BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 05:49 PM

Right Bobert,

I don't think you can blame Kerry for starting the war but I have been disillusioned by his position of supporting it. It doesn't add up. The old Kerry is the guy I liked and voted for but the new Kerry is the one I don't understand. What happened to "How can you ask a man...........?"

Little Hawk, absolutely! Bush has turned the world into an armed camp.

Nerd,

Scott Ritter is a maligned hero whose information is more valid than what has come from the FBI, CIA or any government agency that is controlled or ignored by this White House.

Teribus,

Even the 911 Commission Report that has been released as well as the part that has been suppressed by the Bush Administration doesn't justify a pre-emptive occupation of Iraq.
If WMD's were so easilly built by aggressors, the US would have been hit with them long ago.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 04:32 PM

From the point of view OF Iran, an eventual USA attack seems very probable (regardless of whether Iran has nuclear weapons or not). Under such circumstances, would it not be probable that they would want to have nuclear weapons as an effective deterrent against attack?

Very probable, I would think.

"By opposing an enemy, you give it strength." Lao-Tsu

By threatenind someone constantly, you make it very likely that he will arm himself as potently as he is capable of arming himself.

The USA already HAS the World's biggest stockpile of Nukes, and has already proven itself to be a "rogue nation" ten times over. Why would its declared targets in the World not seek an effective deterrent against being the next one to be attacked? That they would do so is virtually inevitable.

The USA colluded with and armed Iraq in the 1980's to wage an eight-year war against Iran, which killed vast numbers of people. The USA has illegally invaded Iraq under false pretences and invaded Afghanistan under flimsy pretences over what should have been an international police matter, not a war, and the USA has Iran surrounded.

The Iranians would have to be just plain stupid not to develop a nuclear deterrent now...if they were capable of it at all.

No one is going to help them but themselves. They stand alone and surrounded. They have already BEEN attacked heavily in recent times.

And they are human beings, just like you are. What would you do, in their shoes? You would try to prepare to defend yourself.

I get the impression that Iranians are not really seen as human beings by the people who are urging an attack on that country. Israel has nukes, lots of them...but it's never been publicly admitted to.

Apparently, Israelis are considered to be equal human beings, and can have nukes if they want to...but Iraqis and Iranians are not really seen as human beings. They're seen as just vermin, to be exterminated if they show signs of even attempting to play on an even field.

That is the unspoken statement I hear in what people say every day. That is the implicit assumption. It is like what Hitler assumed about the Jews. And the Iranians and Iraqis know it. Can you imagine how they feel about it? Very angry, that's how.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 04:30 PM

Beyond that, Frank, I am very concerned about the Depratment of Energy getting a lot of dough to develope smaller and better nuclear weapons, such as the bunker buster... What this clearly says about Bush and his neocon buddies is that they want this weapon so they can use it on people...

Forgit the idea of having a feea round as a deterant... They are ready to escalate their wae making to nuclear levels. This is insane. Absolutely insane...

Sure, he and his pal can bomb anyone they want into submission but at some point in time they are not going to be able to control the situation on the ground. Think Iraq here... Like how many countries can we afford to occupy before we are finacially spent. The USSR went down because it couldn'r pull it off. Now we have Cowboy Bush, with a life's worth of failed businesses and not much knowledge of history thinking that he wants to give it a try...

But worse than that, the old time Republicans are just so happy to have someone in power who calls himself a Republican that they have completely forgotten the Republicanism??? Like go figure??? Richrad Nixon is turning over in his grave...

And fir all you Bush-heads out there. I was on the money on my predictions about Iraq during the run-up to war and I'm on the money again. Yer guy has a personality disorder. He just loves starting wars. Loves it. I I'm beginning to think that you followers do, too...

This is the most insane foriegn policy in our history... All it is going to do is bring about is world chaos and the eventual collapse of the United States...

Insane!!!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 04:13 PM

Do you trust Bush with nuclear weapons? If I were Iran, I wouldn't. What's more, if I were any other country in the world, I wouldn't. I can see why these countries would stockpile theirs
as a deterrant to an invasion by Bush.

I'm not saying that any of this is sane but there seems to be a reasonable explanation why there is no effort to curtail a legitimate dismantling of nuclear weapons. Bush has already gone against the Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty.

His attitude is simply this: Mine is bigger than yours.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Amos
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 10:23 AM

1. I did not say anything about Bush signing off on a plan to attack Iran, Bruce. Apparently Scott Ritter did. I did not say I believed him.

2. If the President of the UNited States says he is not going to unilaterally invade a country, and later does so, who am I to question his wisdom? He must know more than I do, right? It's not lying, it political realism and flexibility. Right?

3. Did Iran claim to have the nuclear weapons capability? I must have missed that. Can you point me to such an article or announcement somewhere?

My prejudice is toward the facts, which as far as I know so far are that Iran has developed part way towards a nuclear energy program. If there is reason for them not to do so, I would like to know what it is. If there is reason to believe they intend to turn off that path and instead develop nuclear weapons, I would like to know what that reason is. If you have facts concerning nuclear weapons in Iran, I would like to hear them, because it is perfectly possible you know stuff I do not.

Do you think everything which uses the word "nuclear" is automatically a WMD? Maybe that is the kind of thinking that got us all confused about Iraq, huh?

Let us cleave to facts as much as we can here.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 09:40 AM

If you 'll back track a few posts back, Jim, to my last post before this thread went dormant, you may just get a peek into the world of us who are very leary when George Bush talks...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 09:21 AM

"scare lies"?

Sounded like reasonable questions to me. Well reasoned syllogism, and BB seems to have a point with Amos' interesting choice of whom to believe.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 09:14 AM

Here we go again... Same scare lies...

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 08:56 AM

Or are you saying that the request to stop the Iranian nuclear program, which they HAD agreed with the UN to do, is a warlike thing? So, it would be peacelike to encourage every country to have nuclear weapons, and threaten their enimies? Is THAT what the Left really believes?

I find that hard to swallow, but with Bobert, who can tell?

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 08:50 AM

As for Bobert, I would rather see a tactical strike now than a full scale exchange of WMD that you seem to be encouraging.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 08:49 AM

Amos,

I am interested in knowing what intelligence you have that the US is planning and attack on Iran.



