BS: Got WMDs?

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Gareth
Date: 17 Jun 03 - 04:10 PM

Well Don, I am afraid if the continue to refer to thinking people as war nicks, and Bush appologists then they will have to live with the consequences.

I asked earlier if anybody was happy to see Saddam remain, and the silence was deafening.

As with the honarable exception of Bobert, no alternative was suggested.

It reminds me of the story of the Scientist, the Engineer, and the diplomat stranded on a desert Island, with only tins of baked beans to eat, and no can opener.

The Scientist suggests heating a can gently do that the top eases off.

The Engineer suggested using a stone to pubture the top.

"Ah ! ays the diplomat "If we keep talking to the tin we can persude the tin to open it'self."

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Jun 03 - 05:32 PM

GUEST, 9:30 am:

So you ain't into Jesus, aaaah? Well, that's yer perogative. Hey, howz 'bout the teachings of Jesus? No good there, either? Hmmmmm? Other than the Bush adminisrattion, what do you believe in?

As fir supporting "suicide bombers". Like I've said before, show me any post where I have said that and I'll kiss yer butt in the middle of the Mudcat Square. Fir real. Talk about ranters! Whew! When you can't find something concrete on someone to rant about, you just go 'head and make something up.

Hmmmmm, seems like there are a few folks that you hold dear that have the same affliction. It's called lieing, BTW.

Doug:

Nah, T ain't got me, T's got you. What T does is assign lengthy homework assignments that involve hours and hours of reading. But when Don gives T a similar assignment, T doesn't like it. Hey, I have offered to do a little page fir page swap with you, Dougie. I'll read yer stuff if you'll read mine. Nah, didn't think you'd want to do that... But the offer is a standing one.

And secondly, Doug, while we're talking about my pal, T, let me tell you the game that T likes to play. T will argue over how many angels can stand on the end of a pin. Yeah, T likes to keep the discussion right in the middle of T's magnifying glass. Well, what's going on in the world ain't gonna get solved with such narrow vision.

Let me ask you a question, Dougie. When ythe Bush administartion was making its push for war it made darned sure that the media was in bed with them. The question is, when the country was moving toward war/no war, how many clergy people were hired by the media. Or peace organizers. Or professors of sociology. None! Nothing but military men were hired! That says something....

T:

Didn't want you to feel left out. Hey, I voted Green so I knew my guy wasn't gonna make it. But I am less angry about the hyjacking of democracy by the Bush folks than his evil and greedy policies both at home and abroad....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: TIA
Date: 17 Jun 03 - 06:01 PM

The Saddam Apologists have been thoroughly trounced, and their straw strewn to the winds.

Those who preferred that Saddam remain in power have been propped up (had to 'cause the straw was wilty) and swatted down.

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jun 03 - 06:08 PM

Ah, Gareth...since that silence is deafening you, and thus causing you pain...I will give you a response.

Yes, I would be happier to see Saddam remain...than to see what has happened: international law violated brazenly by a superpower, a small country invaded illegally and smashed up by that superpower, the United Nations defied illegally by that superpower when it (the U.N.) would not fall obediently into line and support unprovoked aggression, the infrastructure and society of a small country devastated by weapons of mass destruction (B-52's, cruise missiles, etc...), thousands of people killed unnecessarily and millions having their lives turned upside-down in the process unecessarily, and so on...

It's the same approach to World politics that was used by Nazi Germany, who also invaded dictatorships on occasion, supposedly for the most laudable of reasons (according to the Nazi propaganda).

I would be much happier to see Saddam remain, weapons inspections continue, and problems be solved by further peaceful negotiation, not war.

This is because I am not emotionally involved in supporting or justifying the latest war, while you are. Thus we tend to focus on different aspects of the "facts" while justifying our particular emotional predispositions in the process.

This does not in ANY way indicate that I support Saddam's form of government in Iraq or anywhere else, but that I consider unprovoked aggression by superpowers (or minor powers) to be a far bigger problem in the World than Saddam's government was, that's all.

Can you understand my position on that? I'm not saying you have to agree with it, but do you understand it?

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Gareth
Date: 17 Jun 03 - 07:17 PM

L H - I suspect that you and I could rach a consensus.

BTW as a Tintinetus (SP) suffer a deafening silence is no joke.

Also BTW The Polish Government of 1939 was to democracy what Crawshay Bailey was to Union rights (sorry Trade Union Rights = the US of A)

But trying to be objective Saddam Hussain was not open to negotiation, anymore than negotiation could have prevented the "Battle of the Greasy Grass" (Uk - Custers last Stand) My sypathies were all with "Sitting Bull"

But he's gorn - let us pray that this is an apportunity to rebuild Mesepotamia.

