the Iraqis about the size of their stocks of weapons and so forth, which could well have been exaggerated by them for propaganda reasons, are for some reason now accepted without question.)"

Why would the Iraqis exaggerate the size of their stocks of weapons in "Secret" and "Confidential" papers? After all these would not, by intention, be in the public domain. An ordinance factory does not make 300 of something and supply paperwork for 600 - somebody in charge of a weapons storage depot has to take charge of this shipment, somebody has to organise and supply transport to get it from A to B. While only too willing to provide Saddam with a pretty lame excuse to explain the shortfall, can you honestly without the slightest doubt in your mind these things do not exist?

Hans Blix has stated that the flow of information from intelligence sources has been forthcoming and has produced results.

"Whatever the Iraqis may be doing, it seems pretty clear that the work of the inspectors has been consistently obstructed by our governments."

Specific documented examples of this consistant obstruction please Kevin - Neither Hans Blix nor Dr. AlBaredi made any reference to it in their respective reports.

Hans Blix stated that the Iraqi Declaration of December 7th was not a true and accurate account - The Iraqis knew full well that it had to be under the terms of UNSCR 1441 - They have been given a chance to revise that document.

Quite a few in this forum obviously are willing to take at face value Iraq's contention that they have no weapons of mass destruction - what then is their objection to the U2 flights, they have after all have nothing to hide - correct???

Oh yes the electoral schedule - utterly preposterous. So far not one single prediction from the gloom and doom brigade has come to pass.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 06:57 AM

"They pled for more time, and I suspect they will get it"

The same way Bush was only bluffing?

The only reason there is any hurry in all this is that Bush has an electoral schedule, and a war this spring fits into it, and a war in one or two years would be likely to screw it up.

Read what is actually in that report, and not just the headlines and the spin doctors' versions of it. It is clear that the Iraqis are cooperating with the inspectors in all kinds of ways, and that nothing of any significance has been found to indicate the existence of these weapons of mass destruction. All the allegations about sites on the ground identified in Tiny Blair's dossier have been shown to be completely unjustified.

However there are still questions to be asked, and more time is needed to follow these up. I particular, are the estimates of the amount of various weapons materials which were at one time said to be in existence correct, and how is it possible to verify the claims which have been made by the Iraqis that these have been destroyed. (Past claims by the Iraqis about the size of their stocks of weapons and so forth, which could well have been exaggerated by them for propaganda reasons, are for some reason now accepted without question.)

It would all be a lot easier if the USA and the UK actually shared with the inspectors the information they claim to have. Whatever the Iraqis may be doing, it seems pretty clear that the work of the inspectors has been consistently obstructed by our governments. The ultimate act of obstruction of course would be to pull the plug on their work and go to war.

I trust Tony Blair will remember that, whatever George Bush might have been able to fix for himself and the USA in regard to war crimes, he could still be open to charges, if he makes war in defiance of the United Nations Treaty and his international obligations.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 04:59 AM

Any credit for baulking US & UK "War Plans" should in all fairness go to Turkey, Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, not France or Germany.

One thing I was pleased to hear in Dr. Hans Blix's report to the UNSC was his recognition of the instrumental role played by the current American Administration in getting the inspectors back into Iraq. And yes the inspectors will get the additional time they have said that they require - no point in letting them go back if you are not going to let them do their jobs.

LH is great at drawing parallels with Germany in the 1930's - the one he makes no reference to is the one where if either Britain, France or America had taken the same stance with Germany that the current American Administration has taken with Iraq - Hitler would have been stopped in his tracks in 1936.

From reading some of the posts above, it would appear that many believe that the Ba'ath Regime in Iraq are totally harmless and if left to their own devices all will be well. The potential for disaster posed by countries such as Iraq, Iran and North Korea does not stem from them attacking the USA, it stems from their willingness to support terrorist groups materially, technically and financially. Now, I suppose many would totally dismiss that as completely outwith the realms of possibility - in the light of the attacks of September 11th, the President of America cannot afford to take that chance, his primary responsibility in taking up office is to ensure the safety of the United States of America and it's people.

The countries described as the "Axis of Evil":

North Korea - Extremely poor due mainly to the paranoid, corrupt, totally inept, self-perpetuating regime in power. They have a track record of signing agreements that state they will do one thing, when in actual fact they fully intend doing the opposite. They will sell anything to anybody so long as it keeps the current rulers in power.