You seem far more willing to give the Iranians the benefit of the douubt, even though THEY have claimed the capability, than you are the US, who have stated they are not planning to attack, but reserve the right to do so IF Iran refuses to comply with it's UN required obligations.

Blatent predjudice on your part.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Amos
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 08:26 AM

Bruce:

I am curious to know what intelligence you have indicating that Iran is developing a nuclear weapons capability.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 08:23 AM

bb,

No, the relentlessness of drum pounding hawks who think war is fun is truely deafening...

If yer so gung-ho, take yer gung-ho butt on fown to the nearest recruiting office and sign up...

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 08:08 AM

Bobert,

The sound from the Left asking Iran to stop it's nuclear program is truely deafening........

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 08:06 AM

Well, Scott Ritter turned out to be 100% correct in his assessments of Iraq's military capabilities before the run to Bush invading Iraq so if Scott Ritter says that Bush has signed off on invading Iran, he most likely has.

Bush never met a new war not worth starting.

He will go down in history right along his pal, Adoplf. He is a madman in both respects: he is mad, as in angry, and mad, as in nuts...

Irs good to see Scott get at least a little press time. The media tatoally ignored him last time around and I guess most of the media will do the same for Bush's next war...

Thanks fir refreshing this thread, freda... Seeing "Teribus's" name brought back memories but. hey, mybe Bush will reassign him back to Mudcat to argue endlessly the pros of invading Iran...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 07:22 AM

And yesterday, Bush told the Europeans that the idea that we would attack Iran is ridiculous, but that "all options were on the table."

Even for Bush, that is breathtaking - in once sentence saying "we would never attack, but we might attack".

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:US Attack on Iran June 2005
From: freda underhill
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 05:49 AM

Scott Ritter Says US Attack on Iran Planned for June

By Mark Jensen
Saturday, 19 February 2005
United for Peace of Pierce County (WA)

Scott Ritter, appearing with journalist Dahr Jamail yesterday in
Washington State, dropped two shocking bombshells in a talk delivered to a packed house in Olympia's Capitol Theater. The ex-Marine turned UNSCOM weapons inspector said that George W. Bush has "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, and claimed
the U.S. manipulated the results of the recent Jan. 30 elections in
Iraq.

Olympians like to call the Capitol Theater "historic," but it's
doubtful whether the eighty-year-old edifice has ever been the scene of more portentous revelations. The principal theme of Scott Ritter's talk was Americans' duty to protect the U.S. Constitution by taking action to bring an end to the illegal war in Iraq. But in passing, the former UNSCOM weapons inspector stunned his listeners with two pronouncements. Ritter said plans for a June attack on Iran have been submitted to President George W. Bush, and that the president has approved them. He also asserted that knowledgeable sources say U.S.officials "cooked" the results of the Jan. 30 elections in Iraq.

On Iran, Ritter said that President George W. Bush has received
and signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran planned for June 2005. Its purported goal is the destruction of Iran's alleged program to develop nuclear weapons, but Ritter said    neoconservatives in the administration also expected that the
attack would set in motion a chain of events leading to regime change in the oil-rich nation of 70 million -- a possibility Ritter regards with the greatest skepticism.

The former Marine also said that the Jan. 30 elections, which
George W. Bush has called "a turning point in the history of Iraq, a milestone in the advance of freedom," were not so free after all. Ritter said that U.S. authorities in Iraq had manipulated the
results in order to reduce the percentage of the vote received
by the United Iraqi Alliance from 56% to 48%.

Asked by UFPPC's Ted Nation about this shocker, Ritter said an
official involved in the manipulation was the source, and that this
would soon be reported by a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist in a major metropolitan magazine -- an obvious allusion to/ New
      Yorker/ reporter Seymour M. Hersh.

On Jan. 17, the/ New Yorker/ posted an article by Hersh entitled
The Coming Wars (/New Yorker/, January 24-31, 2005). In it, the
well-known investigative journalist claimed that for the Bush
administration, "The next strategic target [is] Iran." Hersh also reported that "The Administration has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran at least since last summer." According to Hersh, "Defense Department civilians, under the leadership of Douglas Feith, have been working with Israeli planners and consultants to develop and refine potential nuclear, chemical-weapons, and missile targets inside Iran. . .
.Strategists at the headquarters of the U.S. Central Command, in Tampa, Florida, have been asked to revise the military's war plan, providing for a maximum ground and air invasion of Iran. . . . The hawks in the Administration believe that it will soon become clear that the Europeans' negotiated approach [to Iran] cannot succeed, and that at that time the Administration will act."

Scott Ritter said that although the peace movement failed to
stop the war in Iraq, it had a chance to stop the expansion of the war to other nations like Iran and Syria. He held up the specter of a day when the Iraq war might be remembered as a relatively      minor event that preceded an even greater conflagration.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Feb 04 - 01:49 PM

Well stop the danged press!!!

Fir the first time that I can remember Teribus answered a question directly and its a good thing that he did. Why? Well, I'll tell ya' why.

We can forget the following:

1. When are you gonna believe that Saddam is the threat? When the mushroom cloud is overhead?

2. Irag had direct ties to Al Quida.

3. Iraq has been trying to buy enriched uranium so that it can build a nuclear weapon.

4. Iraq has sophisticated drones that can spead chemical and biological weapons.

5. Iraq has WMD and can deploy them on us in 45 minutes.

6. Iraq has aluminum tubes for making nuclear weapons.

7. Saddam gassed his own people.

8. Saddam is a bad man.

9. Saddam is gonna give WMD to terrorist groups.

and 10. The Clinton folks left us orders to attack Iraq...

Yep, Catfolkers, you can throw all those reasons out the window. No reason to clutter up your minds with old outdated information when one reason, according to T-Bird fits all:

Ready?

We attacked Iraq *only* to get the Ba'thist out of power!!!

There, isn't life simplier now?

And, BTW, the coolaid is free so partake liberally (pun intended).

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 19 Feb 04 - 11:37 PM

A Post Grad is a student, Teribus. I know. I have
been one, periodically. You are not pointing out a detail, here. You are jumping
at shadows.