Oh and by the way. From what we have seen in the last few years bribary to Saddams Fammilly would have been a far more cost effective means of the US of A oil interests controlling Iraqui Oil.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Jun 03 - 07:25 PM

I'd much sooner Stalin had been dumped in 1945 too. But going to war to achieve it would have been too high a price.

It was you, Gareth, who started talking about "apologists". I quite agree that it's ridiculous to call you a Bush apologist.

But since I wouldn't myself be in favour of a war to overthrow Bush, does that mean it'd be fair to call me one?

An opponent of an illegal war is not an apologist for the regime targetted, any more than an opponent of a lynch mob would be an apologist for a child murderer, for example.

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Gareth
Date: 17 Jun 03 - 08:05 PM

Kevin. A putive question - what war would you have been in favour of ???. - Recent history only.

British intervation in Spain 1935 to support the elected Government???

Checkeslovakia (SP) 1938 ???

Poland 1939 ???

Greece 1941 ???

Should the British have armed the Viet Minh post 1945 ????

Should there have been armed intervention in Southern Rhodesia in 1965 ???

Should, ( And I think that we should have ) interveaned to break the US naval blockade and minefields of Nicuraguan Harbours ?

Choices are not easy - and it is also a moral problem to say "Send in the Marines", when you yourself are not putting yourself in harms way. But there are occasions when decision have to be made on moral grounds. On Iraq I believe that the correct decisions were made. The problem now is to rebuild Iraq, and the rest of the Middle East. Carping over the putive decisions with 20/20 hindsite does not help the problem.

I am afraid that human rights is not just a matter of a comfortable stroll down Oxford Street on a Sunday, and three choruses of "We Shall Overcome"

Sorry I'am ranting.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Jun 03 - 09:13 PM

It is not my wish to trade insults with someone who bears the honorable name of one of the knights of the Round Table, particularly one of the knights who hailed from Orkney, land of my forebears. But in my long life, I have participated in many discussions, often of matters political, and it has been my experience that when one resorts to insulting those with whom one disagrees, that is a sign that they have lost the debate. Or at the very least, they find themselves bankrupt of further argument. This is like the ink that a squid or octopus emits in an effort to confuse its surroundings so it can get away unscathed.

There are so many valid reasons to oppose the war on Iraq (including on moral grounds) that to accuse those who do so of being "Saddam apologists" is really pretty lame. Unworthy, sir! Unworthy! But I have called you a "Bush apologist," and this is equally unworthy. If you will accept my apology, I will accept yours.

If you actually have specific points to make, I'm perfectly willing to read them and think about them.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Jun 03 - 10:05 PM

Hey, remember back in the good ol' days when the most serious thing going 'round was "Did he or didn't he have sex with "that woman"'?

Now we're on the brink of a world war and the economy is in ythe bottom of the crapper.

Ahhhhhh, like I know that the usaul cast of suspects will think I'm nuts but, hey, look around. The world is really messed up and I think the Bush administartion had something (a lot...) to do with it. Our economy is messed up and I think the Bush administartion has something ( a lot...) to do with it.

This ain't a rant.

Just the truth...

Don't want to hear what a screw up yer guy is, then go over to ebay, 'er stickyerheadinthesand.com..

Now that's a rant....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jun 03 - 01:34 AM

Yes indeed. How would Monika Lewinsky have handled the situation I wonder?

Food for thought. :-)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Jun 03 - 04:12 AM

Don, when was the "Project of the New American Century" written? I have read it and if memory serves me correctly I think the statement of principles was written 3rd June 1997.

At that time I don't believe any of the signatories were part of any US Administration - some are now. Main difference now is that instead of sitting around merely discussing various matters, they are now responsible for formulating policy and seeing through that policy in the real world. To do that they have to contend with the vagaries and realities of political life - that tends to moderate even the most radical of agendas.

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Jun 03 - 10:17 AM

"...what war would you have been in favour of ???"

Gareth's question sounds simple, but the more you think about it, the more complicated it becomes.

Is it to be answered in terms of "what would you actually have done if you had been back there at the time, with no more information about the future than anyone else?" Or "what would you do if you were transported back in a time machine knowing what you know now?" Or "what would have been the best thing to have done?"

And are you imagining yourself as someone in a position to make the big decisions, or just as an ordinary bod having to decide what to do yourself, in a context where the big decisions are made by other people out of reach? (There are plenty of people who go off to fight in wars they don't think should ever have started, on both sides.)

