|
05 Jun 03 - 11:21 AM (#962785) Subject: BS: Got WMDs? From: GUEST Heard the following this morning on NPR on my way to work... the audio link can be found by clicking here |
|
05 Jun 03 - 08:24 PM (#962974) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Bobert Who cares, ya commie? We got Buswieser and NASCAR and that's all that really matters. Bobert |
|
06 Jun 03 - 08:23 PM (#963502) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: GUEST,Q Weavers of mass delusion? |
|
07 Jun 03 - 03:03 AM (#963608) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Liz the Squeak I guessed this would happen when I noticed a colleague back at work 8 months before he was due.... He's in the Territorial Army - part time soldiers - and is a weapons expert, chemical, biological and nuclear. When he was called up in February he was told he'd be away for a year. He got back last month. Says it all really. LTS |
|
08 Jun 03 - 02:41 PM (#964094) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: McGrath of Harlow I see in The Observer today an interesting development regarding those "Iraqi mobile biological warfare production units" that Bush has been going on about so triumphantly, anytime reporters ask "Where are the WMDs ?" It now appears they aren't anything of the sort, but that that "the units were designed to be used for hydrogen production to fill artillery balloons, part of a system originally sold to Saddam by Britain in 1987." (And maybe it's as well to point out that The Observer actually supported the war. Mind you, at the time the paper believed the stuff about how Iraq was bristling with Weapons of Mass Destruction that could be unleashed within a few minutes.) Somehow I can't see Bush apologising for misleading people over this. Well, he wouldn't would be? |
|
08 Jun 03 - 05:21 PM (#964152) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Charley Noble Sigh! Charley Noble |
|
08 Jun 03 - 09:31 PM (#964269) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Bobert Now the story is changing from WMD to "Well, danged, we liberated them folks from an evil man!" Well, the substitute may very well be equally evil, but that doesn't matter one danged bit. Talk about revsionism, we are seeing it daily with the lie de jours' that these folks come up with. Problem is, is that very few people care. "Lie to me, that's fine, what time is the NASCAR race on TV on Sunday?" Man, the US population has been dumbed down to the IQ of the average sanil. They just don't give a sh*t. (Excuse my French) But they really don't. Tell 'em what they're sposed to think and they think it, do it or not do it. Bunch of wimps as far as I can see. Not a patriot left in the crowd! We all know thesefolksa re lieing to us and stealing other folks stuff, including our own, and yet we blissfully watch stupid friggin' cars go round and round and round and round and round and...... the beat goes on... Beam me up... Bobert |
|
08 Jun 03 - 10:51 PM (#964311) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: TIA If the whole thing was really about a humanitarian moral imperative, when are the neocons going to push and invasion of the Congo? |
|
08 Jun 03 - 11:25 PM (#964322) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Bobert Good point, TIA. Like never. The neocons are only in this thing fir themselves and their friends. No one else. You got a bomb and no oil, forget it. You got no bomb and oil, then lets see what we can pin on you.... How utterly simplistic mankind has become. Especially the mankind, or whatever they call themselves, is in the current US administration. Geeeze... I thought we were a little furhter down the road... Guess not... Bobert |
|
09 Jun 03 - 01:21 PM (#964613) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Peg Condoleezza Rice was on two morning news shows yesterday. George Stephanopoulos laid into her about the fact that the "evidence" for WMDs cited again and again in speeches and most notably the State of the Union Address, was in fact based on inaccurate documents and that this was acknowledged by the Administration, but that this information kept being trotted out as "proof." I actually found it amusing that George was able to wipe that smug self-satisfied robot smile off her face as she backpedalled; I actually thought I saw her eyes watering....she spun it all nicely of course, referring to things like "we asked the intelligence community what we could say, what we could not say" and "just because this source turned out to be inaccurate, we were also using other sources to inform our decisions" blah blah blah, but since George never once asked "why did the President and the Administration LIE about this?" she did not have to directly answer him... I am horrified at the lack of accountability and the pandering of our news media. There is a GREAT essay on this by a columnist named Wolcott in the current issue of Vanity Fair. |