Whether he reckons the information was still valid or not, would and should
not be his call anyway. It has been proven since that it

was not, and 20/20 hindsight notwithstanding, we went to war on facts.
Facts at the time of 'going to press', as it were, are not necessarily facts;
history (and Donald Rumsfeld) has taught us this. There was widespread unease
abroad about these facts from the very start.

Naiveté was never my forte, Teribus. I am not so blind that I cannot see when
our leaders being evasive and downright untruthful from time to time. And not
just about the war. Spin and cover-up do not live by Iraq alone. We have grown
up in a World that spends its entire waking hours reading between lines, and we
are getting conditioned to accept everything we hear. About absolutely
everything. And simply because the World outside our window all sounds so
frightening. You should sit down and watch American television for a while, and
you will understand exactly what I mean.

In that television interview, to which I referred in an earlier post, the
good Doctor Blix talked about his life and work. Fairly normal enough interview,
in many respects, but in it, one got a brief retrospective insight into what
'Life As A Chief Weapons Inspector' was like in the time leading up to the
withdrawal.

Invoking the Colin Powell defence, Hans Blix, like every other person of
responsibility has a certain duty to maintain a united front. After all, there
was a time when everybody thought weapons of mass destruction were actually
there. Including him, when he first got the job. Whereas the likelihood curve,
over time, started to slowly descend. The expectation curve remained more or
less constant, and anytime it moved, it veered upwards.

He and his workers knew the situation on the ground. These fantastic claims
made by our Governments, about the nature of Saddam Hussein's nuclear and
biological programmes, and its state of readiness, were being increasingly
difficult to cash in. Poverty stricken Third World countries were being dragged
kicking and screaming to the UN to cast a vote for a war in a country that some
of them had hardly even heard of, so to speak. The 'known knowns', the 'unknown
knowns', and all the 'known unknowns' in between, were gradually getting drowned
in a sea of rhetoric, and, given that there was bucketloads of reasonable doubt
knocking about, it was starting to turn into a case of 'methinks thou dost
protest too much, Colin you old codger, you'

I have great respect for Dr. Blix. I would have had great respect for Dr.
Blix had he found anything concrete. I too would then have been able to
satisfy my misgivings, and be qualified therefore to argue the case for
invasion, definition of 'war-footing' required, or not.

We have 'liberated' a country that could well become a greater threat than
Saddam ever was, Teribus. Whatever about anything else, we are going to have a
bunch of angry Shi'ites on our hands with the next few months. And they will
more than likely be a democratically elected bunch of angry Shi'ites. And the
World is always a happier place, in my opinion, the less angry people there are
floating around it, democratically elected, or not.

And what, in real terms, has been accomplished? I am not a scaremonger in the
least, Teribus; I have a mundanely average sense of paranoia like most people I
would imagine, but I think the incumbents could be a tad trickier to contain.
Oops, there's that word 'contain' again.

I do actually have more hope for Iran. Perhaps it wont happen for them this
time around, but I think its' transition to 'Democracy' will have a
significantly shorter half-life than Iraq's will. They do have a reasonably loud
'moderate' opposition there. They only need organisation. And we don't need to
poison their water supply to influence that. Rome has no need to be built in one
day.

And now America won't send back all of the British prisoners on Guantanamo.
And whatever you think about the rights and wrongs of this decision, The British
Government is highly embarrassed at this development. I have heard the words
'concern for due process' raise its' ugly head already. That's the Alliance of
Equals for you.

You may believe that I live in Camberwick Green. And you may right. But it is
a darn sight better there, than this trumped up Trumpton where we are expected
to live.

 

… and Gareth…. Knock yourself out, ol' buddy. I wish you hours of fun over
the next couple of months as you search for Words of My Destruction. If you
don't find any within a certain space of time, will you 'bite' anyway, though?

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Gareth
Date: 19 Feb 04 - 07:34 PM

Does this make continental US or Europe safer from terrorist attacks? Perhaps, but I'm not convinced.

Is it turning out to be messy? Yup

Are the UK and the US going to bring a secular democracy to Iraq in a suitcase on a tank? I wouldn't bet on it.

Does it assure a kinder and gentler administration in Iraq? Not necessarily

Is it going to secure the US oil supply in the middle east? I wouldn't bet on that either, control of others is usually an enterprize in futility.

May I congratulate Metchosin on an objective comment. Such a change from the knee jerk anti Bush/Blair 'erberts who infest the internet.

But - and my comments - At least with the regime change, and the elimination of SH there is a possibility of a better future for the Iraqui people, and the rest of the Geographical Area.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Metchosin
Date: 19 Feb 04 - 07:25 PM

Teribus, after wading through all the back and forth, going back again to the excerpt from your original post:

Where that event does come into the picture relates to potential future threat - no-one has come up with any grounds for dispelling
the likelyhood that Saddam could provide WMD, or WMD technology and know how to an international terrorist group that could
target America. Remember that he, Saddam, was the only international leader in the world to publically applaud those attacks.

notwithstanding Powell's comment to the media regarding lack of threat posed by Iraq to his immediate neighbours, due to the presence of no fly zones and sanctions, re conventional weapons-

I would still like to ask for the following questions:

When does a potential future threat that likely could provide WMD cross over to a point where, another nation decides it has the right unilaterally to attack that "potential future threat" which "likely could provide WMDs" to terrorist organizations?

Could it be when the other nation's leader has the stupidity and gaul to rub hypothetical salt into the wounds of the US? Is that why the US declared war on Iraq?

You may wish to disregard it, but as far as passing on "know-how regarding WMDs" to terrorist organizations" or "rogue states" there are a number of just as likely candidates as Iraq was and yes, Pakistan, China, North Korea, Iran and member states of the former USSR come to mind. Does this give the right to the US and others to unilaterally go in and blast them because of their "potential"?

I have still not seen anything, to date, that would disabuse me of the idea, that the reasons that the US chose to hammer Iraq with it's military might was America's need for a scapegoat after 9/11 to show others it's might, it's wish to illiminate administrations of states which are not sympathetic to western economic interests, particularly in the middle east and it's shortsighted perception that Iraq would be an easier target and less politically messy as they were militarily already geared up to do so and it would not be hard to get people on side because Hussein is considered such an "evil man".