They all have different answers, and most of them I couldn't begin to supply. Fortunately we don't have to worry about those fantasy questions involving time machines, where we have to decide whether to choose a time line involving a war in 1939 that leads inexorably on to horrors such as Auschwitz, and speculating whether an alternative timeline might conceivably involve something even worse. (Inviting us to say "Hell, let's not play this game - lets pop on back to 1914 and stop the Archduke getting assassinated and getting us into this mess in the first place...")

What we have to do in the real world is make what seems to us the best judgement on the basis of the information available. In the present context that means, as Gareth says, concentrating on the problem in hand "The problem now is to rebuild Iraq, and the rest of the Middle East." True enough.

But "making the best decision on the basis of the information available" is at the heart of it - and that is why it really does matter if the people who make decisions on our behalf lie to us and lie to themselves. It isn't carping to try to find out the truth, because finding out the truth about things like that is our only hope of ensuring that we are collectively in a better position to sort out the truth from the lies next time. Truth matters. Anything that distorts the information on which me make our judgements undermines our ability to make the right judgements.

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jun 03 - 10:42 AM

The "Project for a New American Century" contains the stated goals (in their own words) of the NeoCons who comprise the majority of the present US administration. The fact that they weren't in power when they wrote their statement of purpose is irrelevant. What is relevant is that they are right on schedule in accomplishing their goals. If that weren't the case it might be possible to say that political considerations provide a moderating effect. Since they are following the plan outlined in the "Project for a New American Century" pretty much to the letter, we can be quite confident that political considerations have not, so far, had any dampening effect on the actions of these people.

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jun 03 - 11:15 AM

Sort of like America's version of "Mein Kampf", eh? Goodness knows, that had millions of enthusiastic supporters, and with a little bit better planning and execution might even have succeeded.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Jun 03 - 11:22 AM

Well, CarolC, the American people won't know just how badly they've hurt themselves until the look around and a century's worth of sopcial programs are gutted and they, or their parents or kids need services that every other civilized nation in the world provides its citizenry.

Yeap, when the wrecking crew (neocons) are finished they will leave behind them a working class whose standard of living has been severly pushed back, state goverments not having the resopurces to educate our kids, senior citzens living in poverty and a massive record federal debt. But, hey, Boss Hog will have what he things is owed to him because he happened to be born into a family that has capital.

Yeah, Joe Sixpack will still be blinded by the flag waving, the Budweiser and NASCAR next Novemeber so its looking very much like the Neocons will continue merrily down their path of destruction. But about the time the '06 midterms come around, the working man will have this thing figured out pretty well and the neocons will find the end of the path.

Guarenteed. And I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see the Republican Party split right down the middle over it as folks try to disassociate themselves from the theivery.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: DougR
Date: 18 Jun 03 - 11:34 AM

Bobert: I still think he "gotcha," but I understand why you don't agree. On the economy: you probably haven't been following the stock market have you? All indications are the economy is improving. It took years of neglect by the Clinton administration to create this economic turn-down, we can't expect it will be righted over night (anymore than we can expect the problems in Iraq to be corrected during the same time period).

As to facts, Bobert, ole buddy, I don't think you are particularly interested in them. Teribus laid them out for you, and you reject them.

The imbedded media was one of the best ideas for providing information to the public during a war that has come along in a long time. If you perceive it to have been a failure for some reason, I don't think you can blame the Bush administration. Blame the media. Personally, I think we got the best reporting of any war in my memory, and that goes back aways.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Jun 03 - 11:48 AM

" a working class whose standard of living has been severly pushed back, state goverments not having the resopurces to educate our kids, senior citzens living in poverty and a massive record federal debt."

Looking on from the outside, that sounds like a solid foundation for a New Deal.

But this thread seems to have drifted rather a long way...

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Jun 03 - 03:04 PM

CarolC is right on the money. These folks have stated their intentions right out there where anybody and everybody can read them. It makes no difference whether the Statement of Principles was written and signed in 1997 or in 2003. We can see all of this currently being implemented by the Bush administration, so can there be any doubt? Or is it that when they were elected to office, their principles underwent a radical change? (Granted, this is fairly common in Washington circles). But when you can read the agenda and then see that agenda unfolding before your very eyes, how can a reasonable person deny it?

"Under such criteria geopolitical domination of the world is therefore firmly in the hands of Russia - the country with the largest oil and natural gas reserves and the worlds largest oil exporter. They always have been and still are."   

I think not, Teribus. For your information:—

As if January 2002, Russia is seventh in oil reserves (48,573 million barrels), after Saudi Arabia (261,750), Iraq (112,500), United Arab Emirates (97,800), Kuwait (96,500), Iran (89,700), and Venezuela (77,685).