|
10 Jun 03 - 05:19 AM (#964938) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Teribus Please feel free to correct the following where incorrect in detail. 1. The WMD that this was all about were those detailed in the UNSCOM Report to the United Nations Security Council in January 1999. UNSCOM had documented evidence that the materials, stocks of weaponised agents, munitions and missiles to deliver those agents, existed. The report also said that UNSCOM could not state with any degree of certainty that Iraq's WMD programme had been shut down. 2. UN Security Council Resolution 1441, sent UNMOVIC and IAEA inspection teams back into Iraq to determine the status relating to the items specified in the UNSCOM Report and to obtain verifiable evidence relating to the status of Iraq's WMD programmes and capability. 3. Resolution 1441 required full pro-active co-operation from Iraq. This was not evident and was a consistent criticism of the Iraqi regime in every report tabled by Dr. Hans Blix to the UNSC. 4. The Iraqi Authorities consistently claimed that all their WMD stocks had been destroyed, but could offer UNMOVIC no means by which this could be verified. During the inspection period, small numbers of items, that the Iraqi's had claimed that they had destroyed were discovered - this threw doubt on the statements by the Iraqi's regarding the remainder of the outstanding items. None of the above relates to anything that could be seen as being driven by either the US or UK - all the above lies within the province of UN controlled and directed activity - all the above remains relevant to-date, it still must be established exactly what happened to the items mentioned in the UNSCOM Report of January 1999. Most of what is being discussed now relating to WMD is centred around evaluation of intelligence (where it is always more prudent to weight the evaluation towards worst-case) - any such evaluation regarding WMD must take into account not only the weapons themselves but also the research and development programmes behind such weapons. Liz the Squeak: "I noticed a colleague back at work 8 months before he was due.... He's in the Territorial Army - part time soldiers - and is a weapons expert, chemical, biological and nuclear. When he was called up in February he was told he'd be away for a year. He got back last month. Says it all really." Doesn't say anything at all LtS - Your colleague would have been required for as long military operations were ongoing in Iraq in an immediate support role. For longer term support relating to chemical, biological and nuclear incidents, the coalition could rely on support from former Warsaw Pact members whose experience in dealing with Soviet ordinance would be a great deal more "current" and efficient. TIA - I recently asked the question what members thought would happen in the DR Congo - you can see how well the UN handles the issue - probably as effectively as they coped in Rwanda - far too little, far too late. Bobert - The Congo is potentially one of the richest countries in the world, gold, diamonds, oil.... Control of which has been what has lain behind the ongoing factional fighting (supported spasmodically by the armies from neighbouring countries). The NeoCons that you and TIA mention are not interested in gold, diamonds, oil???? |
|
10 Jun 03 - 01:42 PM (#965210) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Little Hawk Faith like yours is of the religious dimension, Teribus...unshakeable. Hans Ulrich Rudel was like that too (Germany's highest-scoring Stuka ace...he destroyed about 500 Russian tanks and a battleship, and never lost faith in his party, his country or his leaders). That's faith. It doesn't change the fact that the Nazis were a destructive administration, supported by ordinary people who didn't know any better. So is the present US administration. A country that has significant weapons of mass destruction does not go down before a foreign invasion without using them. If Iraq had had such weapons they would have used them. The most significant real weapon of mass destruction we have seen in recent times has been the avalance of false propaganda, spin doctoring, and outright lies with which the Bush administration manipulated the American public and launched its illegal and unprovoked war of aggression on Iraq, its former client state, which state would not have come into existence (under Saddam, I mean) without the previous assistance of the USA, a country which is governed by people who care about only one thing...WINNING the game of World domination. And that game has absolutely