And just because I sometimes like to answer some of my own:

Does this make continental US or Europe safer from terrorist attacks? Perhaps, but I'm not convinced.

Is it turning out to be messy? Yup

Are the UK and the US going to bring a secular democracy to Iraq in a suitcase on a tank? I wouldn't bet on it.

Does it assure a kinder and gentler administration in Iraq? Not necessarily

Is it going to secure the US oil supply in the middle east? I wouldn't bet on that either, control of others is usually an enterprize in futility.

In fact, I might harbour a guess, but I wouldn't bet on a lot of things, particularly in the world of politics.

                                                                         But Mousie, thou are no thy-lane,
                                                                         In proving foresight may be vain:
                                                                      The best laid schemes o' Mice an' Men,
                                                                                    Gang aft agley,
                                                                      An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain,
                                                                                    For promis'd joy!

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Feb 04 - 05:50 PM

Alrighty then. Shall we start taking bets? Iran and Syrian will become targets of "regime change" within two years of the next US presidential election. That's my bet.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Gareth
Date: 19 Feb 04 - 04:56 PM

My arguments are constant chums - perhaps you might like to look back at yours in a month or two and see if they hold.

But be warned - I warn once, then bite !

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Nerd
Date: 19 Feb 04 - 04:15 PM

Well, CarolC, now that we have Iraq's oil we won't need Iran's for years, so like T, I'm not holding my breath. Unlike T, I wouldn't put money on US-backed regime change in Iran never happening for the sake of oil.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 19 Feb 04 - 04:09 PM

Oh, by the bye, CarolC,

Your take on things with regard to the Iran/Iraq War is wrong. I would like to say that I await the coming to pass of your prediction with 'bated breath, but I'd only end up like Ol' Bobert there - Blue in the face - so I hope you will forgive if I just don't bother, 'cos it just ain't goin' to happen.

Mind you what we will see unfold over the next couple of days in Iran should prove interesting enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Metchosin
Date: 19 Feb 04 - 04:01 PM

Teribus, may I take it from your posts that your eyes are brown?

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 19 Feb 04 - 03:55 PM

Hi there Bobert, you ol' blue faced thing you!!

You see, your question was answered but you just do not listen to the answer.

Going back to those halcyon days of Bill Clinton's administration, the US has been in favour of REGIME change in Iraq.

You keep bangin' on about "Why didn't we just kill Saddam - Dan Rather got to within four feet of him - Why couldn't we just take him out"

Because Bobert of the visage bleu, Saddam on his jack does not equate to REGIME CHANGE, especially when, after being "taken out" he leaves behind a successor who was ten times more mental and unstable than himself.

Question answered????

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Feb 04 - 12:57 PM

Well, T, yer guy ain't gonna like it when I tell him that his latest PR spin fir attacking Iraq ain't holdin' up to yer scrutiny.

So let me see if I got this right.

Your latest reason fir attacking Iraq goes something like:

*We attacked Iraq because it was controlled by the Ba'thists....*

Is this yer final answer, T-Bird?

Check one

Yes ____

No _____

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 19 Feb 04 - 12:18 PM

Colin Powell stated at a Press Conference in Egypt on 24th February 2001, now at this point there had been no UN presence and no inspection effort for 26 months:

"Saddam has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."

Colin Powell made a statement to the UN Security Council on 7th March 2003, relating to the 167 page UNMOVIC/IAEA report submitted to the Security Council by Dr. Blix and Dr. AlBaradei, by this time UNMOVIC and the IAEA had resumed inspections in Iraq and had been there for about four months, on 7th December Iraq had delivered their full and complete declaration to the UN as required by 1441:

"The point is that this document conclusively shows that Iraq had and still has the capability to manufacture these kinds of weapons, that Iraq had and still has the capability to manufacture not only chemical but biological weapons, and that Iraq had and still has literally tens of thousands of delivery systems, including increasingly capable and dangerous unmanned aerial vehicles."

You've never changed your mind about something in the course of two years? Certainly looks like Colin Powell had changed his mind.

Attention to detail 09086532:
The work was plagiarised from a post-graduate student (not a student), whose work, undertaken some ten/eleven years previously, in the immediate aftermath of "Desert Storm", from Iraqi Security Service documents (lots and lots of them). Related to deception tactics, concealment techniques and dissemination of misinformation by Iraq's Security Services. The author himself came out in print to say that in 2002 his work was still relevant.

During the Iran/Iraq War, which the UN was powerless to prevent, lots of countries helped both sides, because lots of countries wanted neither side to win. The best result from the point of view of the world in general was a stalemate. The help was not given because either side was "liked", it was not given because various countries regarded either leader as being "their" man. It was done purely and simply to maintain the status quo - which would have been the result of UN intervention in accordance with its Charter.

In your experience do people keep telling you lies ALL the time? - Strange world you live in. But when you asked me a rather general question about the people I might vote for, you now vector in on something quite specific - WMD - "So what you are saying that you don't really know whether the WMD claims were truthful or not." I believe I have already answered that - UNSCOM reported the array of WMD that they knew existed - they had hard evidence of that - but which now were "missing" and "couldn't be accounted for". I have not one single reason to believe that they lied to me or the Security Council of the United Nations.

Having read the JIC Dossier, read and listened to reports from the international media, having listened to interviews, particularly one where Richard Cobbold went to great lengths to explain exactly how the JIC works which was very enlightening. Conclusions of the various committees set up to investigate matters relating to the JIC Dossier. Lots of people have looked into it - all have come up with the same result. I definitely do not feel that I was "lied to" by any member of the British Government.

My impression of you is based entirely on what you write:

The burning indignation - "I expect him to tell the truth,"

Plus - " And Powell took an oath, just like Bush did We should expect our leaders to tell the truth."

Priceless! absolutely Priceless!!! Pure Camberwick Green

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Feb 04 - 11:05 AM

09, little secret for you - The 'Allies' also 'helped' Iran during the same conflict.

