 sj |
||
|
||
BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Nov 05 - 07:27 AM Arne, " Instead, it was dumping an incredible amount of ordnance on the central portions of Iraq." When, IN VIOLATION of the cease-fire terms, the Iraqis angaged in acts of aggression against the patrolling forces, they were bombed. Seems like they had a choice here. BTW, why didn't Saddam just open his borders and let the Coalition forces come in without a fight? MAYBE he was still hiding something? YOU have never answered my question about the VAST demand on the part of the anti-war folks for Saddam to comply, and avoid the need for the war in the first place. Are you really comfortable clinging to the " it does not matter what Saddam did, we should let him get away with not complying with anything he does not want to " arguement? Would you take this kind of argument seriously if it was coming from, say, your kids? How will YOU explain that you would rather have all those people dead than ask that Saddam comply with his obligations? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Teribus Date: 17 Nov 05 - 02:04 AM Arne...." "no-fly" means (or was supposed to mean) that Saddam didn't use his helicopters to go after Shia or Kurds. So enforcing the "no-fly" zone should have been shooting down any errant helos in the "no-fly" zone (of which there were none)" Well Arne, seems that you have the wrong end of the stick again. In interviews relating to the Ceasefire Agreement reached at Safwan, the subject of helicopters with regard to "no-fly" was raised by the Iraqis. They argued that with so many bridges destroyed the helicopters were needed to fly in aid, and as such should be allowed to fly the coalition members thought this point to be reasonable. 'Stromin' Norman said it was the biggest mistake he made. An example of the odd logic applied by Arne: BB..."What part of " Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein," is so hard to understand?" Now that is a fairly straightforward question - Below is Arne's response Arne...."What part of "some folks think that 2000 U.S. soldiers and countless Iraqis dead is a fair price to pay to tell someone that you think they're (arguably) in technical violation of some terms of a cease-fire" don't you understand?" Which of course ducks the question, but Arne tends to do that as a matter of course. Arne having just fought a war to free Kuwait the UN forces in return for ceasing military action required Iraq accept the provisions of resolution 687 including the obligations on Iraq that 687 contained - Iraq Agreed to that but then refused to comply with it. Now simple as it may sound, if the 'Ceasefire' was based on the requirements of 687 AND Iraqi compliance with those requirements in order to fulfil the obligations detailed in 687, if Iraq does not comply the 'ceasefire' no longer exists - military action may be resumed to ensure compliance. Example Arne - On Lunenburg Heath in May 1945 representatives of the German High Command surrendered to the Allies. In doing so certain obligations were placed upon those German commanders. Now if they had toddled away from that tent on Lunenburg Heath and failed to honour those obligations - would, or should, the Allied Commanders have just ignored it? - Rhetorical question No they wouldn't, hostilities would have resumed pdq. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Date: 16 Nov 05 - 10:14 PM BB: Re the FAS "Iraq Missiles" page you quoted, here's what it said at the bottom: Updated Monday, November 02, 1998 9:36:21 AM BTW, thanks for the confirmation that the U.S. was quite 'provocative' in their "no-fly" missions. You know, "no-fly" means (or was supposed to mean) that Saddam didn't use his helicopters to go after Shia or Kurds. So enforcing the "no-fly" zone should have been shooting down any errant helos in the "no-fly" zone (of which there were none). Instead, it was dumping an incredible amount of ordnance on the central portions of Iraq. As I pointed out, the U.S. was trying to provoke hostilities (if not just simply engaging in this themselves). To try and paint this as an Iraqi violation of the cease-fire terms (and thus that a "state of war" existed) is pretty d*** absurd. I'm surprised you'd even try such a transparently ridiculous ploy. What part of " Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein," is so hard to understand? What part of "some folks think that 2000 U.S. soldiers and countless Iraqis dead is a fair price to pay to tell someone that you think they're (arguably) in technical violation of some terms of a cease-fire" don't you understand? Do you really think that alleged technical violations far short of actual acts armed aggression or even the realistic threat of such is a good reason to actually engage in such armed aggression yourself? That's rather curious logic, in my book, and if I might add, leads to rather untoward turns of events in the long run.... Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,Geoduck Date: 16 Nov 05 - 08:15 PM Keep up the good work BB. I am little busy now to try to educate the uneducable. I wonder if any of them would like to have lived in Iraq under the Saddam regime? We need some input from an Iraqi citizen |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: beardedbruce Date: 16 Nov 05 - 04:29 PM What part of " Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein," is so hard to understand? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: beardedbruce Date: 16 Nov 05 - 04:12 PM Arne, Try READING the UN resolution, before making judgements about what it says: "Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material, Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998, Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council's repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people, Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq, Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein, Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance," I have posted the link in this thread. It seems a pity that you would rather tell us what it is supposed to say than look at it and see what it actually says. I am sure that if you want to declare the UN to have said something, all the world has to agree that you, rather than the UN printed reports, are correct. Heil Arne! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: beardedbruce Date: 16 Nov 05 - 03:52 PM Under the terms of the cease-fire, all missiles with a range over 150 km as well as all R&D, support and manufacturing facilities, are to be dismantled, and Iraq is prohibited from using, developing, constructing or otherwise acquiring ballistic missiles over that range in the future. After the Gulf War, the 61 missiles that Iraq had acknowledged remained in its arsenal were destroyed; the head of the UN mission in charge of the task said that the UN had no evidence indicating that the Iraqis possess any other missiles. However, to alleviate any lingering doubts, the Special UN Commission is mandated by Res. 687 to develop a long-term plan for the ongoing monitoring and verification to ensure Iraqi compliance with its terms. Since the end of the Gulf War, UN inspection teams worked to find evidence that Iraq has hidden a residual Scud force of 100-200 missiles and 12-20 launchers. In March 1993, Rolf Ekeus, chairman of the U.N. Commission charged with eliminating Iraq's weapons that are in violation of Resolution 687, said that inspectors were unable to account for 200 of Iraq's 800 Scuds. As time past without discovering this putative residual force, the question turned to how quickly these hidden Scuds could be brought to a state of military readiness. The East German army considered that if kept in the maufacturers containers with partial guidance systems installed the Scud could be assembled after 20 years of storage and be ready for fuelling in about 95 minutes. Consequently, the US was concerned that if UN sanctions were lifted before there was high confidence that all Scuds and other potential WMD are eliminated, Iraq could quickly renew its threat to the Gulf region and in a few years regain its missile development and production capacity. A similar concern pertained to Iraq's residual nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs that may be eluding UN Inspectors. "Earlier ambiguity concerning Iraq's residual missile inventory has been largely resolved, though UNSCOM maintains that Iraq is still concealing six to sixteen enhanced Scud missiles, potentially able to deliver chemical or biological warheads. These Al Hussein missiles have eluded UNSCOM inspectors, along with as many as 20 long-range missile warheads produced before 1991 specifically to carry biological weapons. Iraqi is also known to have biological gravity bombs and tons of VX nerve gas. By 1996 UNSCOM concluded that Iraq had produced 80 Scud-like missiles indigenously -- thereby placing in doubt UNSCOM's initial overall count of Iraq's original missile inventories. UNSCOM teams visiting in 1996 have been unable to locate hidden missiles but UNSCOM has been investigating Iraq's methods of concealment. " http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/missile/unscom.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Date: 16 Nov 05 - 03:40 PM BB: Hardly. WHERE did he get all the items mentioned in the first post, the (new) prohibited scuds, and all the other prohibited material that he did NOT have ( according to his own reports, and the UN) just after the Gulf war? I guess Santa brought them to him on a whim. The missiles (and they weren't SCUDs, Oraq didn't have any SCUDs contrary to U.S. definitive assertions) were arguably permissible (the Iraqis thought that they were within the limits, with only a few test shots exceeding the nominal maximum range, and that without warheads; nonetheless the Iraqis agreed to destroy the al Samoud missiles rather than get into a pissing contest about the legality and give the U.S. an excuse to invade). EVEN the UN stated that he was NOT cooperating, and had NOT complied. There's a difference betewen "co-operating" and actually having any WoMD ... and sometimes "co-operation" is in the eyes of the beholder (fortunatey, the inspections were not dependent on any co-operation for success). If "non-cooperation" is to be a casus belli for a war of aggression, though, this world is going to turn into a pretty ugly place.... ONLY after the US had begun to mobilize troops did he even let the inspectors in to many areas, and THAT was AFTER the deadline and still not fully compliant. So the troop mobilisation did the trick. Now then, dear Bruce, seeing as we got what we needed (and also seeing that the inspections were coming up pretty darn close to clean), care to explain to Cindy Sheehan and 2000 other mothers why their sons came home in a box? Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,A Date: 16 Nov 05 - 11:24 AM I also would like to hear more about the "millions and millions of people in the streets yelling hell, no". A high percentage of the populace was in favor, the House and Senate gave its' approval and the United Nations had a resolution that gave the same blessing as the US Government. Interesting thing about the World Wide Web is that anyone can get on and say any damn fool thing they desire. Truth is not a prerequisite. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: beardedbruce Date: 16 Nov 05 - 10:07 AM Sorry- http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/un/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: beardedbruce Date: 16 Nov 05 - 10:06 AM Arne, other reference documents- perhaps you can read what was said by the UN, instead of making it up? http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: beardedbruce Date: 16 Nov 05 - 10:02 AM from the cease-fire terms: 24. Decides that, in accordance with resolution 661 (1990) and subsequent related resolutions and until a further decision is taken by the Security Council, all States shall continue to prevent the sale or supply, or the promotion or facilitation of such sale or supply, to Iraq by their nationals, or from their territories or using their flag vessels or aircraft, of: (a) Arms and related materiel of all types, specifically including the sale or transfer through other means of all forms of conventional military equipment, including for paramilitary forces, and spare parts and components and their means of production, for such equipment; (b) Items specified and defined in paragraphs 8 and 12 above not otherwise covered above; (c) Technology under licensing or other transfer arrangements used in the production, utilization or stockpiling of items specified in subparagraphs (a) and (b) above; (d) Personnel or materials for training or technical support services relating to the design, development, manufacture, use, maintenance or support of items specified in subparagraphs (a) and (b) above; 25. Calls upon all States and international organizations to act strictly in accordance with paragraph 24 above, notwithstanding the existence of any contracts, agreements, licences or any other arrangements; http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm The above was 1991- AFTER the destruction of Iraq's armed forces in the Gulf War. By 2000, Military Strength Iraq $1.3 Billion (pre-invasion) Yearly Military Expense NA % of GNP 18 Min. Enlist Age 6,547,762 Available Manpower 375,000 (possible) Active Military 280,000 (possible) Frontline Personnel 651 Aircraft 7,430 Armor 3,050 Artillery 5,210 Missile Defense 4,000 Infantry Support OBVIOUSLY the UN sanctions were effective.....NOT Or do you claim this was what he had left over AFTER the Gulf War??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Teribus Date: 16 Nov 05 - 09:51 AM Apologies Arne with regard to your post of 15 Nov 05 - 04:08 PM "Teribus: ...since 1998 the world has become a safer place (even taking into account Iraq and Darfur) we are 40% less likely to experience a war and 60% less likely to encounter genocide." In which you commented - "Well, given the fact that we have a war now sucking all our resources ... and given the fact that the genocide in Darfun continues, I'd hardly take solace in that alleged "fact" (for which you provide no reference)." The findings of the study were reported by Cnn.com - Study:Fewer wars, less deadly - Oct 18th 2005. The source was United Nations (AP), you will find the article at: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/10/17/war.un.ap/index.hmtl This was the first Human Security Report funded by Canada, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland and Britain. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: beardedbruce Date: 16 Nov 05 - 09:31 AM Arne: "In point of fact, the U.S. instituted the "no-fly" zones unilaterlally, and without U.N. approval. " "cease-fire agreement ending the Gulf War of 1990-1991. This agreement called on the Iraqi government to allow United Nations weapons inspectors to search for prohibited weapons in Iraq, and, perhaps more importantly, allowed the Coalition Allies (originally the U.S., the U.K. and France), to enforce what came to be called "No-Fly Zones" over northern and southern Iraq." So what else do you have wrong? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: beardedbruce Date: 16 Nov 05 - 09:21 AM Since American and British forces carried out Operation Desert Fox in December 1998 against Iraq, this "forgotten" war in the Middle East has only become more intense. According to the New York Times in an article on August 13, 1999, American and British forces have escalated the continuing war against Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Since the beginning of 1999 through August 1999, Allied pilots launched over 1,100 missiles against 359 Iraqi targets. That number equals nearly three times the amount of ordnance used in the four-day Desert Fox strike. Also, the pilots in the Iraq War have flown two-thirds the number of missions as NATO pilots in the 1999 Kosovo War. By all accounts, Iraqi forces continue to target their radar and fire missiles at Allied warplanes despite the punishment inflicted from the air. The estimated, unofficial cost of this war to U.S. and British taxpayers is around $1 billion per year. As of August 1999, over 200 military planes, 19 naval ships and 22,000 American military personnel are committed to enforcing the "no-fly zones" and to fighting Iraq. In addition, reports indicate that the death rate for small children has doubled in Iraq over the past decade. These child deaths are attributed to the continuing war and economic sanctions on Iraq and Saddam Hussein's unwillingness to live up to the 1991 cease-fire agreement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: beardedbruce Date: 16 Nov 05 - 09:19 AM Arne, "FWIW, if you are insisting that the attacks on the "no-fly-zone" patrols were a state of war, you have a pretty poor idea of what a state of war is. In point of fact, the U.S. instituted the "no-fly" zones unilaterlally, and without U.N. approval. " The "No-Fly Zone War" pitted the air and naval forces of the United States and the United Kingdom (also referred to as "Great Britain"), against the air defenses of Iraq. This conflict proved to be largely ignored by the media and the public in both the U.S. and in the U.K., though it impacted the military and the citizens of Iraq on an almost weekly basis, especially since the intense "Desert Fox" bombing campaign of 1998. The roots of this conflict are quite simple to trace: the inconclusive and vague cease-fire agreement ending the Gulf War of 1990-1991. This agreement called on the Iraqi government to allow United Nations weapons