nothing to do with either democracy or freedom. It has to do with everything opposed to both of those principles. Saddam was playing a similar game...on a much more localized scale. He was a mere convenient excuse for America. A marketable "face" for people to hate. They don't need him anymore, now that they have Iraq. They will soon find some other "bad guy" for naive people to obsess about, so that another war of aggression can be launched without provocation or need, against another opponent who has less chance than a fish in a barrel. (By the way, I think it was the Saudis who actually planned and backed 911. But you won't hear much about that. Iraq certainly did not do it.) Imperial Rome, Teribus. You're just a loyal Roman, repeating what you've believed all your life, so you can't see it any differently. And I'm fairly sure you never will. If you really believe in these preemptive wars, why not pick up your sword or gun, enlist, and face it in the front line with the rest of the Empire's troops? Too old? Well, that's a shame...a man who believes in supporting naked aggression oughta get a chance to join the action, I think, and gain some martial glory as the Imperial juggernaut rolls on over another little country. - LH |
|
10 Jun 03 - 02:09 PM (#965225) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Amergin Well, I'm sure that before too long...they will plant evidence.... |
|
10 Jun 03 - 02:33 PM (#965241) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Little Hawk Possibly...or they may just prefer to rely on the short attention span of the general public, which can easily be diverted anyway by manufacturing some new crisis. SARS, by the way, seems to be falling a bit short of causing a dimension of hysteria comparable to the hype being generated by the media. 31 people have died of it in the Toronto area. That's out of a population of about 3 million. That means I have a one in 96,774 chance of dying of SARS at this point. Oh! I am soooo terrified. I have been down to Toronto several times in the last 2 weeks, and I can tell you that the ordinary daily traffic conditions pose a far greater peril to life and limb than SARS...but you don't see people demanding that we close the roads, do you? As Amos has said before, we live in a semi-barbaric and really quite primitive society, driven by its own irrational and mythical notions of reality every bit as much as was Rome, Assyria, or ancient Babylon. Loyalists and career soldiers don't want to hear that. It might make them question what they are doing, and cause them to lose a little sleep. - LH |
|
10 Jun 03 - 09:43 PM (#965518) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Bobert Well, now the operative word is "program" since the Bush/Blair regime has been caught with their manipulative pants down. "Well, thet had a *program*!" Big wooooop! Who doesn't? "But is was a big scarey program!" Yeah, right. We're seeing the evidence comin' in like a tidal wave... Hmmmmmmm, Part 1614? This was about oil. It was about domination. And, as importantly, it was about an administration that prior to 9-11 was on the rocks and going down. And with lots of unpaid debts... (Which are now being paid...) Well, this certainly shopuld create some difficulty for future historians in how they will *revise* this terribly evil little stretch that America is going through to make it sound acceptable. It isn't, and I know in my heart that those of you who continue to stand up for the Bush/Blair regime... know it... Yeah, you will throw up the usual "yeah, but....s' but you know your guy is nothing more than a thug. Sorry, but it's true. Bobert |
|
10 Jun 03 - 10:12 PM (#965531) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: TIA Yeah, I forgot, we HAD to invade Iraq to back up the UN - even though the UN was adamantly against an invasion. Undoubtedly, it was for their own good. As for the Iraqi's, turns out it was for their own good as well. And Brits and Americans who were led in to war by lies - don't worry, it was for your own good. You folks can't handle democracy - we'll lead you for your own good (with not a whiff of self-interest). Why are Bechtel and Halliburton rebuilding Iraq? Can't be for their profits - must be for the good of the Iraqis. These folks are just soooo damn giving, I'm getting all choked up. |
|
11 Jun 03 - 12:49 AM (#965601) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Gareth Welll WMD's or not, Saddam has gone - Any arguments against that ??? Gareth |
|