That's a hell of a good point. I guess the "Allies" thought they would get a little "twofer" there (two for the price of one). ...Destabilize the governments of two countries at the same time, and then when both are in shambles, go on in and take control of their oil. It's quite ingenious, really. I guess they're having to wait a little longer to get Iran's oil than they hoped, but since Iran is next on the agenda (along with Syria), they shouldn't have to wait too much longer.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 19 Feb 04 - 09:21 AM

"Saddam has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."
I really don't know how much more in context that could be, Teribus.
What were we suppoed to think, when he said that?
What were we supposed to think when he plagarised the work of that student, and the US regime boldly stood up and told us that there was in fact a capability there?
Oh, that's only Colin speaking in tongues, again?
American presidents have been impeached for less, such is the seriousness of their Oath of Office.

So the Allies helped Iran too?
Well there you go, Te. Subterfuge at all levels.
Now we're actually getting somewhere....

"I do not know for a fact that the people I vote for do, "keep telling me lies all the time", so the most honest answer to that is that I do not know"
So what you are saying that you don't really know whether the WMD claims were truthful or not.
.... getting even further....

"I get the distinct impression that you are either very young, very inexperienced in life and very naive."
Well, I am not, Te.
And with insight and discernment like that, the rest of your suppositions mean even less to me, now.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 18 Feb 04 - 09:59 PM

Bobert,

The question you have been asking, until you are blue in the face, has been answered on numerous occasions. Assassinating Saddam Hussein and leaving the Ba'athist regime in power would not have achieved anything. In fact if memory serves me right, one person pointed out that the assassination of Saddam, would probably lead to the succession of his son, who by all accounts would have been a damn sight worse.

09086532 18 Feb 04 - 06:19 PM

For starters - don't quote out of context. The press conference question quoted was by a reporter from the Egyptian press. The question sought to determine US sensitivity to Egyptian and Arab concerns related to the no-fly zones and to the ongoing UN sanctions. The answer given was meant to reasure the press that the measures were being taken to protect life and to contain a regime that had attacked two of its neighbours.

"I expect him to tell the truth, Teribus." - And you always tell the truth do you - What a special person you are.

"Are you suggesting that every thing that was said pre 9/11 was designed to hoodwink the public, and that after that date, everybody decided to come clean?" - No I am not.

"In a court of law, etc, etc," - Obvious point Colin Powell was not in a court of law, he was in a press conference.

"And Powell took an oath, just like Bush did. We should expect our leaders to tell the truth." - First bit of that:
The oaths, that the Secretary of State and the President took, mention upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States of America, nothing there about being compelled by that oath to tell the truth at all times. In fact, in certain circumstances, being compelled to tell the truth at all times might mean that you could not possibly uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

"Isn't that what all this hoo ha is about in the first place?" - No it is not.

"Do you regularly vote for people who keep telling you lies all the time?" - I do not know for a fact that the people I vote for do, "keep telling me lies all the time", so the most honest answer to that is that I do not know - by the bye, nor does anybody else. But if I ever met anyone who told me that they had never told a lie in their life, I would know that, sure as eggs are eggs, I was looking at a liar.

"remember he was talking to the press" - Can't see why that should surprise you. You can't have had much experience dealing with the press, from personal experience, I would advise anybody to be very circumspect with regard to talking to the press, particularly if the press were hostile (as they were in the situation that C. Powell found himself in).

"The press is normally our only way of knowing what goes on in the world." - Poor you, I would advise that you find some alternative sources, and use a bit of common-sense and judgement.

"Surely you are not telling us that you condone the public being lied to, whenever it suits our politicians to do so?" - What makes you think that it is only politicians that lie to the public?

On "Hitler being brought to book", on reflection " brought up short" (i.e. was faced with his all-out war) would probably have been a better expression. Between becoming Chancellor of Germany in 1933 and the start of World War Two, Hitler showed no aggression towards the UK at all, besides that was not the point being contested. But just out of interest I can think of at least two occasions when the UK was called upon to come to the aid of Kuwait when the latter was threatened by the Iraqi Ba'athist regime, on both occasions Iraq backed down.

09, little secret for you - The 'Allies' also 'helped' Iran during the same conflict.

"Nothing much changed in Iraq post 9/11." True, Saddam Hussein applauded the perpetrators of the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon, while the US Government carried out a threat evaluation of hostile regimes and places where international terrorist groups might acquire WMD that could be used against America.

As to Iraq being, " no more a threat to the internal security of the USA, than it was pre 9/11." That is correct, it was potentially a threat before 9/11 and remained a threat after 9/11. Only after 9/11 the US correctly evaluated that threat.

I had no idea that the USA was on a war footing!! Any idea what that phrase actually means, 09? Don't think you do.

9/11 was also a watershed for Saddam Hussein, post-9/11 the US was no longer prepared to let him thumb his nose at the UN. Certain outstanding items had to be resolved - they now have been.

What "other repulsive regimes" does "the USA still choose to support and arm." that you, "turn a blind eye to."

I get the distinct impression that you are either very young, very inexperienced in life and very naive.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 18 Feb 04 - 08:55 PM

I actually questioned his capacities first, TIA.
Mainly because he seemed to be attacking others' intellectual abilities, while his own arguments (such as they are) were meandering all over the place....

Gareth would seem to be a member of the 'Anybody Gone At Any Price (as long as it is not me) Brigade'

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 18 Feb 04 - 08:31 PM

"It seems your mental age can not cope with satire. A fault frequently noted in the "Peace at Any Price Brigade".

Gareth"



Hmm. I was on the receiving end of a similarly smug comment myself several months ago, and I've seen others since. Not saying you're not smart my good fellow, but every time you wittily tell someone who disagrees with you that they are not, the charge rings increasingly hollow.

BTW, would it be fair to classify you as a member of the "Saddam Gone at Any Price Brigade"?

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST,GUEST, Bobert i disguise
Date: 18 Feb 04 - 08:03 PM

Well, gol danged... Saddam was a bad man. Shoot we should have attacked him a long time ago. Like when we were in middle of supplyong him with weapons of mass destruction. Then we would have had at least a clue when the danged things were...

