BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 05:59 PM

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 11:09 AM

Teribus:

[Dubya] acted to serve the national interests of his country, ...

You misspelled "his own political interests". Remember Andrew Card's (unintentionally revealing) comment about when you roll out new models?

... and of his country's allies in the middle east.

Ummm, you mean the 'good guys' like "Bandar Bush"? You know, I really can't think of too many of Dubya's allies in the middle east that came out in favour of the invasion. But maybe Israel thought it a great idea. Refresh my memory: Who else there was all "rah, rah" for Dubya's war-mongering?

OK the UN had NO resolution in place prohibiting the US from taking unilateral action.

Glad to see you admit the U.N. didn't sanction Dubya's little war.

The U.N. (and treaties) are generally against the idea of aggressive wars (pre-emption has still to become accepted as a valid form of diplomacy). Only under exceptional circumstances would they approve of such. This was not such an occasion.

Just so that we get this clearly understood Ron - He did not need to get any blessing or permission from any other body, national or international to do that.

Sez you. But YANAL. In fact, your 'opinion' here ain't worth the paper the Iraq constitution is printed on.

As...they...were...UN...resolutions,...when...was.....the..UN...going...to...do....anything.... to...enforce...them......and....with....what?

Ummm, with what they decide, if they decide that circumstances warrant. Seeing as the inspectors, contrary to Dubya's hallucinations, were in Iraq and doing their job -- for some reason totally strange and unfathomable to Republicans, their sycophants, and the 101st Fighting Keyboarder chickenhawks -- the U.N. thought this peaceful resolution should play out, and refused to back Dubya's 'rush to war'... to the sorrow of Cindy Sheehan and two thousand other mothers.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,hobie
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 10:54 AM

I can well believe that WMDs were found in Iraq. You know why? Because in just the past 6 months I have found the Fountain of Youth, Jesus, the Meaning of Life, the definition of "folk music", a cure for belly button lint, AND...Jimmy Hoffa!

If I, an ordinary guy, can do all of that, well, I'm sure the USA could easily have found some WMDs in Iraq, right?

Makes sense to me.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Amos
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 10:20 AM

In line with his responsibilities and on the best advice of his security advisors, intelligence agencies and the Senate Committee on Security. The President of the United States of America acted to serve the national interests of his country

He breached hundreds of years of constraint and balance in foreign policy by launching a unilateral pre-emptive invasion on under-assessed, badly flawed intell. Hundreds of people all over the country saw through the smoke screen, recognizing the illogics in the so-called rationalization. His justification was that the flawed intelligence might have been true. That's just dumb. It is ESPECIALLY stupid when considering a major historic act of violence and dismemberment, ruining human lives and wastingn ational resources on a huge scale. But, regardless of the import, he went ahead and signed off marching orders which have produced the most gruesome timeline the country has seen since LBJ and Nixon were alive.

You would think, considering such a major reversal of our long-standing foreign policy and principals, and standing in contemplation of an act of such mayhem and violence, he would double and triple check his sources and evaluate the information from them with care.

But he didn't.

Stupid? If not, he's psycho.


A

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 09:55 AM

Ron,

OK the UN had NO resolution in place prohibiting the US from taking unilateral action.

In line with his responsibilities and on the best advice of his security advisors, intelligence agencies and the Senate Committee on Security. The President of the United States of America acted to serve the national interests of his country, and of his country's allies in the middle east. Just so that we get this clearly understood Ron - He did not need to get any blessing or permission from any other body, national or international to do that.

Since you seem a little slow this morning I will ask:

As...they...were...UN...resolutions,...when...was.....the..UN...going...to...do....anything.... to...enforce...them......and....with....what?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Amos
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 08:36 AM

THE CURVEBALL SAGA
How U.S. Fell Under the Spell of 'Curveball'
The Iraqi informant's German handlers say they had told U.S. officials that his information was 'not proven,' and were shocked when President Bush and Colin L. Powell used it in key prewar speeches.

By Bob Drogin and John Goetz, Special to The Times

BERLIN — The German intelligence officials responsible for one of the most important informants on Saddam Hussein's suspected weapons of mass destruction say that the Bush administration and the CIA repeatedly exaggerated his claims during the run-up to the war in Iraq.

Five senior officials from Germany's Federal Intelligence Service, or BND, said in interviews with The Times that they warned U.S. intelligence authorities that the source, an Iraqi defector code-named Curveball, never claimed to produce germ weapons and never saw anyone else do so.

ADVERTISEMENT

According to the Germans, President Bush mischaracterized Curveball's information when he warned before the war that Iraq had at least seven mobile factories brewing biological poisons. Then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell also misstated Curveball's accounts in his prewar presentation to the United Nations on Feb. 5, 2003, the Germans said.

Curveball's German handlers for the last six years said his information was often vague, mostly secondhand and impossible to confirm.

"This was not substantial evidence," said a senior German intelligence official. "We made clear we could not verify the things he said."

The German authorities, speaking about the case for the first time, also said that their informant suffered from emotional and mental problems. "He is not a stable, psychologically stable guy," said a BND official who supervised the case. "He is not a completely normal person," agreed a BND analyst.

Curveball was the chief source of inaccurate prewar U.S. accusations that Baghdad had biological weapons, a commission appointed by Bush reported this year. The commission did not interview Curveball, who still insists his story was true, or the German officials who handled his case.

(LA Times)

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 07:45 AM

Teribus--

Your powers of observation seem to be quickly deteriorating. I never once claimed that the UN had a resolution prohibiting the US from taking unilateral action. Just recognize that it was in fact unilateral action--and did NOT have the blessing of the UN.


Bush apologists, on the other hand, are still, with absolutely no support from the UN itself ever, claiming the enforcement of UN resolutions as a prime justification for the invasion of Iraq.

Since you seem a little slow this morning I will repeat:

If...they... are...UN...resolutions,...it...is.....up..to...the...UN...AND...NOBODY...ELSE.... to...enforce...them.



Also, what about my point about the 2004 election?   Have you thanked the UN yet today?
Time's a-wastin'.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 07:34 AM

BB:

Charles Duelfer made the statement that "Whether Syria received military items from Iraq for safekeeping or other reasons has yet to be determined. There was evidence of a discussion of possible WMD collaboration initiated by a Syrian security officer, ...

Anything like the really great stuff we got from "Curveball" or al-Libi, perchance?

... and ISG received information about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved.

Ditto last comment.

In the judgment of the working group, these reports were sufficiently credible to warrant further investigation. ... ISG was unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war. It should be noted that no information from debriefing of Iraqis in custody supports this possibility. ...

OK, BB, what to you infer from that?

Based on the evidence available at present, ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place.

Don't know why you quote this, Bruce. It just make you look like a paranoid eedjit.

However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials." [45]

And they were unable to rule out definitively the possibility that the Federated States of Micronesia have been secretly stockpiling nukes either. So to be on the safe side, why don't we just roll into Syria ASAP (hell, if Dubya gets a do-over, maybe he can manage not to f*** it up so completely), and then on and on and on and on around the world until every single nation that is not 'Murkah is given the sweet taste of our "democracy" just in case they have nukes and are pointing them at your own bedroom, Bruce....