Iran - Formerly the driving force of Islamic fundamentalism and strongly anti-American. They have openly supported Islamic Terrorist groups operating in Palestine, Israel, Lebanon and Syria. Not so much in the forefront now due to massive internal demands for reform. This is mainly due to the fact that Iran is currently the only one of the three countries where dissent and political debate is possible

Iraq - Well documented track record of aggression against both internal ethnic groups and its neighbours. Well known reputation for completely ignoring treaties, agreements and accords. For years they quite openly pursued programmes to develop and acquire weapons of mass destruction. Like Iran they openly provide support for terrorist groups. The ruling Ba'ath Party in Iraq is probably the most brutally repressive regime in the area.


Various people post and tell the world and it's dog that any forthcoming conflict is all about oil, quoting Iraq oil reserves as the prize for the victor. Doesn't really add up, Iraq pre-1991 only accounted for one-seventeenth of the worlds oil production and it's absence from the world markets post Desert Storm has hardly been noticed. Afghanistan was about Caspian oil - I'd love to know how. Currently there are four major land pipeline projects in progress, three in Russia (The worlds largest producer of oil, with the greatest reserves) and one in Azerbijan and Turkey. America does not import all that much oil from the middle east, its main foreign supplier of oil is Venezuala. The three Rusian pipelines all have a common terminal point, Murmansk - the main export target is the USA. The Azeri-Turkish pipeline provides an alternative route for Azeri oil exports to their current single outlet through Russia and Georgia (this pipeline runs through Chechnya).

Threads on this, and associated topics, are riddled with theories regarding "Bushes" alterior motives and the machinations of big business - Have those same proponents of those theories examined possible motives for the stance being adopted by France and Russia, particularly with respect to possible regime change in Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: DougR
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 01:01 AM

I would think you US aginers would have found some encouragement from the reports made to the Security Council today by the two chief inspectors. They pled for more time, and I suspect they will get it, though I doubt they get what they want. Blix evidently is looking at two years and the head of the Atomic Energy organization wants forever it seems.

Anyone who listened to the reports and still thinks Saddam is not a threat is, in my opinion, just not tuning in.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Jan 03 - 11:15 PM

hahhaha Carol. Love the messup!

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Jan 03 - 10:17 PM

I ruined the punchline. The reason the father said that was because when the dog heard the fart, he (the dog )let out a loud yelp and ran to hide under the table.

(sigh) It must be getting late.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Jan 03 - 10:15 PM

Your 27 Jan 03 - 09:46 PM post, Nicole, made me grin a little (I'm a bit ashamed for finding humor in this because it really shouldn't be funny), because it reminds me of something I saw in a movie once.

There was a family with a very old and feeble servant. They were having tea. The very old servant carried in the tea, all bent over and walking very, very slowly. It looked like she was going to drop the tea at any moment. Then she let out a really big fart.

The father said, "Whenever Mrs. (can't remember her name) breaks wind, we beat the dog."

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: NicoleC
Date: 27 Jan 03 - 09:46 PM

Wasn't that article written about the time Clinton bombed the hell out of Iraq to divert attention away from his personal life? The ongoing lie from that, of course, is that Saddam "kicked out" the inspectors -- when actually Clinton withdrew them right before the bombing.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Jan 03 - 09:13 PM

Carol, the Big Lie machine in 1998 in all likelihood was pumping out a entirely different lie than the one we are currently being told. It's a machine that doesn't stop.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Jan 03 - 09:04 PM

I found this part of the article in your link, Don, particularly interesting in light of the comparisons that are being made between Saddam and Hitler...

Whenever Hitler was about to launch a new war of aggression, he would accuse his opponents of atrocities that never happened. These lies would be repeated over and over again by official spokesmen and the press. The Nazi government would then launch a pre-planned attack. This Hitler technique is called the "Big Lie."

U.S. war-makers used this same technique as part of preparations for the 1991 war against Iraq. And seven years later, the "Big Lie" machine is going full speed once again.

Thas article was written in 1998. Clearly they were planning this war long before 9/11.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Jan 03 - 05:43 PM

Ain't facts a bitch ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Jan 03 - 05:27 PM

Exactly, Nicole. Here's the scoop on that, in case anybody missed it---> Twing!

Don Firth