Russia is third in oil production at 7,014 million barrels a day, after Saudi Arabia (8.528) and the United States (8.091).

The United States is the world's biggest consumer of oil at a rate of 19,993 million barrels per day, followed by Japan (5,423), China (4,854), Germany (2,814), Russia (2,531), South Korea (2,126), Brazil (2,123), Canada (2,048), France (2,040), India (2,011), Mexico (1,932), Italy (1,881), United Kingdom (1,699), Spain (1,465), SaudiArabia (1,415), Iran (1,109), Indonesia (1,063), Netherlands (881), Australia (879), and Taiwan (846).

SOURCE.

If you do the math, you'll note that Russia is using their oil reserves pretty fast. In fact, everybody, especially the United States, is using it pretty fast and it won't be all that long before it's all gone!. So clearly the country that has its hand on the Middle East tap has one helluva lot of power over the rest of the world. That, my friends, is what it's all about.

After a long and stormy relationship with UNSCOM, in September of 2002, Iraq agreed to permit UN weapons inspections. In November of 2002, it accepted UN Resolution 1441. Hans Blix and his team were hot on the trail of anything that might possibly be there, but since they didn't find much of anything right away, they were pulled out, much to Blix's objections, and the United States launched its preemptive war. Have we forgotten our very recent history? Or is it that we get all our news on the Fox News Service?

Even more recent news: Congressional hearings are starting today to investigate the very questions I posed above: Saddam Hussein did have chemical/biological weapons. Did he still as of the end of 2002? If so, where are they now? What about his alleged nuclear capability? Were American intelligence reports flawed to begin with (something we'd better find out for sure!)? Were our intelligence agencies lied to? And if so, just how gullible are they? Or were the much alluded to reports accurate, but cobbled later? And if so, by whom? Might it not be the case that the war on Iraq was on the agenda from the beginning and the only real problem the Bush administration had was in selling the war to Congress and the American people? Good questions all! Tony Blair seems to be getting a thorough hosing-down by the good folks of Great Britain. Now it looks like it may be George W. Bush's turn.

Also, When George W. Bush announced, while standing on the carrier deck and squinting in the sun with the Stars and Stripes waving behind him, that the battle is over, he may have been a bit premature. It sounds like the rank-and-file, classes at West Point, by-the-book battles are over, but considering the number of drive-by shootings and pot-shots being taken at American troops, it appears that the guerrilla war is just beginning.

Don Firth
2004. Regime change in the United States.

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Jun 03 - 10:08 PM

Doug:

You still don't read my posts very carefully before responding. What I said about the media is that in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, a time during which "supposedly" no decision had been mad (yeah, right), there were some 153 "experts" hired by the BiG Four to help sort out the information so that the public would be that "informed citizenry" that Tom Jefferson said is a crucial element in democracy. Okay, 153 folks broght in under contract long before the first strike. Guess the make up? Peace workers, zero. Clergy, ahhhh, zero. Sociologists, ahhhh, make that another zero. Anyone who disagreed with Bush, a big zero. Former military men? 153!

Now that what is called stacking the deck, Doug. You know it and I know it. That's the altimate stacking of the deck. Like what options did you, Joe Sixpack or anyone have? None, that's what, becuase you and Joe Sixpack were not given information. Yeah, you were given the comapny line which you gleefully repeated like a danged parrot. But you were not given a danged shread of information.

And you still aren't.

Nor is your here, the T-ster, who sits with his or her magnifying glass with this sinister little focus and does nothing more than parrot the company line. No, Doug, T didn't get me becuase he/she can't. T is all ready gotten in a bad way. When a person looses all ability of independent thought, they are gotten. If Bush said tomorrow that all balck people or all Catolics would have to be deported for security rrsons, T would get on that bandwagon, too. It's required. Something in the True Believer code...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jun 03 - 10:57 PM

Nice to see that things are still rolling along here... :-)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Jun 03 - 06:35 AM

Surely the bottom line is that honest and honourable people can disagree about what is the right thing to do and the wrong thing to do, but there is no room for disagreeing that it is wrong for politicians to try to conceal or twist the truth about public issues. And it doesn't matter a straw whether they are in our political camp, or the other.

That's one area where zero tolerance should apply. If it did, it'd mean a pretty massive clear out of public figures in all our countries.

That won't happen of course, but that's no reason why decent people should continue to defend the liars, just because they agree with them politically.