Ahhhh, what ever happened to that pre-emption argrument anyway. I ain't heard that one gettin' even a spin around the block, let alone out of the garage, these days.... I thought that was the entire reason fir attacking Iraq??? Silly me... Now it's Saddam was a bad, bad man..

Well, what's the point... There are no shortage of bad, bad men ruling countries in the world. We gonna attack all their countries?

And while we're back on the subject of attacking folks, ahhh, is Saddam dead? No? Hmmmmm? How many Iraqis and Americans who were'nt bad, bad men, women and children are dead instead. Hmmmmmm?

Like, lots, that's how many...

No one has answered the question that I've asked until I'm blue in the face from askin'. If Saddam was the problem, why not just assasinate him, rather than kill a bunch of other non-Saddam other folks?

If anyone has an aswer to this question, I'd sure appreciate it. Heck, I'd probably accept "My dog ate my homework" as a start...

It scares me to live in a country (the US) that has so many folks who have lost all abilities to, ahhh, think on their own.... But that's another story (kind of...).

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 18 Feb 04 - 07:39 PM

"The Kurds and Marsh Arabs might disagree that they are part of Iraq

So you reckon he wasn't a threat to his own people then, if Kurds, Marsh Arabs, Kuwaitis and Iranians, are all removed from the equation?

As for satire, I can only go by what you write, and you seemed engaged enough to go through with the argument: ie. 13 Feb 04 - 12:32 PM 'Yes it does'

"If SH's intentions were peacable - Why the big Army ?"

Ahhh, I see. So we invaded Iraq because Saddam had a big army?

The plot thickens.....

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST,Gareth
Date: 18 Feb 04 - 07:21 PM

The Kurds and Marsh Arabs might disagree that they are part of Iraq.

If SH's intentions were peacable - Why the big Army ?

It seems your mental age can not cope with satire. A fault frequently noted in the "Peace at Any Price Brigade".

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 18 Feb 04 - 07:10 PM

..., and for a guy that would put his own child down, if he got it into his head that the kid would grow up to be a mass-murderer, I find that your concern feeble.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 18 Feb 04 - 07:04 PM

Post 9/11, Gareth, he was only a threat to his own people, and indeed, that would include the unfortunate Kurds and Marsh Arabs.

I wasn't aware that he was planning another invasion of Kuwait, or of attacking Iran.

Something else that Powell wasn't telling us, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST,gareth - to lazy to log in
Date: 18 Feb 04 - 06:57 PM

But 9/11 was a watershed for Al Quaeda, only, and Saddam Hussein, repulsive as the man is, was guilty of threatening only his own people

I think that statement speaks for itself.

I am confident that there is many a Kurd,Marsh Arab, Quwati, or Iranian who might disagree with that.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 18 Feb 04 - 06:19 PM

"what did you expect him to say - that both were totally ineffective?"

I expect him to tell the truth, Teribus.
Are you suggesting that every thing that was said pre 9/11 was designed to hoodwink the public, and that after that date, everybody decided to come clean?
How do we know, in that case, that everything that has been said since is the truth.
In a court of law, the defendant that would mislead so, would be charged with perjury, and the 'new' evidence would be deemed inadmissable.
And Powell took an oath, just like Bush did
We should expect our leaders to tell the truth.
Isn't that what all this hoo ha is about in the first place?
Do you regularly vote for people who keep telling you lies all the time?

I'm surprised, incidentally, that you would let slip something like "remember he was talking to the press"
The press is normally our only way of knowing what goes on in the world. Surely you are not telling us that you condone the public being lied to, whenever it suits our politicians to do so?

By the way, I never knew that Hitler had been brought to book.
I heard that he massacred at least 6 million people, and occupied many lands, before he committed suicide. Unless you believe that he ended his days in Argentina (in which case, he was never brought to book). He certainly was a greater aggressor to England, than Saddam was.
I never read in any newspaper of an Iraqi version of the Battle of Britain.

Maybe there was, and Powell didn't tell the Press.

I see, though, that we are repeating things that have already been covered, Teribus; I think the whole World accepts at this point, that the 'Allies' 'helped' Saddam up until at least the end of the Iran/Iraq war.
Nothing much changed in Iraq post 9/11. Certainly not Al Quaeda-wise. We know that idealogically Saddam and Bin Laden were as far apart as they could possibly be in the Muslim World. They may have had a common enemy in America, but each kept their own counsel on the matter, and Iraq was no more a threat to the internal security of the USA, than it was pre 9/11.
Post 9/11, the USA was understandably put on a war footing, and the attack in Afghanistan was, in my opinion, an understandable reaction.
But 9/11 was a watershed for Al Quaeda, only, and Saddam Hussein, repulsive as the man is, was guilty of threatening only his own people.

Like many other repulsive regimes the USA still chooses to support and arm.
And that we turn a blind eye to.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 18 Feb 04 - 04:26 PM

OK, Peter K (Fionn),

It appears that you take at face value the UNSCOM statement that Saddam's regime, " did everything in their power to hinder the UN inspection teams and conceal as much as possible in relation to their WMD." If not then please provide the evidence from UNSCOM that statement is in any way inaccurate.

The UNSCOM claims regarding what they believed were still in existence is perfectly clear. Their (UNSCOM's) grounds for stating those figures were based entirely on Iraqi documentation, i.e., what was produced, what munitions had been produced, what munitions had been expended, and there was a shortfall, an alarming shortfall when those figures were compared. On December 7th 2002, Iraq presented its full and complete declaration to the UNSC, the immediate response of the affable Dr. Blix was that he simply did not believe it - that is a matter of record. To this day that shortfall is still unaccounted for, about six months after Saddam had been removed from power, the good Dr. Blix comes out with the statement that "on the ballance of probability" Iraq did destroy those those stocks of WMD materials, precursors and munitions. Unfortunately back in March 2003, "on the balance of probability" didn't quite fulfil the requirement - since signing the cease-fire agreement at Safwan in 1991, "on the balance of probability" has never fulfilled the requirement clearly stated by the United Nations.