inspectors to search for prohibited weapons in Iraq, and, perhaps more importantly, allowed the Coalition Allies (originally the U.S., the U.K. and France), to enforce what came to be called "No-Fly Zones" over northern and southern Iraq. The original intent of these zones was to protect the rebellious Iraqi minorities (Kurds and Shiite Muslims) in northern and southern Iraq, respectively. The Coalition was permitted to fly warplanes over these zones to prevent Saddam Hussein's government from using military aircraft to attack these minorities. As time progressed though, the No-Fly Zones became a means for the Allies to force Iraq to comply with UN and Coalition demands, often related to the status of the weapons inspectors. As tensions mounted after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, the possibility of a major escalation between Iraq and the U.S. increased dramatically, and the violence in the No-Fly Zone increased in preparation for the beginning of the Third Persian Gulf War: "Operation Iraqi Freedom", which began on March 19, 2003. In historical terms, the No-Fly Zone War is considered to have ended on March 19, 2003, when "Operation Iraqi Freedom" began and this conflict segued into the larger war. All three of the U.S.-led Coalition wars with Iraq (the 1990-1991 Gulf War, the 1991-2003 No-Fly Zone War, and the 2003 Gulf War 2) can really be seen as one long, extended conflict, but for classification purposes, are seen as separate conflicts. (written on March 22, 2003) In the years since the Gulf War (1990-1991), the United States and Iraq have engaged in a state of continued hostility. Under the terms of the armistice, which ended the war over Kuwait in 1991, Iraq agreed to allow United Nations weapons, inspectors to search for and destroy suspected weapons of mass destruction, (WOMDs). Nuclear, biological and chemical weapons are included in this category, and Iraq is known to have previously used chemical weapons in warfare with Iran and with Kurdish rebels. In 1981, Israel launched an air attack on the Iraqi nuclear weapons research site of Osirak, thereby publicizing the early stages of Baghdad's nuclear program. In order to force Iraq to comply with these restrictions on weaponry, the United Nations and the United States have conducted an economic embargo of Iraq, which has devastated the economy, and the infrastructure of the nation. Iraq claims several hundred thousand children have died of malnutrition and poor medical care resulting from these economic sanctions. Periodically, this "cold war" erupts into open warfare, as the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein defies the UN and the U.S., prompting military responses. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: beardedbruce Date: 16 Nov 05 - 09:12 AM Bobert, Show me where " the millions and millions of folks in the streets " demanded that Saddam comply with the UN resolutions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Bobert Date: 16 Nov 05 - 07:57 AM And, just fir the record, other than glossing over the Hans Blix *quote*, about Iraq cooperating, I really haven't read where anyone refutes that iether he made the statement or that he was incorrect in making it... Like the only think that occured between his report at the UN and the actual date of the attack was in the incessant pounding of Bush's PR War Drum to the point that the decibels just over-rode the millions and millions of folks in the streets say "Hell No, You Friggin' Moron", over-rode the good thinking of news pepartemtns as both the Post and te Times have confessed, over-road the voices within the intellegence community who were sayin' "Hey7, wait a minute, that ain't the way I see it, over-road George Tenant's pleas not to use the "16 words" and over-rode the basic Christyain principles that Bush claimed to possess... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: beardedbruce Date: 16 Nov 05 - 07:44 AM Arne, "Ummm, first off, the post-war inspections showed that the "14 years of other options" did indeed work. Secondly, the renewed inspections, under even more permissive circumstances, were reaffirming precisely this. " Hardly. WHERE did he get all the items mentioned in the first post, the (new) prohibited scuds, and all the other prohibited material that he did NOT have ( according to his own reports, and the UN) just after the Gulf war? I guess Santa brought them to him on a whim. EVEN the UN stated that he was NOT cooperating, and had NOT complied. ONLY after the US had begun to mobilize troops did he even let the inspectors in to many areas, and THAT was AFTER the deadline and still not fully compliant. "Why you continue to insist on things that are counter to fact is mystifying" Exactly. WHY do you insist on ignoring the facts, and making unsubstantiated statements, and expect anyone to believe them? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: dianavan Date: 16 Nov 05 - 02:08 AM Arne - Are you new to mudcat? If so, welcome. I totally agree with your remarks about aiding the people of Kashmir and making the world a more secure place. It is hard to believe that with men and equipment so near, that their relief efforts have been so minimal. Its almost as if they want the region to be governed by warlords and terrorists. Unfortunately, the Bush administration seems to thrive on fear and insecurity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST Date: 16 Nov 05 - 12:53 AM I have an identity. It is GUEST. In some instances, it has more respectability and dignity to it than some of the inane "real" (insert your favorite yayhoo "handle" here) identities I come across in this forum. And I will stand by the above statements. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Date: 15 Nov 05 - 07:27 PM And here's what we're doing to make the world a more secure place at pennies on the dollar. Not. We could use our resources (if we didn't have them tied down in Iraq) to try and get help to the Pakistani earthquake victims. Lots of help. And as soon as possible. Instead, we're sitting on our hands, and letting the "baddies" make new friends. Great thinking, I'd say.... Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Date: 15 Nov 05 - 07:20 PM Here's one rat, BB, Teribus, et.al. See if you can figure out which way he's headed..... Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Date: 15 Nov 05 - 07:14 PM BB, Teribus, and Susu's Hubby: Your ship is leaving harbour. You might be advised to do a rat census before you clamber up the gangway; I understand they have a preternatural gift for avoiding the least sea-worthy vessels (as seems apparent by the poll figures for Republicans). ;-) Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Date: 15 Nov 05 - 07:05 PM The New York Times finally gets tired of pussy-footing and "polite" language and decides to call a spade a spade:
Read the rest. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Date: 15 Nov 05 - 06:37 PM BB: True, and the option of combat, to achieve what 14 years of other options had failed , and had no chance of being successful in the future, seems like a good example. Ummm, first off, the post-war inspections showed that the "14 years of other options" did indeed work. Secondly, the renewed inspections, under even more permissive circumstances, were reaffirming precisely this. Why you continue to insist on things that are counter to fact is mystifying. [Arne]: "Once again, who, beside yourself and similar HW apologists, thought that a "state of war" existed?" BB: The Iraqis, from all their actions. That's pretty lame. Care to try again. FWIW, if you are insisting that the attacks on the "no-fly-zone" patrols were a state of war, you have a pretty poor idea of what a state of war is. In point of fact, the U.S. instituted the "no-fly" zones unilaterlally, and without U.N. approval. If anyone else flew ove the U.S. with armed warplanes against its wishes, one would harldy insist that the U.S. had started a war if it decide to fire on those planes; in fact, it would be the nation that sent the planes that would be the aggressor, and if such nation desisted or refrained from such, no state of war would pertain. The U.S. planes repeatedly bombed radar sites, communications facilities, and even did test probes and other provocative acts beyond the "no-fly" zones, just to try and get the Iraqis to light up the radars and then to locate and in some cases blow these up. And not a single U.S. plane was brought down by the Iraqis, not a single pilot hurt. Then there were the cruise missile attacks in 1998 and other times. Attacking another nation is hardly a justification for attacking that other nation. That being said, "state of war" is a more formal legal concept than you seem to be suggesting here. BB: You did not answer this... You can't use the reports to support your own points if you do not allow me to use them to support mine. Ummm, what exactly did you wish to point out in the U.N. reports? Please be specific, and I'll try to answer. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: beardedbruce Date: 15 Nov 05 - 04:29 PM "In fact, there's generally lots of potential options, each with their own probability ofoutcome and their own cost." True, and the option of combat, to achieve what 14 years of other options had failed , and had no chance of being successful in the future, seems like a good example. "Once again, who, beside yourself and similar HW apologists, thought that a "state of war" existed?" The Iraqis, from all their actions. "when you do not believe the UN reports?" You did not answer this... You can't use the reports to support your own points if you do not allow me to use them to support mine. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Date: 15 Nov 05 - 04:18 PM Just to add some colour to the discussion, here ya go.... Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Date: 15 Nov 05 - 04:08 PM Teribus: ...since 1998 the world has become a safer place (even taking into account Iraq and Darfur) we are 40% less likely to experience a war and 60% less likely to encounter genocide. Well, given the fact that we have a war now sucking all our resources ... and given the fact that the genocide in Darfun continues, I'd hardly take solace in that alleged "fact" (for which you provide no reference). But I'd note that the State Department's own estimate of terrorism has such increasing substantially (so much so that they fudged the numbers the first time out to keep Dubya's pants from falling off). Any particualr reason you didn't mention the figures for terrorism? Selective vision of a sorts? I travel a lot, Teribus, as do my fellow workers. One just got back from Jordan, a week prior to the attacks there. Our company has said "that's it", no more travel to Jordan. But I'd not be adverse to Jordan; I'm a bit type-A, and I was over in 1/5 Muslim Tchad a month after 9/11. But there is one place I will not go, tops of the list, and strangely enough, that is the one place the United States has well over 100K troops in to "keep the peace"! Because there is a difference between risk-taking ehaviour and suiicidal stoopidity. Even Afghanistan and Pakistan are comparatively peaceful compared to the carnage in Iraq. But our company won't send people to Pakistam; we have to hire local and dial ion remotely (and while it hasn't come up, I'd expect the same for Afghanistan. If you really think we're in a safer place now that we were a couple of years ago, I'd suggest that you go visit one of these countries, and we might put an end to our arguments here one way or another. Make sure you wear your Toby Keith T-shirt. Akenaton: Arne..Game set and match to you, whoever you are!! Ummm, strangely enough, I go by my given name of "Arne Langsetmo". ;-) BB: [Arne]: I really don't gave a