You know, I think that I know what happened here: Dubya just loved Randy Newman's song "Political Science" when he was living his life of dissipation in his 20's ... but Dubya just didn't twig to Newman's rather high-brow form of humour (I think Newman may have been targetting mainly more than double digit IQs).

And FWIW, Brue, the U.S. knows precisely where an enormous quantity of WoMDs are stored. At U.S. military bases.

For instance, in WWII, the state of war with Germany did not end until 19 October 1951 and with Japan, not until 28 April 1952[102].

Ummm, missed the part in my history books where we lost 90% of our casualties post-surrender. "Quagmire Accomplished, Commander Condpiece!" Do tell, Bruce.

If Saddam had NOT been hiding prohibited programs, he would have opened his borders without resistance (as per the cease-fire terms) and allowed the US and coalition troops in UNOPPOSED to look all they wanted.

Problem with your logic here, Bruce: Despite the hallucinations of Dubya to the contrary (or was Dubya lyingdid comply.

IMHO. Of course, you do not seem to allow for anyone to HAVE an opinion that might be different from what YOU approve of.

Oh, you can have any "opinion" you want. But when you spout nonsense, we're going to point that out. That's how free speech works, Bruce. "Free speech" isn't Dubya twisting the arms of the networks to get his political stump speeches broadcast for free, pretending he's actually saying something worthwhile. Sepaking of which, any clue why Dubya thinks the same ol' speech, retreaded for the fourth or fifth time, is going to get different results (a notion you seem possessed of as well)? Isn't that the classic definition of stoopidity?

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 07:28 AM

Ron,

Just one point that you seem to have missed, the myriad of resolutions passed by the UN Security Council relate to Iraq and detail what Iraq's obligations were.

As BB has taken great pains to mention and illustrate by quoting chapter and verse. The 1991 Gulf War ended not with a Peace Treaty or Peace accord, it ended with a Ceasefire agreement. Iraq under the governance of Saddam Hussein singularly failed to meet its obligations upon which that Ceasefire Agreement was based - hence previous state of hostilities may be resumed by ANY of the former allies.

Having gone to the UN and having persuaded them to issue Iraq with one last chance to comply fully with the requirements of new resolution 1441 and all previous resolutions, the Government of the United States of America, stated in the clearest possible terms, that ANY material breach would result in serious consequences for Iraq, the US Government made no pretense that what IT meant by serious consequences WAS military intervention to remove Saddam Hussein from power and to ensure that Iraq no longer could pose a threat to the peace of the region.

There were in fact seven material breaches of 1441.

As you seem so convinced of it, perhaps you can indicate the UNSC Resolution prohibiting the US from taking military action - there isn't one - the UN does not have anything like the authority you fondly suppose it has.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 07:03 AM

"Quagmire"

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 06:59 AM

Teribus et al.--

If you cannot cite precisely a UN resolution stating that the US had authority to enforce UN resolutions and sanctions without further UN participation, then kindly refrain from quoting UN resolutions as a justification for the war in Iraq.

If they are UN resolutions, it is up to the UN--AND NOBODY ELSE--to enforce them.

Also, since it seems to be still very much the fashion to bash the UN (interestingly, both the left and right seem to do it)--I would like to point out, yet again, that Bush likely owes his 2004 election to the UN. Without the UN's function as an honest broker, there probably would have been no Iraqi government til long after the 2004 election. It was Bush's ability to point to Allawi as head of that government--not Bremer--that allowed his claim of a specifically Iraqi opposition to the insurgency----and gave the lie to Mudcatters and others who were confidently predicting Vietnam Quaqmire Part II.

The reprise of Vietnam may yet happen---but obviously, not til after the 2004 election.

Bush apologists should thank the UN every day.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 04:54 AM

Ron Davies - 19 Nov 05 - 07:40 AM

"If you think that authorizing force is the same as declaring war, you are sadly mistaken" - irrelevant semantics.

The UN has authority to cede? That comes as a bit of a surprise. If it has any authority at all it has in the sixty years of its existence been very parsimonious in the exercising of it, to the detriment of that organisations reputation and the poor and oppressed of this world.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,William Shatner
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 04:11 PM

300! Seen Boston Legal lately?

- Bill

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 03:59 PM

Meanwhile, the crucial hamster factor in the USA's decision to go to war in Iraq remains unreported and the hazards of snorting pickles continue to be downplayed by the mainstream media! It's all somebody's fault. And we are going to get to the bottom of it. Hell, yes.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 11:46 AM

Once again, it comes down to faith. It's what you believe. The spin doctors are in control now. Either that, or luck. And you've turned over control of your TV sets to US!

Truth is up for grabs.

The next election possibly depends on what you believe... It's open ended

No period at the end of that sentence.

Art

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: AKS
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 11:32 AM

Beats me how people ignore the most conclusive evidence against wmds in Iraq!! Has anyone heard of Israeli planes dropping bombs there lately??? I haven't...

AKS

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 09:37 AM

And your answer to MY question?

And where is the direct quote of exactly when the US ceded its authority to enforce the cease-fire?


I do not apologize for Bush: In the matter of invading Iraq, IMHO, he was correct. In a good many other matters, I do not agree, nor support him.

YOU are an antiwar apologist, trying to hide the blood on you for NOT making as much effort to persuade Saddam to comply with the UN and cease-fire resolutions as you seem willing to make to show how horrible someone you dislike is.

If the demonstrations before the US attack had demanded that Saddam comply, rather than that Bush NOT act, there would have been no war.

If Saddam had NOT been hiding prohibited programs, he would have opened his borders without resistance ( as per the cease-fire terms) and allowed the US and coalition troops in UNOPPOSED to look all they wanted.


IMHO. Of course, you do not seem to allow for anyone to HAVE an opinion that might be different from what YOU approve of.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 09:16 AM

Congratulations BB--you're a true Bush apologist--a master at dodging the question.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 09:16 AM

One argument is that the United Nations itself, along with the three opponents of the Iraq War on the Security Council, France, Russia, and China, all benefited financially (in some cases, perhaps illegally) from transactions with the Saddam Hussein regime under the Oil for Food program; [105] and that the leaders of these three countries, along with Kofi Annan, fought against a second UN resolution not out of higher principle but in order to keep these contracts. Additionally, the resistance of the Security Council and the UN as a whole to the invasion of Iraq has been attributed to Anti-Americanism and a resentment of the cultural and economic dominance of the USA. In the case of France, it has also been attributed an attempt to court the Arab world and its local Muslim population. [106]

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 09:13 AM

that Iraq had violated the terms of the cease-fire by breaching two key conditions and thus made the invasion of Iraq a legal continuation of the earlier war. If a war can be reactivated ten years after the fact, it would imply that any nation that has ever been at war that ended in a cease-fire (such as Korea) could face war for failing to meet the conditions of the cease-fire. Such is the purpose of using a cease-fire agreement in place of a peace treaty; the resumption of war is the penalty for, and thus deterrent of, engaging in the prohibited action(s). For instance, in WWII, the state of war with Germany did not end until 19 October 1951 and with Japan, not until 28 April 1952[102].