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jun 03 - 06:59 AM

Hi Don,

Thanks for the information, regarding oil reserves and production figures. With regard to the Russian figures, YUKOS Chairman and CEO Mikhail Borisovich Khodorkovsky has gone on record as recently as 11th February this year, stating that red tape from outdated Russian laws had meant no new definitive estimates of Russian oil reserves had come out in eight years. As such the country's proven oil and gas reserves were underestimated.

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jun 03 - 08:02 AM

Kevin,

In the context of Iraq, your bottom line post is based entirely on perceptions - right thing to do, wrong thing to do and truth.

It is your perception that the action taken against Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist Regime in Iraq was the wrong thing to do. It is also your perception that politicians tried to conceal or twist the truth regarding that situation.

My perception on the other hand is that the action taken was the right thing to do under the circumstances, and it is my perception that I have not been lied to with regard to that situation.

Intelligence information was gathered, it was then subject to evaluation and best and worst cases presented to Cabinet for decision, formulation of policy and implementation of the agreed policy. In considering this, it should be remembered by all that the accuracy of your intelligence can never be guaranteed 100%, and that the evaluation process is not an exact science.

It is not a case of decent people continuing to defend liars because they happen to agree with them politically, again that is your perception. I have asked, and to date have not received any clear cut and overwhelming evidence that the British people were lied to by anybody.

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Jun 03 - 01:54 PM

Intelligence reports always include an element of guesswork, true enough. But that is a completely different thing from distrorting the contents of these reports in order to achiueve a politiucal end.

As you say my perception is that we have been lied to by our leaders. I am pretty certain that I would still think that even if I was wholly in favour of the war.

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jun 03 - 01:58 PM

In other words, Teribus, your statement about Russia having the largest oil reserves and being the largest oil exporter was something you picked up out of thin air?

Be that as it may, rather than making any real attempt to refute other people's arguments, you tend to nit-picking minor details in what appears to be an attempt to divert attention from the main issue. Your posts are long, highly detailed, and have an aura of being well researched. However, if one makes the effort to check out your "facts," they don't always measure up, and are generally about some side issue rather than the main point. Good diversionary tactic, but it does have one flaw. A lot of your assertions can be checked for verification. Google is a wonderful thing!

I remember hearing Tavis Smiley attempting to interview Condoleezza Rice a week or so ago regarding the missing WMD issue, and she dodged every question by trying to change the subject, picking on minor side issues, and making veiled remarks about the impropriety of questioning the president's motives "in a time of crisis." Interviewing her was like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall. And when, undaunted by her evasiveness, he persisted in bringing her back to the point by continuing to asking the same questions, she got a bit testy and cut the interview short. And there was nothing untoward about Smiley's questions. They were the same questions that I asked above. And the same questions that are now being asked in Congress—and not just by Democrats, either.

Now, if some independent (e.g., UN) agency does manage to verify the existence of these alleged WMDs, and/or where they went, and are also able to verify that they were not planted by the U. S. or its cohorts, then I would say that vindicates the intelligence agencies and the Bush administration.

This does not, however, justify the pre-emptive invasion of another country. Any more than a self-appointed sheriff is justified in shooting everyone in town who carries a six-gun (or he suspects has a Derringer stuck in his boot) on the grounds that they might shoot someone. Even an arch-conservative like the late John Wayne wouldn't do a thing like that. It raises the question of who the real outlaw is.

Sorry if I seem to come on a bit harsh here, Teribus, but often when I read your posts, I note that you have a lot of detail, but frequently seem to have either missed or are avoiding the main point of the post you're attempting to refute.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: ard mhacha
Date: 19 Jun 03 - 04:29 PM

Correct Don, a long-winded sermon and always avoids the point, could Teribus be a politician?. Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jun 03 - 06:43 PM

Ya know what makes this "intellegence" issue a real joke is that it isn't like they told Bush this stuff and there were no other voices. There were millions of other voices saying, "Hey wait, let the inspectors finish their work". Millions of folks in the street should have sent up a big alarm to Bush that maybe he needed to get some other opinions.

Now we learn that folks within the intellegence community are privately saying that they felt manipulated and pressured bu the Bush folks. Hmmmmm? There does seem to be a tendency of Bush and his folks to turn a deaf ear toward anything that doesn't match their game plan. I think this is becoming increaingly apparent to even folks in the Republican party.

Damn the torpedos. Full staeam ahead. Take no prisoners.

Ya know, the world doesn't work like this....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Gareth
Date: 19 Jun 03 - 07:07 PM

Bobert

Never the less Saddam Hussain as gone, there is little likelehood now of him arming fundamentalists, who seem to be anti any political system other than thier own.