On the subject of Scott Ritter, take a bloody good look at his reasons for resigning - it was because the UN did not support the efforts of the UNSCOM team as stringently, and as forcefully, as they should have done. Forget what Kay has recently said - that is 20 x 20 hindsight. In this discussion you must base any arguement on what were the probabilities based on the available information at the time.

On the second of your points, you offered up Germany, sorry pre-war Germany, as an example of someone employing Saddam like deception without being confronted by an all-out war. As I said previously your "pre-war" qualification makes your example ridiculous, that was my reason for rejecting your example.

Hitler in Germany was appeased, he was given the benefit of the doubt, as many people here apparently would have been all to prepared to give to the Ba'athist regime in Iraq under the leadership of Saddam Hussein, he finally, and totally unexpectly found that he had over-stepped the mark and found himself in an "all-out war", and by Christ at what a cost. If either Britain, or France, had acted against Hitler in 1936, the way that the USA and the UK acted against Saddam Hussein in 2002, then the Second World War would not have happened. As Gareth so rightly pointed out, due to the policy of appeasement, the Second World War came to pass, because of people who think like you, and many others on this forum. People who are always prepared to take the easy option, the same people who are always the first to cast blame when the situation blows up in their faces and they, all of a sudden find themselves threatened.

Your statement:
"Germany defied the terms and acquired prohibited weapons; Iraq did not."

I challenge you to prove it. I say they did and were working towards enhancing their capability. My grounds for making that statement are provided by what the UNMOVIC inspection teams found, and what the Iraqi's said they did not have and were not doing. Now you have made some pretty definitive statements - Damn well prove them.

On the, "nonsense to equate the aggression of Iraq under Saddam with Germany's in the period 1933-39, not least because much of Saddam's aggression was encouraged by the playground bully (your ultimate arbiter), right up to (and even including, by some accounts) his invasion of Kuwait."

Let's take a look at both, shall we? Taking Adolf Hitler first:

1933 - Came to power, not elected, he was selected Chancellor of Germany by the President, Hindenburg (his third choice candidate by the way).
1934 - Night of the long knives, Hitler gets rid of potential trouble inside his own Party
1933 -1936 Basically rebuilt Germany, very popular move on the part of the German population. He is secretly rearming, U-boat Captains are being trained in Italy, Pilots, aircrew and tank crews are being trained in Russia.
1936 - Hitler re-occupies the Rhineland, French take the view, "Well hell it is German after all" and do nothing - Nobody killed, nobody drownded, if fact nothin' to laugh at at all. Harmless, the guy got away with it - secretly it was the most gut wrenching decision he took in his life, if memoires are anything to go by - but he had got away with it.
1938 - Spring Austria joins the Reich, no bloody invasion, no wall-to-wall corpses. Having seen what Hitler had done for Germany, with massive unemployment and their finances looked after by the "League of Nations", most Austrians welcomed it.
1938 - Sudetenland, previously German, and the only part of Czechoslovakia that had any heavy industry (that was why it was split from Germany to give this fake country some form of economic base). Czechs fold, again no blood-shed, Poland and Hungary get in on the act too and grab bits of Czechoslovakia until there is not enough left to bother governing, so Hitler takes that over as well. Minor stramash diplomatically, Hitler actually wants his war in the west now, but Chamberlin and Deladier refuse to co-operate and give him what he wants.
1939 - Poland, Hitler tries to re-unify East Prussia with the rest of Germany. To do this he has to take the "Polish Corridor", another piece of Germany stripped away, according to President Wilson's Plan, at Versailles, to make another phony state economically viable. Unfortunately those appeasers, who up until now have been so accommodating, dig their heels in and declare war on Germany.

Up until now Fionn, the butcher's bill has been absolutely minimal.

Now lets see how Saddam took things on:

1979 - Saddam stages his internal coup - upwards of 600 Ba'ath Party members executed
1980 - Kicks off the Iran/Iraq, because his Foreign Minister and his chiel negotiator at the UN say that Iran is prepared to negotiate to settle the Iran/Iraq dispute relating to the Shat-al-Arab water-way. saddam takes this as a sign of weakness and launches an unprovoked attack on Iran.
1980 - 1988 Iran/Iraq War, totally unnecessary millions die. UN as ever powerless and ineffectual as it predecessor, the League of Nations.
1988 - 1990 Saddam re-arms with the help of Russia, France and China.
1990 - Iraq invades Kuwait and is outrightly condemned by thwe UN. USA leads the efforts to form a UN coalition to take action to liberate Kuwait. Saddam defies all efforts to negotiate or withdraw from Kuwait.
1991 - "Desert Shield" & "Desert Storm" liberate Kuwait, significant loss of life. Saddam survives at Safwan, to ride another day.

How's the comparison so far Peter? By the time Hitler was brought to book he had killed hundreds, by the time Saddam had got there he had invaded two countries, killed millions and had caused a staggering amount of damage to infrastructure and the environment. Who did you say was the greater aggressor? I know who my money is on - it's like betting on last years "Grand National".

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Feb 04 - 04:13 PM

Actually Fionn, it was called appeasement.

I think better terms in the context of Iraq would be "war profiteering" and the use of Saddam as a "proxy warmonger" by the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Feb 04 - 02:31 PM

Incidentally it is nonsense to equate the aggression of Iraq under Saddam with Germany's in the period 1933-39, not least because much of Saddam's aggression was encouraged by the playground bully (your ultimate arbiter), right up to (and even including, by some accounts) his invasion of Kuwait. Hitler's was in defiance of such opinion - albeit funded to a significant degree by American capital

Actually Fionn, it was called appeasement.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 18 Feb 04 - 01:41 PM

Two simple points, Teribus.

First, you claim to be quoting the UNSCOM inspectorate where you say: "They (Saddam's regime) did everything in their power to hinder the UN inspection teams and conceal as much as possible in relation to their WMD." UNSCOM never went so far as to say Iraq had got WMD - only that Saddam had failed to provide verification of destroying them. As for him producing or developing any post-1991, Scott Ritter has been scathing about that, and Kay recently said the US admin had put insufficient weight on Iraq's lack of capability - this resulting from the damaged infrastructure and fractured chains of command, and from Saddam's erratic leadership.