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 09:12 AM

A United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) on weapons was established, to monitor Iraq's compliance with restrictions on weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. Iraq accepted some and refused other weapons inspections. The team found some evidence of biological weapons programs at one site and non-compliance at many other sites.

In 1997, Iraq expelled all U.S. members of the inspection team, alleging that the United States was using the inspections as a front for espionage; members of UNSCOM were in regular contact with various intelligence agencies to provide information on weapons sites back and forth. The team returned for an even more turbulent time period between 1997 and 1999; one member of the weapons inspection team, U.S. Marine Scott Ritter, resigned in 1998, alleging that the Clinton administration was blocking investigations because they did not want a full-scale confrontation with Iraq. In 1999, the team was replaced by UNMOVIC, which began inspections in 2002. In 2002, Iraq — and especially Saddam Hussein — became targets in the United States' War on Terrorism, leading to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, led by the United States and, to a lesser extent, the United Kingdom.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 09:11 AM

Charles Duelfer made the statement that "Whether Syria received military items from Iraq for safekeeping or other reasons has yet to be determined. There was evidence of a discussion of possible WMD collaboration initiated by a Syrian security officer, and ISG received information about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved. In the judgment of the working group, these reports were sufficiently credible to warrant further investigation. ... ISG was unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war. It should be noted that no information from debriefing of Iraqis in custody supports this possibility. ... Based on the evidence available at present, ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials." [45]

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 09:01 AM

Ritter wrote: "The Special Commission was created for the purpose of disarming Iraq. As part of the Special Commission team, I have worked to achieve a simple end: the removal, destruction or rendering harmless of Iraq's proscribed weapons. The sad truth is that Iraq today is not disarmed ... UNSCOM has good reason to believe that there are significant numbers of proscribed weapons and related components and the means to manufacture such weapons unaccounted for in Iraq today ... Iraq has lied to the Special Commission and the world since day one concerning the true scope and nature of its proscribed programs and weapons systems. This lie has been perpetuated over the years through systematic acts of concealment. It was for the purpose of uncovering Iraq's mechanism of concealment, and in doing so gaining access to hidden weapons components and weapons programs, that you created a dedicated capability to investigate Iraq's concealment activities, which I have had the privilege to head."

Furthermore, on September 7, 1998, approximately one month prior to United Nations weapons inspectors' ejection from Iraq, in testimony to the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committee, [28] Scott Ritter was asked by John McCain (R, AZ) whether UNSCOM had intelligence suggesting that Iraq had assembled the components for three nuclear weapons and all that it lacked was the fissile material. Ritter replied: "The Special Commission has intelligence information, which suggests that components necessary for three nuclear weapons exists, lacking the fissile material. Yes, sir." As Paul Leventhal, head of the Nuclear Control Institute remarked in response to Ritter's statement,[29] "Iraq could be only days or weeks away from having nuclear weapons if it acquires the needed plutonium or bomb-grade uranium on the black market or by other means." Ritter also said that, absent UNSCOM, Iraq could reconstruct its chemical and biological weapons programs in six months, as well as its missile program. He said that Iraq had a plan for achieving a missile breakout within six months of receiving the signal from Saddam Hussein.

It is unclear what Scott Ritter believes happened to that capability he said Saddam Hussein had in 1998 as compared to that capability he believes Saddam Hussein had after the launch of Operation Iraqi Freedom, considering United Nations weapons inspectors were absent from Iraq from 1998 to 2002.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 08:33 AM

Arne,

"I sleep like a baby, Bruce."

No concience at all, then?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 08:31 AM

OK BB--

Where's that direct quote of exactly when the UN ceded its authority to enforce UN resolutions to the US?

Still waiting.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 08:28 AM

Amos,

"To then turn around and say that those who did not participate in UN negotiations with Saddam by individually making demands is abit lopsided and, like your navel, holds little water."

So, I can depend on you to get those people off my back who keep accusing ME of being responsible for the people killed in Iraq? Or is it only those you agree with that get the benefit of "Anyone who knows the United States at all knows that we encourage -- or used to -- public dialogue, open comparison of views and the right to speak or not about anything as a core civic right." I guess MY opinion is just not as worthy of discussion as those you agree with.



"BB: That still does NOT account for the missing scuds- it just shows that we were NOT able to find them.

Objection, your honour, assumes facts not in evidence.

Ummmm, BB, there weren't any. Hope that clears things up."

I have already POSTED the UN report on this- try actually reading instead of making up things. WHO SAID there weren't any? Blix says he cannot say, as SADDAM had refused to cooperate and tell him where they were, or what had happened to them. Oh, I forget, there was no NEED for his cooperation, according to you: The inspectors had super powers and could find anything without even knowing how many had been made.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 07:46 AM

"broadcast"

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 07:40 AM

Teribus et al.--

1) If you think that authorizing force is the same as declaring war, you are sadly mistaken. It only is giving the president authority to use his good judgment. Good judgment, we have found to our everlasting sorrow, is the ultimate oxymoron when used in connection with Mr. Bush.   I have said this before on Mudcat, and suggested that if Kerry had pointed it out, he likely would have won the election. He missed a great opportunity.


Even before the vote to authorize force, in my opinion we had enough evidence not to trust Mr. Bush to make a reasoned decision--and I would never have even voted to authorize him to use force--which I said at the time. As I've said before, I predicted that every picture of a dead Iraqi woman or child broadcase on al-Jazeera would result in more terrorism all over the world--and as a registered Republican (albeit one who did not vote for Mr. Bush), I called the White House line to tell them this .

Now we are indeed reaping the whirlwind.

Also, according to MSNBC "Last May CIA analysts produced an assessment of how the Iraq war would affect global terrorism... A counterterrorism official, who did not want to be named because he was discussing classified matters, says the report's conclusion is that defeat of the the insurgency would unleash experienced, capable and vengeful terrorists on the rest of the world, and particularly the United States. Those terrorists who survive...will be the fittest and the smartest--and they'll be looking for new battlegrounds."

Mr. Bush showed his intellectual stature and his judgment again in declaring (unilaterally again) war against terrorism--a war which by definition can never be won. But of course this does give him a free hand to restrict what Americans consider their rights--very useful for him----so perhaps that's the method to his madness.

I did feel that it was reasonable to strike back at bin Laden in Afghanistan. But just from reading the Wall St. Journal (that well-known leftist rag) I had enough evidence to realize that Bush's case for war in Iraq was not established--and there would be severe consequences.




2) Still waiting for that direct citation of exactly when the UN ceded its authority to the US regarding Iraq---- (of course, with date, exact quote, and precise UN resolution which the UN declared the US could enforce without further UN participation.)

Hope you can find time in your busy life of shadowboxing to enlighten us on this point.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 04:01 AM

Arne - "Seems to me that if he went after the Kurds and Shia with helicopters, we might be able to claim we were acting within that (imposed) mandate in shooting such down. Whether there was some exception made for helicopters being used for non-military purpose is something that I can't claim knowledge on. But I'll hardly take your word for it."