You have suggested "Assasination" as an alternative.

How would this have been done ?

Was this tried ?

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jun 03 - 07:21 PM

Well, now Gareth, I ain't big into killin' no one but between killing one bad one or killin' tens upon thousands of good 'ens and kids and women, the pragmatist in me yell, "Kill the bad one!" But it has to be those choices.

With that said, I know that the company line is that "Well, we tried to get the rascal." But did we?

Let me ask you this, Gareth. If CBS could get Dan Rather in to not only interview but have it taped, then how is it that folks can buy that line, "Well, we tried to get the rascal"?

I mean, here you have the most sophisticated military in the world that lands behind enemy lines and does all kind of covert nasty stuuf before the war starts but we can't find and kill on bad man? Well, I ain't buying it.

Bottom line is that you had way to many motivations for the Bsh/Cheney/Rice/Pearle/Runsfield/Wolfowitz team that they couldn't have cared less about Saddam or the pee shooters that Iraq had. This ain't about that. This is all just part of the plan, Hal. Lean back and enjoy the ride, Hal. There's no reason for alarm, Hal...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: TIA
Date: 19 Jun 03 - 10:12 PM

Gareth -

Where is the evidence that Hussein ever armed fundamentalists...or even intended to? From what I have read, the fundamentalists wanted nothing to do with Hussein. As far as I can tell, the link between Islamist fundamentalist terror attacks and Hussein has existed only in GWB's speeches. If I am wrong, please direct me to the correct information.

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Jun 03 - 10:53 PM

If arming fundamentalists is the problem, indict the government of the USA which has done more to arm fundamentalists in the last 20 years than probably anyone else. They did it in order to hurt the Russians. Remember? Oh, and they also armed Saddam and the Saudis. Saddam was anathema to Islamic fundamentalists. They only thing they liked about him was his defiance toward the USA, Israel, and Britain.

Now that Saddam has been deposed fundamentalists have a good shot at running Iraqui society...if they can just get the American troops out of there. That may not be too easy. Real democracy in Iran would mean a triumph for Islamic fundamentalism...followed, I'd figure, by a quick end to said democracy. How ironical. This war was not fought for freedom. It was fought for gain.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jun 03 - 03:53 AM

" there is little likelihood now of him arming fundamentalists" - however if these WMDs really do exist, the chances of them getting into the hands of fundamentalists could well be much greater than they were before.

The main case against Saddam, and a strong case, is that he was a repressive and vicious tyrant, and Islamic fundamentalists were among the people who he was most vicious in repressing.

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: GUEST,kiwi guest
Date: 20 Jun 03 - 04:06 AM

the USA has te stockpile of WMD. Better eliminate these and get some world peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Jun 03 - 04:45 AM

Don,

My statement about Russia having the largest oil reserves and being the largest oil exporter was not something I picked up out of thin air. It was from a talk to the Institute of Pipeline Engineers given by the former Saudi Arabian Petroleum Minister Sheikh Zaki Yamani. In which he addressed the emergence of the Russian Federation with, "It's extremely vast energy supplies", on the world market. Proven oil reserves in Russia total about 50 billion barrels and gas reserves equating to approximately 40% percent of the worlds gas reserves. These reserves will be significantly enhanced with investment in modern oil and gas technology, particularly in the areas of reservoir engineering, transportation infrastructure and exploration.

Russia's peek oil production in 1988 under the Soviet regime amounted to approximately 500 million metric tons per year - that equates to roughly 11.4 million barrels a day. The intervening years saw a brief decline, which is currently and rapidly being reversed. Those years have also seen the opening up of Russia to precisely the type of investment and application of modern technology that Sheikh Yamani was talking about.

Traditionally Russia's export market for oil and gas was to the eastern European countries of the Waraw Pact. Those markets still exist and their energy requirements as they catch up to the West are expanding. Russia supplies western Europe with something like 25% of its natural gas needs, that market is also expanding. Russia is now free to sell its oil and gas to the world market, and it is acknowledged as being in a position to counter OPEC. Production costs in Russia currently run at just around $1 per barrel, to fuel the Russian economy under its modernisation programme requires a stable oil price of around $21 per barrel. For quite sometime now oil has been retailing in the range of $25 - $32 per barrel. The Saudi's also require a price of around $21 per barrel but their production costs are higher than Russia's. For this reason, there is not one major player in the oil and gas industry who has not shown great interest in Russia. To those investors Russia represents a vast country and with regard to reserves and they have only just barely started to look for it.

If that is thin air to you pal - start investing in it.