d*** whether you think that a "state of war" existed. What matters is what people that actually know about these kinds of things know." BB: A perfect quote- so why should I believe anyt of your lies, when you do not believe the UN reports? Once again, who, beside yourself and similar HW apologists, thought that a "state of war" existed? BB: U-235 , please, or plutonuium. Some of us know how easy it is to make a bomb, once you have the materials. He had the materials, in violation of the cease-fire terms and the UN resolutions. I suspect that I could build a "Thin-Man" type bomb in a month or so with enough HEU (i.e., more than 95% U-235). Plutonium a bit more difficult. But both U-235 enrichment and plutonium separation require massive industrial efforts. But Saddam had neither the Pu or U-235, not the facilities to manufacture such. The 3% or so "enriched" urianium he did have requires almost as much processing as raw uranium to produce any weapons-grade material. BTW, this is why control of weapons-grade material is so important, and why it's such a travesty that even Tom Keane complained in his follow-up 9/11 commission report recently that we're dropping the ball on trying to secure this stuff and destroy it. But the Republican Congress has consistently short-changed programs to try and get the massive amounts of WGM under control in teh former Soviet Union. Teribus: IT WAS NOT TAKEN TO FIND WMD. Could have fooled a lot of people. Ummm, hmmm, oh yeah, righto, it did fool a lot of people. Not me, though. ;-) Teribus: No country in the world, no government, should delegate it's responsibility to act in the best interests of its citizens and national interests to any other body or organisation - certainly not to the UN judging on its past achievements. "Every man for himself..." Yeah, that works.... 2000+ U.S dead for a lie, Teribus. If it's so noble, why aren't you over there? BB: Perhaps you can tell me what the anti-war folks think that ANY US government will do if a WMD ( or several) is used against the US? If we even suspect who it was, IMO a LOT more people will die than in a dozen Iraq-style invasions. Ummm, if you're getting into C/B analysis, you need to add in probabilities: If P(a)*C(a) is greater than P(b)*C(b), then choose alternative "b", otherwise choose "a". You seem to be assuming equal probablitities of outcomes, something that is far from extablished. And of course you also seem to be engaging in a bit of "fallacy of bifurcation" and carefully choosing the only two options you'd like to discuss, in the hopes that the comparison will be favourable to the option you prefer. In fact, there's generally lots of potential options, each with their own probability ofoutcome and their own cost. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,Digger Date: 15 Nov 05 - 01:56 PM The quote that started this thread is from Richard Miniter, a Right Wing writer and commentator who appears frequently on Fox News and Rush Limbaugh's radio program. The excerpt and statistics quoted above are also to be found on several other web sites, obviously cut and pasted all over the internet. One of these was "blogsforbush.com." Considering the source, and the lack of substantiation or reference data......well, 'nuff said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: beardedbruce Date: 15 Nov 05 - 08:20 AM Guest, When you get a real identity, and are willing to stand behind what you say, we can have a discussion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,A Date: 15 Nov 05 - 07:09 AM Guest, your rope comment appears to be out of context. Hoever, if you will hold it, I will ................ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,petr Date: 14 Nov 05 - 08:59 PM LH, thanks for correcting that bit about Czech Cavalry... and thanks for the analysis of the battle or britain (you might have added that there were also many Czech and Polish expatriot pilots who fought on the British side.) as for the title thread.. I think the facts speak for themselves.. no WMDs were found... didnt David Kay already come out with that a year ago.. did the Bush Administration mislead? they took a page out of Goebbels book, a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth.. just keep saying "wmds.. saddam al qaeda and 9/11" in one sentence and sooner or later the MAJORITY of Americans believe that WMDS were found, that Saddam had links with Al Qaeda (even though GWBUsh himself admitted that wasnt the case) George Tenet called it a 'slam dunk case' whereas Colin Powell now views his presentation to the UN as the low point of his career. and now instead of investigating the failur to find WMDs which was the main reason to go to war as the Democrats have demanded, they will be investigating who leaked that bit about Americas 'secret prisons' all around the world. (here what Gwynne Dyer had to say about Iraq) The British Ministry of defence wanted an ubiased poll and paid local academics withouth telling them who actually commissioned the poll. and they got a truthful report -- 45 percent of Iraqis support attacks against "coalition troops" (mostly Americans and British), and less than one percent believed that foreign military involvement was helping to improve security in Iraq. Since 20% of Iraqis are Kurds who want independence and see the US invasion as helping their goal, so when you subtract the Kurds, practically all Arabs in Iraq, both Shia and Sunni, and not just 82 percent of "Iraqis", are "strongly opposed" to the presence of foreign troops. Almost two-thirds of Arab Iraqis, not just 45 percent of "Iraqis", believe that attacks on occupation troops are justified. The game is over. It's time to go home. But you know they won't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: kendall Date: 14 Nov 05 - 07:31 PM Utah Phillips said they did discover weapons of mass destruction in Iraq...a banjo factory. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST Date: 14 Nov 05 - 07:22 PM ..is that sort of like telling someone to piss up a rope? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST Date: 14 Nov 05 - 07:14 PM "You have been making unsubstantiated statements and expecting them to be taken as true." Name ONE. You are famous for making statements FOR people. You have a habit of ending posts by putting your version of words in people's mouths. Don't even tell me to provide a reference for that. Just go up this (or any) thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Teribus Date: 14 Nov 05 - 05:30 PM Like it |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Little Hawk Date: 14 Nov 05 - 04:02 PM Well, Teribus, I will say this: I have been known to drive all around town just in order to avoid making a right turn at an intersection. It wouldn't be so bad if I were in the UK, but we are forced by law to drive on the right in Canada! Disgusting. I should think that in a country with a long history of giving socialism perfect respectability (which it certainly does NOT have in the USA...), Canadians could see fit to drive on the left too. Anyway, once one has eliminated all possible errors in any given situation, there is only one thing left to do, isn't there? Naturally. That's why I'm a born leftist. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Teribus Date: 14 Nov 05 - 02:45 PM Oh Little Hawk, As a comitted leftist it must also be damn nigh impossible to ever do the right thing. Now that would explain a great deal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Nov 05 - 02:15 PM Peace, Perhaps you can tell me what the anti-war folks think that ANY US government will do if a WMD ( or several) is used against the US? If we even suspect who it was, IMO a LOT more people will die than in a dozen Iraq-style invasions. I do not support nuclear war: But the path the anti-war folks seem to push seems to lead to one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Teribus Date: 14 Nov 05 - 02:05 PM Ah well LH, Regarding things not being cosy being a leftist, from your post I can see that, it must indeed be pretty demeaning, sorry demanding, and stressful being a leftist, especially if you want to go in the right direction, I mean the conflict of principles alone don't bear thinking about. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Little Hawk Date: 14 Nov 05 - 01:56 PM Whaddya mean "cosy", Teribus? Don't condescend to me, you lily-livered son of a vulture's wingpit! It's anything but cosy being a leftist. It's highly demanding and stressful. I should think you would have more sensitivity than to use offensive implications like that word "cosy", Teribus. I would demand immediate satisfaction, were I not aware that satisfaction is the one thing this consumer culture constantly promises...but never delivers... ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Teribus Date: 14 Nov 05 - 01:46 PM Peace, While being aware of the fanciful notion held dear by the cosy left, and the anti-war brigade, that Saddam, that loyal and close friend of the West, was armed to the teeth by the US and UK, the reality is somewhat different. You ask the question: "It was not clear what support countries like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Bulgaria were providing to the US coalition." The answer is rather obvious and also applies to the type of support that the other former Warsaw pact and Soviet Satellites could provide. Counter to popular belief, NATO does not possess CW or BW Weapons, Soviet Russia and the Warsaw Pact countries did, probably still do. Now you are about to go up against an enemy that you,the rest of the world and the rest of the world's dog, believes has CW and BW weapons, I would say that it would be a pretty big plus to have people who were trained from the same manuals, on the same equipment and on the same procedures as your enemy. Who better to advise on condition and safety of stored munitions - rational? logical? reasonable? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Nov 05 - 01:30 PM Peace, "It was not clear what support countries like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Bulgaria were providing to the US coalition, but many are seeking US financial or military support through Nato. " A valid point, but would it not also be fair to mention the countries selling prohibited material to Saddam in violation of the UN resolutions? THAT would explain why some of the ones supporting the Gulf war were not willing to support this one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Peace Date: 14 Nov 05 - 12:52 PM OK. However, the broadcast I watched had just four, and they were the ones I mentioned. The others joined after Bush's initial call for support. "Range of support State department spokesman Richard Boucher explained that the list included some countries, like Japan, which are only prepared to provide post-conflict financial support for the reconstruction of Iraq. And it includes Turkey, which is still negotiating the extent of its involvement in any war. Many of the countries on the list are from Eastern Europe, where countries like Romania are providing basing rights, while Poland has offered 200 troops and the Czech Republic is sending a chemical-biological warfare support unit. It was not clear what support countries like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Bulgaria were providing to the US coalition, but many are seeking US financial or military support through Nato. And the US had promises of support from some of the countries which are already involved in the war on terrorism, including Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Georgia, and the Philippines." from here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Teribus Date: 14 Nov 05 - 12:36 PM Gulf War 1991 The Allied coalition consisted of 34 