Don't take my word for it, the following is from the "Declassified Transcript" of the meeeting held in Safwan on 3rd March, 1991 between Norman Schwarzkopf, leader of the coalition forces, and Iraqi General Sultan Hashim Ahmed.

The crucial exchange began when Ahmad told Schwarzkopf, "Helicopter flights sometimes are needed to carry some of the officials, government officials or any members....needed to be transported from one place to another because the roads and
bridges are out."

Schwarzkopf then told Ahmad how to mark helicopters to avoid being
shot at.
   
Ahmad: "This has nothing to do with the front line. This is inside
Iraq."
   
Schwarzkopf: "As long as it is not over the part we are in, that is
absolutely no problem. So we will let the helicopters, and that is a very important point, and I want to make sure that's recorded, that military helicopters can fly over Iraq. Not fighters, not bombers."
   
Ahmad: "So you mean even the helicopters. . . armed in the Iraqi skies can fly. But not the fighters? Because the helicopters are the same. they transfer somebody...."
   
Schwarzkopf: "Yeah. I will instruct our Air Force not to shoot at any helicopters that are flying over the territory of Iraq where we are not located. If they must fly over the area we are located in, I prefer that they not be gunships, armed helos, and I would prefer that they have an orange tag on the side--as an extra safety measure."
   
Ahmad: "Not to have any confusion, these will not come to this
territory."
   
Schwarzkopf: "Good"

OK Arne - "I will instruct our Air Force not to shoot at any helicopters that are flying over the territory of Iraq where we are not located." - Is that clear enough for you? Or does it have to be explained further.


On to some other points Arne made:

Arne..."Ummm, just what has Dubya done in Darfur? Oh, yeah, sorry, silly me, the Sudan doesn't have oil, billions in "reconstruction" money for Cheney's company, and a land-based 'aircraft carrier' in the middle of the Middle East."

Well actually, Arne the province of Darfur does have oil, sufficient for French, Chinese and Indian oil companies to be extremely interested in the region. Now the Muslim Government of Sudan, find it a trifle inconvenient that that area is populated by non-muslin Africans and that if only they can be presuaded to move then they lose any claim to a portion of the potential revenue. Enter the Government sponsored, supported and armed Janjaweed Militia. Over 180,000 people have been killed in Darfur and over 2 million displaced, all this having been done by Sudanese Army or by the Janjaweed Militia. A muslin atrocity, that Aljazeeera failed to report because they thought that it would upset their listeners. Just over a year ago, the UN declared the situation in Darfur was the most serious humanitarian crisis facing the international community. In the intervening 12 months or so Arne, what has the UN done? The US have accused the Sudanese Government of carrying out a policy of genocide against the inhabitants of Darfur, and the UN refused to acknowledge that - because if the UN accepted that premise, by their charter they would have to act. The UN's normal mode of operation is to hide behind the articles of their charter in such a way that they can get away with doing nothing.

Arne, if you are in the habit of saying, "I'll punch your lights out" when you've had too much in the bar and are feeling surly, don't be too surprised if someone takes that statement for what it is, a clear declaration of intent, and lands one on you. Right, Arne?

There are a whole rake of things that are acknowledged internationally as "hostile acts", or "acts of aggression". Such as a submarine surfacing in front of a merchant ship, illuminating a military aircraft with a fire control radar is definitely one, and one that, in the interests of self preservation, the pilot of the aircraft has to respond to immediately (By the way, I said military aircraft as they are equipped with sensors to detect such radars, civil aircraft do not).

Now let's see what you do acknowledge:

"I don't deny that turning on a radar and illuminating the target is a precursor to actually firing a missile in an attempt to bring down a plane, but that hardly makes it the same category of "act of aggression" - it is Arne, internationally recognised as such.

You then go on to say, in combination with your statement above:

"Now I'll admit that the Iraqis did (at least from U.S. reports) fire on some U.S. planes, but as I've pointed out repeatedly, none were ever brought down, nor any pilots hurt."

Hey Arne - Just what in your book does constitute an act of aggression - you would permit the targeting of your aircraft, you would permit someone to actually fire at your aircraft - and you appear to only recognise that you have been attacked as you drift to earth suspended from your parachute, if you have been lucky enough to survive the engagement. Absolutely ludicrous Arne.

Bobert - 18 Nov 05 - 07:37 PM

What international law prevents any country from acting unilaterally, if it perceives itself or its interests to be under threat? I know of none.

Ron Davies -

1. I believe that both the Senate and the House of Representatives authorised use of military force in Iraq.

2. If any country believes that it is threatened, its national interests are threatened, its allies are threatened it does not require permission from anybody to act - UN included.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 10:32 PM

BB: That still does NOT account for the missing scuds- it just shows that we were NOT able to find them.

Objection, your honour, assumes facts not in evidence.

Ummmm, BB, there weren't any. Hope that clears things up.

I still hold YOU and those who did not demand that saddam comply to be guilty of causing THIIS war, by encouraging Saddam to think he did not need to worry about any consequences to his actions. You have the blood on your hands.

LOL. Can you say "projection", Bruce? My, that's a big word. But I know you can. I sleep like a baby, Bruce. From your tenor here, I suspect you can't say the same ... bet it's getting pretty uncomfortable in that noggin of your with your conscience getting squeezed into the corners by your limbic system....

That's quite a ... -- ummmm, "unique" -- argument there, even for a Dubya apologist. Ranks right up there with the current nimber one hit on the RNC "spin machine" hit parade: the "The Democrats wer just as stoopid as us" excuse....

[Arne]: ... and refusing to take responsibility for the consequences of my acts. Fair 'nuff???"

Fair enough. I am waiting for you to do so.

Ummmm, Brucie, I doubt that Saddam wasn't paying much attention to me. But I wasn't the one cheerleading a war, either. Think you're going to lay the blame for the carnage in Iraq on me? That's the most absurd thing I think you've sadi here, and I'm suprised you'd commmit such stoopidity to print.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 10:13 PM

Ah, finally, Teribus, we meet on the field of battle (well, just the field of debate). I have to say that , like some other posters, I'm disappointed in the new Teribus incarnation. I had to grudgingly admire the old Teribus, who was the only Bush apologist actually capable of defending his policies with fact and logic (though I didn't agree). As I have remarked elsewhere, it was indeed ironic that the only remotely sensible Bush apologist was not American. None of the American pro-Bush posters ever made any attempt to make sense--they were all full of sound, fury, and sophistry--and signifying......

However, you unfortunately are just a feeble imitation of that earlier Teribus. Something must have happened.

Now to business.

If the president of the US needs nobody's sanction he has to face the consequences if he does act on his own. There are a few little problems:

1) To declare war he needs Congress' approval (except possibly in your fantasy world)--I wonder why that's why the Iraq war is not officially a war. Or perhaps you'll enlighten us as to when that declaration of war took place. (We know when the declaration of victory was---before most of the "Coalition" soldiers were killed.)


2) The main point you ignore is that the violation of UN sanctions and resolutions is the excuse given by several Bush apologists ( on Mudcat, even!) for the invasion. Sorry, that won't fly--the US never had UN authority to invade Iraq. You can cite violations of UN sanctions and resolutions forever--it does not change the fact that the UN never gave the US authority to invade Iraq. This is the main point you consistently--and conveniently--dodge---------and the crux of the matter.