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Jun 03 - 01:42 PM

My point still remains. As of the latest reports, Iraq has the second largest known oil reserves and Saudi Arabia is number one. Other than your post, I have not found anything that contradicts this. It's partly a matter of who has the oil, but it's mostly about who controls it. Control of that much oil is geopolitical power, and that's what the Bush administration is really after. It's what this war was all about. If it turns out that Russia does indeed have the world's largest oil reserves (speculation at this point), then that may put a temporary crimp in the Bush administration's program, but if you know this for sure, I'm sure the Bush administration does too, and they undoubtedly have a contingency plan. Right now, however, Russia's oil reserves are in the realm of counting the proverbial unhatched chickens, and lots of people have gone bust drilling for oil they were sure was there, but ended up with a bunch of dry holes. That's the rule rather than the exception. Ask any oil man. Ask Bush.

But this, as I mentioned above, is a side-issue and a diversion from the matter under discussion. If anyone wants to discuss oil reserves, they should start another thread.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Jun 03 - 02:54 PM

Could we get a little more background and facts on that, Teribus? I, for one, will not be satisfied until you rebut the latest fallacious liberal statements on this forum with at least a 4,000 word point-by-point denunciation and a statistic-laden reply which renders us all speechless with admiration. :-)

Tell you what...let's say we all just agree with you from here on in, and say, "You are absolutely right about everything, Teribus."

Ummm...well...hmmmm...gosh, there would just be this huge silence after that.

Then what? You'd have to find a new hobby.

Think about it, man! Opponents are the spice of life for those of us who like to debate and prove how right we are. Without them we would have no one to triumph over, no one to score devastating points against, no thrill of victory and agony of defeat, no thirst for verbal revenge. Be glad we don't see it your way, I say...you need people who disagree with you.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jun 03 - 08:44 PM

I assume that since, of course, Teribus always checks his facts, the figures about Russian oil output in Soiviet times relate to Russia, and not to the USSR.

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Jun 03 - 11:30 PM

Little Hawk:

Poor ol' T was just born a few centuries late. He or she would be just as content arguing over how many angels coule fir on a pin. Sad.

I mean, when we look at the history of man and war, we find some purdy danged simplistic ends to 'em. Peace ain't the tough. But, no, T wants reems and reems of documents. All i's dotted and all T's (no pun intended" crossed....

Reminds me of a few engineers I know. No flexability. No imagination. Just reema and reems of details...

But, hey, I like T. Why? Heck if I know, but I do... As long as T ain't assigning me yet one more lengthy reading project, thank you.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jun 03 - 12:27 AM

I like him too, but I can't resist bugging him for some reason...

Like I said, he reminds me of myself not very long ago.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jun 03 - 03:41 PM

Actually angels on the point of a pin wasn't a daft thing to argue about, it's just a graphic way of summing up what is involved in speculating as to whether a disembodied spirit could have any spatial coordinates, and stuff like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: SeanM
Date: 21 Jun 03 - 04:54 PM

Well, skeptic though I am, there may finally be something to nail things down one way or another...

WMD potential find

We'll see what the results are. According to the article, there's reference to Iraq's nuclear program. In addition, from what the reports infer, this site was not "found" in optimal condition, but with papers "strewn" about the floor.

I'm personally siding (from initial comments) that they've likely stumbled onto an intelligence community find. Whether anything "useful" to any side comes out is entirely up in the air, though...

M

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Jun 03 - 07:44 PM

Actually, WMD, is a mute point. The Bush PR/spnsters knew a long timw ago there weren't any, so they carefully cobbled the "Saddam was a bad man" advertising program and have been hammering that to the point that most Americans, according to polls, couldn't care less oif there were WMD.

Sad commentary on the independent thinking ability of the average American, ain't it. But what else would I expect ina thouroughly dumbed down America where information/misinformation is so carefully crafted for consumption.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jun 03 - 09:51 PM

Not too long ago, historically speaking, he was their bad man. He was kind of comparable to Ngo Dinh Diem or Manuel Noriega or Fulgencio Batista or a host of others in that way. Use him while it's convenient for the USA, dump him when it's not. Bin Laden was also their bad man not very long ago, when he was killing Russians for them. He was a "freedom fighter" then.