Second, in conceding a parallel between Germany and Iraq, which you had previously dismissed, you observe that both countries had been prhibited under their surrender/cease-fire terms from having specified weapons. But that is where the similarity ended. Germany defied the terms and acquired prohibited weapons; Iraq did not.

Incidentally it is nonsense to equate the aggression of Iraq under Saddam with Germany's in the period 1933-39, not least because much of Saddam's aggression was encouraged by the playground bully (your ultimate arbiter), right up to (and even including, by some accounts) his invasion of Kuwait. Hitler's was in defiance of such opinion - albeit funded to a significant degree by American capital.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 18 Feb 04 - 11:32 AM

Well Fionn,

Most countries develope most things to do with their their military in secret. Most companies also conduct their research and development in secret. What was different with Iraq was that following the ceasefire negotiated at Safwan, Iraq made a number of commitments to the international community - They did not honour one single one of them.

Instead of co-operating pro-actively and fully as they had agreed to do, they did everything in their power to hinder the UN inspection teams and conceal as much as possible in relation to their WMD and WMD programmes. Please note, that that is not my opinion but, the opinion of the UNSCOM inspectors who were conducting the inspections in Iraq at the time - I have no reason to doubt their word or the veracity of their claims.

Now a parallel does exist between Saddam's Iraq and Hitler's pre-war Germany. Both countries, as a direct result of cease-fire agreements, were prohibited from having certain weapons.

In the case of Germany, in the 1930's the other European powers chose to go the route that many in this forum have advised with regard to Iraq in 2002/2003 and the result was what is commonly called the Second World War.

In the case of Iraq, the United States of America and the United Kingdom acted as those same European powers should have done with respect to Germany in the mid-1930's. With regard to Iraq, I am still totally convinced that that was the right thing to do. Reading back through the periods involved Saddam Hussein's Iraq (1980 - 2003) was a damn sight more agressive than Hitler's Germany (1933 - 1939).

"And no regime on earth would take kindly to the humiliations imposed on Iraq - needlessly as it turns out, because having been shot to pieces in the first gulf war, the country was no more a threat than many another."

What humiliations are you talking about Peter? The subject matter of the various UNSC Resolutions relating to Iraq perhaps?
- That the regime was to renounce the manufacture, use and further development of weapons of mass destruction that they had previously used on their own population and against their neighbours.
- That the regime had to destroy such weapons, stocks, delivery systems under UN supervision in order that their destruction could be checked and verified.
- That all material relating to development programmes for WMD and WMD weapons systems be surrendered to the UN and that all such programmes be dismantled under UN Supervision in order that it could be verified.
- That the regime was to clean up its act with regard to human rights, by ceasing to oppress ethnic and religious groups within it's borders.
- That the regime was to stop supporting terrorist groups
- That the regime was to compensate, from future oil revenues, the neighbouring state it had just invaded and plundered.
- That the regime was to release and return 605 foreign nationals, the regime had abducted/kidnapped during their brief stay in Kuwait.

Fortunately most regimes in the world are not evil enough to have such charges laid at their door. Even the hint of such criticism would have most regimes/governments breaking their backs to ensure they got a clean bill of health. You could be sure that the matter would at least be discussed as a matter of urgency. In the case of Iraq - not a murmer, no action at all to address the criticisms, they did however manage to sell $2-3 billion in illegal oil exports and buy 384 rocket motors inspite of the UN's sanctions. The UN were no better in pushing those issues - but then, their dictum has always been, "anything for the easy life".

09086532, Re: Colin Powell 24 Feb 2001:

Look at the question he was asked and his complete answer, then remember he was talking to the press:

QUESTION: The Egyptian press editorial commentary that we have seen here has been bitterly aggressive in denouncing the U.S. role and not welcoming you. I am wondering whether you believe you accomplished anything during your meetings to assuage concerns about the air strikes against Iraq and the continuing sanctions?

SECRETARY POWELL: I received a very warm welcome from the leaders and I know there is some unhappiness as expressed in the Egyptian press. I understand that, but at the same time, with respect to the no-fly zones and the air strikes that we from time to time must conduct to defend our pilots, I just want to remind everybody that the purpose of those no-fly zones and the purpose of those occasional strikes to protect our pilots, is not to pursue an aggressive stance toward Iraq, but to defend the people that the no-fly zones are put in to defend. The people in the southern part of Iraq and the people in the northern part of Iraq, and these zones have a purpose, and their purpose is to protect people -- protect Arabs -- not to affect anything else in the region. And we have to defend ourselves.

We will always try to consult with our friends in the region so that they are not surprised and do everything we can to explain the purpose of our responses. We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue."

The issues were the no-fly zones and UN sanctions, what did you expect him to say - that both were totally ineffective? Also remember the date, i.e., pre-9/11. He clearly believes that the Iraqi regime still harboured ambitions in relation to acquiring WMD.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 17 Feb 04 - 11:50 PM

I've seen it written a few times, up the thread: "Saddam Style Deception"
What exactly is that?

Is it where Saddam says he has no weapons, and the inspectors go in and prove him correct?

On 24 February 2001, during a trip to Cairo, Egypt, Colin Powell told the Media that Saddam "has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."

And Preident Musharaff of Pakistan has just announced that he will not let the Atomic Energy Commission come in and inspect their Plants.
He also confirmed that the Government of Pakistan will continue to develop and expand their nuclear arsenal, and that he was totally unaware of the actions of the above mentioned official. So that would seem to be that!

There is one question I would like Teribus (indeed, all of us) to ponder on, and that is, is it OK for us to do entirely as we see fit, when we see fit?

Sooner or later the propaganda machine has to implode under the weight of all its un-matched cross-references and conflicting moral standpoints.

And Kerry wins Wisconsin...

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 17 Feb 04 - 05:54 PM

I got some lovely yellow cake in a shop in Dingle.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Nerd
Date: 17 Feb 04 - 12:23 PM

Well, Rapaire, there IS a suspicious-looking Winnebago in Killarney. and an aluminum tube in Ballybunion. Let's check with Colin Powell and see what HE thinks...

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Rapparee
Date: 17 Feb 04 - 11:20 AM

Kerry? Did they find WMDs in Tralee or something?