But now we have Bruce, who says the US did have the authority.

OK Bruce--against all evidence you obviously have convinced yourself--I'm sure that you and Teribus, who delight in quoting UN resolutions ad nauseam, will be so good as to to quote exactly the UN resolution in which the UN ceded its own authority to the US and blessed the invasion of Iraq. Direct quote please--including number of resolution, exact wording and date. Exactly when was this resolution?

However, I won't hold my breath.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 07:37 PM

"FACT- The President of the United Sates of America does not need the sanction of anybody to act in, what ever he and his administartion believe to be, the best interestsof the United Sates of America. End of Story" (Teribus)

Ahhhhh, where exactly did you come up with that crap, T...??? This is about the most rediculous statement that you have ever made... Maybe you would like to expand on yer interpretation of internation law that is superceeded by one man and his croonies diesire to go off attackin' other folk's countries... This is precisely how WW II began...

Yeah, I'll be eagerly awaiting yer squirm on this "FACT... End of story" as will many here in Mudville...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Amos
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 06:25 PM

I feel fairly sure you're barking up not only the wrong tree, BB, but that it might be a sunflower in a different part of the garden altogether.

It is action, not speech or thought, that comes under the scrutiny of public accountability. Anyone who knows the United States at all knows that we encourage -- or used to -- public dialogue, open comparison of views and the right to speak or not about anything as a core civic right.

To then turn around and say that those who did not participate in UN negotiations with Saddam by individually making demands is abit lopsided and, like your navel, holds little water.

Private citizens in this country are MORE bound to exercise freedom of speech, I suggest, than they are to line up vocally behind one or another foreign policy.

A

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 05:51 PM

Arne,

That still does NOT account for the missing scuds- it just shows that we were NOT able to find them. So, where are they? You seem to think that multi-million dollar scuds would just be lost track of, so we should ignore that Saddam still had them. The UN reports says they are not accounted for- where is the ACCOUNTING for them, if you insist they are "chicken$hit"?

I still hold YOU and those who did not demand that saddam comply to be guilty of causing THIIS war, by encouraging Saddam to think he did not need to worry about any consequences to his actions. You have the blood on your hands.

"But, believe me, Bruce, if I do ever encourage a war, and it turns to s**** like this, I'll be one of the first to apologise for my mistake afterwards instead of saying "Lah, lah, lah, I can't heeeaaaarrrr yyyoooouuuuuu!" and refusing to take responsibility for the consequences of my acts. Fair 'nuff???"

Fair enough. I am waiting for you to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 05:36 PM

BB:

Arne,

[Arne]: "As Blix's team reported, claims of remanent SCUDs were chicken$hit...."


Ditto- no evidence.

Here ya go. Enjoy your McIntelligence....

And you have NEVER answered my question.

How will YOU explain that you would rather have all those people dead than ask that Saddam comply with his obligations?

I think I did. Tons of dead in Iraq right now (and more and more every day). You need to balance that against the hypothetical dead in your "fallacy of bifurcation" scenario of "doing nothing" or the same under the various alternative scenarios, such as when Saddam agress to step down, inspectors or U.N. peacekeepers keep watch, etc.... All I can say is that the only real deaths we know about are the ones we brought on; the rest is just speculation. And if we hadn't invaded, even if there were deaths, they wouldn't have been of our doing, and in my mind that counts for a bit as well....

Proud of all the dead that NOT making Saddam comply for all those years caused? Proud of encouraging a war?

I think you're mistaken here, Bruce: My name is Arne, not Donald "shake Saddam's hand" Rumsfeld or the Reagan/Bush I administration or the Republicans in Congress that refused to put sanctions on Iraq back at the end of the '80s because he was "our guy" ... during an equally pointeless pissing contest with the Evil Iranians (who apparently were nonetheless not sufficiently evil to preclude giving them Hawk missiles, if you take the Reagan view of things....).

But, believe me, Bruce, if I do ever encourage a war, and it turns to s**** like this, I'll be one of the first to apologise for my mistake afterwards instead of saying "Lah, lah, lah, I can't heeeaaaarrrr yyyoooouuuuuu!" and refusing to take responsibility for the consequences of my acts. Fair 'nuff???

Clear now?

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 05:32 PM

"Since DESERT FOX, we've had over 70 no-fly zone violations with well over 100 Iraqi aircraft involved, and there's been almost 20 incidents of missile firings at our planes, AAA firings and radar illuminations in that same period of time.

What we're seeing now is an increase in frequency, intensity, [and] coordination of their entire air defense system against our planes flying in both the north and the south.

We are seeing, for example, almost three times the number of surface-to-air missile batteries in the southern area, and movement of these surface-to-air missile batteries on occasion, which obviously makes it more difficult for our flyers to know where they are and where the threat may be posed.

You all know, I believe, that the anti-air defense system is composed not only of aircraft, fighters that would come down and engage planes, but also the surface-to-air missiles, AAA batteries, radars, early warning means, and communications. It's evident to us that this entire system has been centrally controlled and turned on to oppose our enforcement of the no-fly zone sanctions, both north and south.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/1999/t01251999_t0125znn.html

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,petr.
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 05:25 PM

game set and match arne.
teribus and bb can go on stomping their little petulant feet.

even the republicans are asking for progress reports on Iraq and turning up the heat on Bush & Cheney.
silly me, you mean to tell me they werent getting any progress reports?

one has to wonder about Bush's ability to govern when he never even asked Jay Garner the viceroy of Iraq, 'so just how are things going over there?' and replaced him with an idiot whose first act was to disband
the Iraqi army WITH their WEAPONS! - instantly creating a cadre of unemployed and embittered armed young men.

even BUsh's own hubris caught up with him when pissed of the right wing base by nominating Harriet Miers to the supreme court. Hey doesnt every supreme court nominee deserve an up or down vote? not if shes Harriet Myers..

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 05:09 PM

ad hominom attack- I guess that is the best you can do.


Sonnet 17/02/03                        DCCLXXXVII

If blood be price of empire, what's the cost
To stand aside, and let tyrants hold sway?
What moral ground remains, if we have lost
The will to stand firm and "No further!" say?
Can we ignore this danger to our lives,
Or risk our children's future? Is the threat
Of promised pain of no concern? Hate strives
To stop us: Will we all of past forget?
Do we hide from our duty, with the fear
That there might be a price to what is right?
We know what must be done: It may appear
That we can wait, but should we withhold might?
All evil needs to triumph is for good
To turn away and not do what it should.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 05:01 PM

Bruce and Teribus remind me mightily of The Chimp and the Poodle MK1, who feature prominently in the auld scots sang by my friend Davie Robertson....Ake

"The Chimp and the Poodle"....Davie Robertson... Greentrax245

"The chimp and the poodle were ridin' the range,
says the chimp tae the poodle,"dae ye no think it strange,
That the world goes in fear,nay, in tremblin' indeed,
Ower a radge deekin gadge, wi a towel on his heid".
"By jings" says the poodle, "I'm shair that yer right,
but I'm ready tae bark if you're ready tae bite
An the dark clouds o' terror we soon will disperse,
Wi a nuclear holocaust under his erse!"