countries, including Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Honduras, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, The Netherlands, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, Syria, Turkey, The United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States. Invasion of Iraq 2003 The Coalition of the Willing consisted of 38 countries consisting of: Current members:- USA 150,000 troops. United Kingdom 8,500 South Korea 3,250 Italy 3,030 Poland 1,500 Ukraine 950 Georgia 889 Romania 860 Australia 850 Japan 550 Denmark 540 Bulgaria 450 El Salvador 380 Mongolia 180 Azerbaijan 151 Latvia 136 Albania 120 Lithuania 118 Slovakia 105 Czech Republic 80 Bosnia and Herzegovina 36 Estonia 35 Macedonia 33 Kazakhstan 27 Norway 10 Members with no military involvement:- Several countries chose not to, or could not, sustain a military involvement with regards to personnel, but nonetheless pledged their solidarity with the Coalition. Additionally, some of these countries allowed coalition forces to use their territory as launching points for offensives. Angola Colombia Eritrea Ethiopia Kuwait Micronesia Rwanda Solomon Islands Uganda Uzbekistan Members which have withdrawn:- Iceland 0 -- Mainly specialists and such. Nicaragua 0 -- Withdrew 115 troops in February 2004 Dominican Republic 0 -- Withdrew 302 troops in May 2004 Honduras 0 -- Withdrew 370 troops in June 2004 Spain 0 -- Withdrew 1400 troops in June 2004 Philippines 0 -- Withdrew 51 troops in July 2004 Thailand 0 -- Withdrew 443 troops in August 2004 Hungary 0 -- Withdrew 300-troop NATO training force in December 2004 Tonga 100 -- Withdrew 40 troops in December 2004 Moldova 0 -- Withdrew 12 troops in February 2005 Portugal 0 -- Withdrew 128 policemen in February 2005 Netherlands 4 -- Withdrew 1350 troops in March 2005, later reduced troop level by nearly 800 Singapore 0 -- Withdrew its single Amphibious transport dock deployed in the Persian Gulf in March 2005. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Peace Date: 14 Nov 05 - 12:18 PM Teribus. Good post. However (ever notice there's always a 'however', LOL), the big difference between the Gulf War and this war: about 15 or 16 countries contributed to the Gulf War coalition. This one flew with the US, UK, Spain and Bulgaria. The rest of the crew, including my own country decided that the UN should be given more time. On the world stage, right must also have the appearance of right. I don't think it did in this case. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST Date: 14 Nov 05 - 12:10 PM Too bad you guys couldn't have showed your proof to Stephen Hadley before he made his blundering statement. I'm sure he's been calling in every National Security Advisor favor he can lay his hands on for lo, these couple of years since the Iraq War, trying to scare up so much as a sling shot or a BB gun. Wonder why he's not referencing the same UNSC resolutions as you all to bolster the argument for WMDs in Iraq? Maybe he just gave in to popular opinion. Or maybe, as National Security Advisor, he doesn't have access to the same information as we common folk. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Teribus Date: 14 Nov 05 - 12:06 PM Peace - 14 Nov 05 - 10:56 AM "Hey, guys and gals, the National Security Advisor to the President of the United States says there are no WMDs in Iraq. No comments on that?" Good point Peace, when in the third, or fourth quarter of 2002 did he say that? Or maybe it was sometime in the first quarter of 2003? Of course not he made this statement much later didn't he - fair enough I'll buy it, no problem with that. Because the action taken by the US and her allies in March 2003 was taken in order to establish clearly that Iraq: - No longer possessed WMD - No longer had the ability to produce WMD - No longer had research programmes aimed at acquiring and developing WMD or any related delivery systems. - IT WAS NOT TAKEN TO FIND WMD. Finding WMD was not the litmus test which was to measure the success or failure of the mission. They've actually done that, and on the 15th December 2005, the people of Iraq will vote for their first democratically elected Government. No country in the world, no government, should delegate it's responsibility to act in the best interests of its citizens and national interests to any other body or organisation - certainly not to the UN judging on its past achievements. That is why the US, the UK and others (and there were quite alot of them, around one sixth of the membership of the UN) acted independently to resolve a problem that the UN had allowed to deteriorate for over 12 years. Post 9/11 the President of the United States of America could not rely on the UN taking any measures to prevent Saddam Hussein, or his successors, handing WMD technology or hardware to a terrorist organisation that may target the United States or her allies. That view point, considering the mans job and oath of office, to me is rational and totally understandable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Peace Date: 14 Nov 05 - 11:37 AM No. Hussein's non-compliance is a matter of fact. On that we agree. That he was trying to develop more WMDs is fact. On that we agree. The truth is that you and I mostly agree. Our only sticking point--the place we rub noses and yell at each other (or used to, anyway), is the US taking it upon itself to invade. I think the President, knowingly or unknowingly, was off his rails. The reasons he gave for the invasion in his sales job to the American people (and because of TV, the rest of the world) also included wanting to even a few things up after 9/11. The issue was clouded. He was blowin' smoke. I have always thought that Bush is too stupid to have envisioned post-war Iraq and the opportunities for some BIG cash. Those around Bush weren't. The American taxpayer has indirectly supplied Halliburton with lotsa money. I think y'all got boondoggled. |