I wonder who the next ugly "face" will be? They've got to have a really unamerican and evil-looking "bad guy" in order to market a war successfully to Joe Sixpack (to use your term, Bobert). The most convenient thing of all is to have a bad guy whom no one can find (like Bin Laden). Then you can launch wars and interventions pretty well anywhere you like, supposedly to go after him.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: mg
Date: 22 Jun 03 - 08:54 PM

Do not worry in the long term about running out of oil. We will have found better, safer, cleaner sources of energy way before then. Although the short-term could be messy if we entrust our energy to the oil conglomerates. Every single educated person of the non-poverty classes I believe has an obligation to be working toward their own energy sufficiency. For starters, how about in exchanging holiday presents this year, we all give, and ask for, energy reducers..as simple and cheap as a length of rope for a clothes line..or a single solar lantern for the yard..or a solar candle that you set in the sun and bring in at night to light your home....how about training our children to run around and get warm, and to wear sweaters, rather than overheating them at home or at school. I think only premature infants, the infirm elderly, and others with health problems need as much heat and air conditioning as we now consume...how about separating our garbage better and instead of having these unbelievable garbage dumps, with the inevitable epidemic caused by them at some point, burning the burnable garbage...there is a ton of stuff we can do and will do if prices of energy rise....but I think we are buying into an artificial scare about running out of oil...we have corncobs do we not????? And engineers who could run whatever remaining factories we have here on them, as well as cars, refrigerators etc.

mg

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: DonD
Date: 22 Jun 03 - 10:26 PM

Well, I just read this whole thread from beginning to end. Actually, I did doze off during some extended Teribus texts, just like in college. (Short pithy sentences, please, for us ADD people.)

As a Saddam apologist -- I think he's a sorry excuse for a human being -- and a Bush antagonist -- I think he's a sorry excuse for a human being, too -- my attitudes are best expressed in the song I posted above (New Iraq war song), with Mary's kind improvements.

For those too unmusical to ever read anything but BS threads, the chorus about says it all:

Red is the blood that we have caused to flood
As behind our brave troops we did rally,
And black is the oil that waits beneath the soil
Of the Tigris and Euphrates valley.

And to forestall certain predictable technical diversions, I know that the oil is not really under the Tigris or Euphrates, which have separate valleys.

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jun 03 - 01:27 AM

Yes, Mary, we can all do our own part in our own way. Good suggestions. More individual responsibility makes for a far better World.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Jun 03 - 02:43 PM

Latest polls have 29 per cent of people in the UK who think Blair was telling the truth over Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Jun 03 - 08:55 PM

Well, that just goes to show ya about polls, McGrath. Her in the good ol US of A you read polls that say 60m to 70 percent of the folks think Bush is doing a good job but then I go out into the real world and find most folks think that Bush is a jerk. And I live around a lot of Repubs. I reackon them pollsters are taking exit polls from a NASCAR race...

So I wouldn't put much faith in the 29% mark. It's probably like 7 or 8%....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 24 Jun 03 - 04:06 AM

If polls are cited I'd like to see the source and the exact wording of the question, for I am as skeptical here as Bobert is though for completely different reasons.

You care to read another selected poll from the UK?

The issue of whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction is only being raised again now because people who opposed the war throughout are trying to find a new reason for saying it wasn't the right thing to do

68 % did agree with that statement (TIMES, June 14th, 2003)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jun 03 - 11:51 AM

May 4, 2003, 12:21 AM (GMT+02:00)
   
Syria is reported by DEBKA-Net-Weekly's intelligence sources as having secretly disposed of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction by moving them into eastern Lebanon for burial in the Beqaa Valley. Iraq's biological weapons may be there too. They were interred deep under the heroin poppy and cotton fields in two of the most fertile regions of Lebanon: the valley stretching between Jabal Akroum, the town of al Qbayyat and the Syrian border, and the land lying between the towns of Al Hirmil and al Labwah between the Orontes River and the Syrian frontier.

On February 14, about a month before the start of the war in Iraq, DEBKA-Net-Weekly Issue 97 ran an article captioned "Is Iraq's WMD cache in Lebanon available to Al Qaeda?" To subscribe to DNW click HERE

Now, our intelligence sources can disclose exclusively that the relocation of Iraq's WMD systems took place between January 10 and March 10 and was completed just 10 days before the US-led offensive was launched against Iraq. The banned arsenal, hauled in giant tankers from Iraq to Syria and from there to the Bekaa Valley under Syrian special forces and military intelligence escort, was discharged into pits 6-8 meters across and 25-35 meters deep dug by Syrian army engineers. They were sealed and planted over with new seedlings. Nonetheless, their location is known and detectable with the right instruments. Our sources have learned that Syria was paid about $35 million to make Saddam Hussein's forbidden weapons disappear.

Before US secretary of state Colin Powell arrived in Damascus on Saturday, May 3, the Syrians made the placatory gesture to Washington of speeding and upgrading the handover of Iraqi fugitives from the Saddam regime sheltering in Syria