"Alas says the chimp "that'll no dae nae guid,
For the beardie auld bastard has ran off an' hid!
An' as tae the question o' where he is noo,
The truth o' it is that we huvnae a clue.
But tho' I'm nae gorilla an merely a chimp,
I'll show tae the world I'm nae limp wristed wimp'
For noo the idea's been put intae ma heid,
I'll annihillate some other bugger insteed!"


"Bravo!!" the bold poodle cried, waggin' his tail
Although yer a chimp yer a real alpha male,
But if ye wid show yersell aff it yer best
As a rid-blodded warrior may I suggest,
Theres that chap wi the mauser,ye ken
Ye cuffed him before ye could skelp him again,
He's got oilfields like cherries just ripe for the pickin'
"Come on!! blooter Baghdad, and we'll gie him a kickin.


Yee-ha yelled the chimp. Said the poodle,"wuff wuff!!
An they spat and they swore an looked helluva tough'
An invincible force tae the Gulf was ca'ed up
Led by Mickey the monkey an Fido the pup
As they entered Baghdad tae the beat o' the drum,
Theywere showered wi bananas an Pedigree Chum.
The stock market bounced back tae where it had been,
So hurray for "Democracy" God an the Queen.


And half a hurray for Teribus and Bruce ...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 04:18 PM

"The Chimp and the Poodle"   Mk11........Ake

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 04:11 PM

Ron,

So you follow the SRS rule of only doiscussing something if the other side concedes you are right, first? I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENT- and you have provided NO evidence or documentation to indicate any reason I should believe it to be true.


Arne,

"As Blix's team reported, claims of remanent SCUDs were chicken$hit...."

Ditto- no evidence.

And you have NEVER answered my question.

How will YOU explain that you would rather have all those people dead than ask that Saddam comply with his obligations?






Strange. Becaue what I see is Arne spinning, spinning, spinning .... and refusing to address the question. Proud of yourself? Proud of all the dead that NOT making Saddam comply for all those years caused? Proud of encouraging a war?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 12:43 PM

Teribus:

The point you were trying to make was that the *no-fly* zones applied to helicopters - they didn't (No red-herring Arne just another example of your absolutely deplorable comprehension).

IIRC, the reason we asked for the "no-fly" zones was that Saddam was using helicoters to go after the Kurds and Shia. Seems to me that if he went after the Kurds and Shia with helicopters, we might be able to claim we were acting within that (imposed) mandate in shooting such down. Whether there was some exception made for helicopters being used for non-military purpose is something that I can't claim knowledge on. But I'll hardly take your word for it. Nonetheless, the poitn remains: That we claimed a right to shoot down any Saddam (military) flights in the "no-fly" zones (that was what the words meant, after all), but that in fact there weren't any such flights, and instead we were sending HARMs up the a$$ of any AA radar sites with the temerity to light up, and also bombing "communications" facilities, etc., hardly the offensive capabilities which we claimed were the raison d'etre for imposing the "no-fly" zones. Of course, you'll try to side track the conversation again, and ignore that point....

This next Arne excerpt I found hilarious:

Glad I can provide some amusement.

[Arne]: "Care to explain why you think that tech[ni]cal violations (if even that) are sufficient reason for a war of choice? Care to explain why the U.S. (or rather more precisely, Dubya and his PNAC cronies) get to decide against the wishes of a majority of the U.N. Security Council that their will is best ex[p]ressed by a war of aggression? Ho[pe] you aren't married, Teribus, because they'd have to send out the CSI team if your toast was ever burnt...."

I can almost see the poor little sod stamping his feet - Complete and utter drivel, Arne my little American Viking, complete and utter drivel.

Strange. Becaue what I see is Teribus spinning, spinning, spinning .... and refusing to address the question. Proud of yourself?

More balderdash from Arne - war ought to be the "last resort"

Yeah. Even Dubya (as well as many seators, etc.) said that. Dubya didn't mean it though. He lied to you.

Unfortunately in life what ought to be ain't. Particularly if you want to get something done - High time the UN realised that, too late for Rwanda and Darfur of course. What have you read about Darfur in Aljazeera Arne?

Ummm, just what has Dubya done in Darfur? Oh, yeah, sorry, silly me, the Sudan doesn't have oil, billions in "reconstruction" money for Cheney's company, and a land-based 'aircraft carrier' in the middle of the Middle East. What was I thinking.....

With regard to aircraft patrolling the 'no-fly'zones, turning on radars and lighting up aircraft is considered a hostile act...

Kind of like saying "I'll punch your lights out" when you've had too much in the bar and are feeling surly, right, Teribus? Yep, threatening is a crime ("assault", to be precise, it is in fact "battery" that is the act of actually striking someone). But hardly the same "crime". I don't deny that turning on a radar and illuminating the target is a precursor to actually firing a missile in an attempt to bring down a plane, but that hardly makes it the same category of "act of aggression". Now I'll admit that the Iraqis did (at least from U.S. reports) fire on some U.S. planes, but as I've pointed out repeatedly, none were ever brought down, nor any pilots hurt. It was more the "Im gonna get you, copper" from a cornered crook.

[WRT the illumination indicator]: You respond immediately, or you die - FACT.

Ummm, as I said above, not one plane was ever brought down by the Iraqis while flying the "no-fly" patrols.

As I said, you really have a pretty perverted sense of what constitutes "aggression" which would justify $300B and 2000 U.S. servicemen losing their lives. I repeat: Go tell Cindy Sheehan that her son died because the Iraqis turned on their radars. Se what response you get, you brave, brave boy, you....

Arne, I see would have it that, irrespective of evaluated threat, we should:

- take into account not only the seriousness of violation.
- take into account the price we pay, morally, politically, economically, and in human lives of our response.

Ummm, yup. And you would seemingly think that we should not think about anything like that. Imagine my surprise.

Just as well you were not around making decisions in 1939, some rather nasty pieces of work would have got away with it Scot free, and the world as a whole would have been a far nastier place than it is today. Well done Arne.

Trotting out the flogged and dead "see, see, WWII!" horse again, eh? First of all, Germany declared war on us (and Japan attacked us). Secondly, it was RWers (and their buddies in the American Bund) that thought that Hitler was maybe not so bad, or even that we should have thrown our lot in with him). Bad example, Teribus. You assume that I would think that WWII shouldn't have been fought. This is a totally unwarranted assumption. FWIW, my parents didn't even get to make any choice in the matter; they were living under Nazi occupation. So maybe you'd concede if you actually took the time to think ... oh, sorry, assuming facts not in evidence ... that I might have at least some opinions on WWII that might not fit your preconceived notions of who I am here....

By the way Arne what is going on at present in Iraq has got SFA to do with Saddam Hussein, WMD, or UN Resolutions so don't try linking them.

A fact that sadly seems to have escaped Dubya, Cheney, the PNAC, and you....

Or ... perhaps ... was the maladministration lying to us about their actual game plan? Imagine that ... no, no one could be so cavalier with the lives of U.S. soldiers....

No Arne, with regard to the Al Samoud missiles UNMOVIC provided their specification to two independent review bodies, both of whom found them to be in breach of UNSC Resolutions and reported so to both UNMOVIC and the Iraqi Government - That is why they were scrapped.

As I said, the difference betweem 149 Km and 155 Km is insignificant, functionally. Iraq had a plausible argument on the range sans payload, but as I noted, they agreed to destroy them. What's the problem? How many U.S. soldiers should lose their lives because you got your knickers in a twist about this? C'mon, give me a numebr, Teribus....

Well, I'll be busy preparing/packing for a trip to the Indian subcontinent for the next couple weeks, Teribus, so I'll have to check your responses when I return, I suspect. See if you can put a price on the life of a U.S. soldier in the meanwhile, OK? And while you're at it, how about a rating of their lives versus yours: How many U.S> Marines is one blustering Teribus of the Fighting 101st Keyboarders worth? Which has more potential to do some good in the world, and which is of more interest to you? Do tell....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 12:22 AM

Ahem... (drum roll)

WEREN'T!

Just had to say it. ;-) I'm going to sleep now. If you reply at great length, I may see it after my weekend holiday. Have fun!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 12:15 AM

First off:
Ron Davies - 17 Nov 05 - 10:59 PM

"The US did not have UN authority to invade Iraq."

FACT - The President of the United States of America does NOT need the sanction of ANYBODY to act in, what he and his administration believe to be, the best interests of the United States of America - End of story.

Secondly - GUEST (Arne Langsetmo) 17 Nov 05 - 10:12 PM

The point you were trying to make was that the *no-fly* zones applied to helicopters - they didn't (No red-herring Arne just another example of your absolutely deplorable comprehension).

This next Arne excerpt I found hilarious:

"Care to explain why you think that techincal violations (if even that) are sufficient reason for a war of choice? Care to explain why the U.S. (or rather more precisely, Dubya and his PNAC cronies) get to decide against the wishes of a majority of the U.N. Security Council that their will is best exoressed by a war of aggression? Hoep you aren't married, Teribus, because they'd have to send out the CSI team if your toast was ever burnt...."

I can almost see the poor little sod stamping his feet - Complete and utter drivel, Arne my little American Viking, complete and utter drivel.

More balderdash from Arne - war ought to be the "last resort" Unfortunately in life what ought to be ain't. Particularly if you want to get something done - High time the UN realised that, too late for Rwanda and Darfur of course. What have you read about Darfur in Aljazeera Arne?

Arne I realise that you have never served in the military and have no idea what constitutes 'acts of aggression' in a militarily sensitive environment, but - With regard to aircraft patrolling the 'no-fly'zones, turning on radars and lighting up aircraft is considered a hostile act, and proportionate response is justified. Believe me it is not c*** when, as a pilot you hear the audio warning that your aircraft has just been acquired by a surface to air missile battery radar. You respond immediately, or you die - FACT.

Arne, I see would have it that, irrespective of evaluated threat, we should:

- take into account not only the seriousness of violation.
- take into account the price we pay, morally, politically, economically, and in human lives of our response.

Just as well you were not around making decisions in 1939, some rather nasty pieces of work would have got away with it Scot free, and the world as a whole would have been a far nastier place than it is today. Well done Arne.

By the way Arne what is going on at present in Iraq has got SFA to do with Saddam Hussein, WMD, or UN Resolutions so don't try linking them. What you are seeing is pure opportunism in the wake of Saddam's departure, nothing more.

Oh Arne.... Just go back and read what the man said with regard to the extent of the threat posed, it did not singularly address a threat to the U.S. did it!!

No Arne, with regard to the Al Samoud missiles UNMOVIC provided their specification to two independent review bodies, both of whom found them to be in breach of UNSC Resolutions and reported so to both UNMOVIC and the Iraqi Government - That is why they were scrapped.

Oh and Arne, I believe the point BB was making about the 384 rocket motors was that they shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Nov 05 - 10:59 PM

Bruce--

Your needle is really stuck--change the record.

The US did not have UN authority to invade Iraq. End of story.

Do you really have nothing else to do with your life than, yet again, attack this poor dead horse that's been mouldering away so long its ghost doesn't know where it is?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Nov 05 - 10:24 PM

Bottem line, BB, the missles that Sadam had would have fallen at least a couple thousand miles short of the US???

Correct???

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Nov 05 - 10:12 PM

Teriobus: 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.

Ummm, and this has to do with my point .... exactly what??? Or are you just tossing in a deliberate "red herring" to distract and avoid the issue?

Teribus again: An example of the odd logic applied by Arne:

(scroll up for the exchange)

Seems like good logic to me, Teribus. Care to explain why you think that 2000 U.S. soldiers is a fair price to pay for slaking Dubya's peeve that he got his panties in a twist? Care to explain why you think that techincal violations (if even that) are sufficient reason for a war of choice? Care to explain why the U.S. (or rather more precisely, Dubya and his PNAC cronies) get to decide against the wishes of a majority of the U.N. Security Council that their will is best exoressed by a war of aggression? Hoep you aren't married, Teribus, because they'd have to send out the CSI team if your toast was ever burnt....

Teribus again (the point zinging over his head): ...military action may be resumed to ensure compliance.

Even if that were true (and as I pointed out, the refusal of the UNSC to authorise such actions, along with quite a few other reasons, argues against it), the question is "shoukd [] military action be resumed". Even if there were legal authorisation, however slim or dodgy that excuse, most people think that a war ought to be the "last resort" (as even Dubya thought ... or at least he said that ... hmmm, noooooo, do you think he was lying?).

BB: When, IN VIOLATION of the cease-fire terms, the Iraqis angaged in acts of aggression against the patrolling forces....

Ummm, like turning on radars? Damn the photons, full speed ahead. And there were communications facilities that were bombed; reports indicate that a fair amount of the pre-war bombing was aimed at communications and other facilities, just to get a head start on the bombing (and perhaps also to provoke Saddam into fooolish moves). Your account fo just the amount of ordnance dropped puts the lie to the fact that this was all "defensive" fire in response to Iraqi "aggression". This is c*** you're spewing, Bruce, and you know it.

BB: 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?

Nice "straw man" there, Bruce. I bet you're proud of yourself. Getting beyond your dishonest argumentative techniques, I would say that our response to any level of (sometimes alleged) violation should take into account not only the seriousness of violation but also the price we pay, morally, politically, economically, and in human lives of our response. That seems to be someting that you are continuing to face up to yourself ... for reasons that I think only you could possibly explain. But I think you should make the effort. In particular, is human life that damn cheap to you (as long as it's not your own or that of your loved ones)? Please enlighten us, Bruce: How many dead for a incomplete document? How many dead for an Iraqi shadow on the inspectors? Let's see if we can put a price tag on some of this stuff.... Tell you what: How much of a tweak from Saddam do you think your son's life would be worth? Please be specific.

BB: How will YOU explain that you would rather have all those people dead than ask that Saddam comply with his obligations?

Well, here's the dead we do do know about: 2060+ (and counting) U.S. soldiers. Many times that more Iraqis. But, funny thing, Bruce, they're dead even though Saddam had already complied with most of the "obligations" pretty well. The dead that I can manage to identify came becauswe Dubya wouldn't take "yes" for an answer. And these are the dead that we have to deal with right now.... Now where's your charred corpses to line up alongside them? In your fevered head? I'd say they have drugs nowadays that can help with that.....

BB hallucinates again: The allowed range was 150 KM.

...

"Some 75 percent of the total U.S. population of 290 million people and 75 percent of its military bases are within 200 miles of the coast. The number of potential launch platforms is immense, with 130,000 registered merchant ships in 195 countries, NWIS said.

Ummm, we let a ship with SCUD-type missiles on to Yemen after boarding it. Wise move, eh?

But you're dreaming ... nay, sorry, let's get specific, hallucinating ... when you think that these 150 Km (give or take a couple) were any practical threat to the U.S. (particularly considering the large numbver of such missiles extant around the world), and considering that Saddam had no way of getting them near the U.S., much less undetectably....

BB: From his attack on Kuwait, we had some indication that Saddam was a danger.

Only if we hand him a letter that says that any possible designs he might have on taking over the U.S. so as to corner the world market on Hollywood movies is not of any concern to us.   ;-)

BB: "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.

Still trotting out stale garbage from 1998 or so? As Blix's team reported, claims of remanent SCUDs were chicken$hit....

BB: Foremost amongst these is the import of 380 rocket engines which may be used for the Al Samoud 2.

The al Samoud missile was arguably legal. But FWIW, just to placate the U.S. and make sure they didn't have an excuse to invade, Saddam agreed to destry them (and they were being destroyed even as Dubya went to war).

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Nov 05 - 08:50 AM

BTW, the ones Saddam was working on ( programs, remember? Even the testing of engines was prohibited) were IRBMs- could just about reach Europe...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/844119/posts



"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. "

Never did find out where those 6 to 16 ( plus how many "locally" produced) enhanced SCUDS went... On ships in Baltimore harbour?



From the UN:
"In addition, Iraq has refurbished its missile production infrastructure. In particular, Iraq reconstituted a number of casting chambers, which had previously been destroyed under UNSCOM supervision. They had been used in the production of solid-fuel missiles. Whatever missile system these chambers are intended for, they could produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 km.

Also associated with these missiles and related developments is the import, which has been taking place during the last few years, of a number of items despite the sanctions, including as late as December 2002. Foremost amongst these is the import of 380 rocket engines which may be used for the Al Samoud 2.

Iraq also declared the recent import of chemicals used in propellants, test instrumentation and, guidance and control systems. These items may well be for proscribed purposes. That is yet to be determined. What is clear is that they were illegally brought into Iraq, that is, Iraq or some company in Iraq, circumvented the restrictions imposed by various resolutions."



"the al-Samoud liquid propellant missile has been extensively tested and had been deployed to military units. Intelligence indicated that at least 50 had been produced. Intelligence also indicated that Iraq had worked on extending its range to at least 200km in breach of UN Security Resolution 687.

In February 2003, U.N. inspectors evaluated two versions of the Al Samoud 2 missile using four separate computer models. Both versions were found to exceed the range limit of 150 kilometers set by the U.N. Security Council. The lighter version of the Al Samoud 2 was estimated to have a range of 193 kilometers, while the heavier version would be capable of a 162 km range. Accordingly, it was requested that all Al Samoud 2 missiles and warheads be delivered to the inspectors for destruction.

A cache of 12 Al Samoud missiles was found south of Bayji at LD7154 and LD7644 on 21 July 2003 at 1700 hrs. "

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Nov 05 - 08:14 AM

Bobert,

"Maybe my friend, BB, would like to tell the folks just how far the Iraqi's missles were capable of flyin' and then maybe a followup onhow far it is from Iraq to the US of A..."


The allowed range was 150 KM.



I repeat this from a post above:

Check
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/abm-05zm.html

"Some 75 percent of the total U.S. population of 290 million people and 75 percent of its military bases are within 200 miles of the coast. The number of potential launch platforms is immense, with 130,000 registered merchant ships in 195 countries, NWIS said.

Thousands of SCUDs and other inexpensive short-range ballistic missiles have been dispersed, sold worldwide with some in countries where terrorist groups operate openly.

Iran test-launched a tactical ballistic missile from a ship last year and the threat has become much worse with the rapid proliferation of cruise missiles. China has already supplied many to Iran.

Some 70 countries already possess an estimated 75,000 anti-ship cruise missiles and many of them could be easily converted to land-attack weapons. At least 10 nations already have land-attack cruise missiles and their number is increasing, NWIS said"


So we should just ignore that Saddam was making missiles of a longer range than he was permitted? And that he had stockpiles of chemicals to produce WMD?

From his attack on Kuwait, we had some indication that Saddam was a danger. We had a cease-fire based on his NOT having the weapons to be a danger to us: He violated that cease-fire, and obtained some, and was working on obtaining others.




"Heck, if every country in the world got invaded becuase they were not 100% complient with ebvery UN resulotion or treaty, wouldn't be many uninvaded countries to name..."

If a child molester is given parole on the condition he keeps away from kids, and then starts going into school during classes, he gets arrested. You do NOT arrest every adult going into a school unless you have some indication that they are commiting a crime.



fyi, 200 miles is about 300 KM

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Nov 05 - 07:56 AM

Once again the hawks divert attention away from the reasons the American people were told for war into little details of sticky UN resolutions... Heck, if every country in the world got invaded becuase they were not 100% complient with ebvery UN resulotion or treaty, wouldn't be many uninvaded countries to name...

As we speak our own US of A carries out torture on prisoners/detainees ion violation of the Geneva accords.... Maybe the UN needs to issue a resolution on the US of A ordering use to cease this behavior and maybe impose sanction if we don't and maybe attack the US of A after some period of time if we don't quit torturing folks???

But back to the premise of the war... The first PR shot fired at the citizens of the US of A was by Condi Rice with her "mushroom cloud" statement... Maybe my friend, BB, would like to tell the folks just how far the Iraqi's missles were capable of flyin' and then maybe a followup onhow far it is from Iraq to the US of A...

See, the discussion shouldn't be about the picky-unny details but the big piccure and that is that, yes, the Iraqi's were cooperating with the inspection teams... That' the real story here... What motivated them to cooperate is not the big story but a mere sidebar... (And if your gonna quote this quote the entire paragraph please...)

Now here's another bit of food fir thought that folks aren't talkin' much about and that is why Iraq would not be fully cooperative. Hey, given how little they had in the way of weaponry, it is quite feasable they didn't want their neighbors to know how poorly they were equipped to defend themselves... If you'll recall the Iran/Iraq war it was the US supplying them and giving them tactical support that tipped the scales... If I'm running a Middle East country that is poorly equipeed to defend itself against it's neighbots, I ain't gonna run no full page ads advertisin' it... Just food for thought.... But should you think about that fir a second, try to do it as the head of any state Arab state in the region...

Bobert