11 Jun 03 - 02:21 AM (#965626) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Little Hawk Actually, yes...I have heard arguments against it from various Iraqui civilians who have stated openly to the press that it was better under Saddam. I'm not necessarily saying that myself, I'm just reporting on incidents I have read about in that regard lately. Some people would, it seems, prefer not to have their country invaded by foreigners with WMD's (like B-52 strikes), their infrastructure devastated, their art treasures plundered, and their society thrown into chaos in the process. Gosh. What is wrong with those people? Gotta wonder, eh? - LH |
|
11 Jun 03 - 04:50 AM (#965657) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Teribus Little Hawk, What I stated in my post above requires no great unshakeable faith whatsoever - it is merely an outline of the situation with regard to Iraq's WMD and WMD programmes. The outline is provided by information gathered for, and reported to, the Security Council of the United Nations by teams of inspectors drawn from member states. I note that in detail you do not question, or refute any of the four points raised. You state that: "A country that has significant weapons of mass destruction does not go down before a foreign invasion without using them. If Iraq had had such weapons they would have used them." That is not bourne out historically - in 1991 Iraq, undeniably, did have a credible chemical and biological capability - They didn't use them then. Your references to 9/11, Rudel and Imperial Rome are totally irrelevant to the subject under discussion. With regard to my own personal experience, during my time in the forces I have been on active service on three occasions, so please, you have no need to feel sorry for any lack of opportunity you feel I may, or may not, have missed out on. Amergin: You say that you are, "sure that before too long...they will plant evidence.... " Why would they do that? - they simply just do not have to do that. What they do have to do is establish beyond doubt what happened to the items mentioned in the UNSCOM Report. For the second part of UNMOVIC and IAEA's remit, with the Ba'athist regime of Saddam Hussein gone, they can say with an extremely high degree of confidence that currently, Iraq is not pursuing any programme related to any WMD capability. |
|
11 Jun 03 - 12:44 PM (#965901) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: CarolC Here's the part I'm having trouble understanding. If Saddam had in mind to use WMDs agains the US at some time in the future, and he had them during both of the Gulf wars witht the US, why didnt' he use them in those wars? |
|
11 Jun 03 - 01:55 PM (#965936) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Little Hawk He didn't use them in '91, because the coalition stopped short of a full invasion, and he didn't have to. He didn't use them in 2003 because he didn't have them. The idea that Saddam could possible pose a serious threat to the USA is so ludicrous that it surpasses the nonsense Hitler used to justify his attack on Poland! Teribus - Fair enough. I wasn't suggesting that the particular info you offered regarding the WMD's was based on faith. I was suggesting that your general emotional committment (which leads you to seek out certain information and not perhaps seek out other information) is based on a form of faith. That's not just the case with you...it's also the case with me and everyone else...we are all subjective creatures with certain biases. We defend our subjective biases by looking up various forms of objective info and concocting logical arguments which are like a mask that conceals the subjective nature that lies behind it. I'm just saying that you are analogous to a loyal Roman who defends and justifies the conquests of the Empire, while I am analogous to a free Briton or Gaul who detests the Empire. As such, you will see good where I see evil, and we will probably seldom agree on the rights and wrongs in a particular conflict. I know I'm subjective, and I observe it in process as it occurs. Do you know that you also are? I'm not asking that with any disrespect, I'm just wondering if you know it. Or are you under the impression that you are completely objective? - LH |
|
12 Jun 03 - 03:11 AM (#966310) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Teribus CarolC, To answer your question regarding the use, by Saddam Hussein, of WMD - he didn't use them on either occasion because he couldn't deploy them. My reason for saying that is based on his previous use of those weapons and the preferred method of delivery. Little Hawk's contention regarding the reason for lack of use during the 1991 conflict is only partly true, as it forms one part of a chicken-and-egg discussion. It would be equally correct to contend that had Saddam Hussein used his WMD capability in 1991 it would have escalated the conflict and prompted a full invasion of Iraq by coalition forces. WMD, and their use, would not have saved Iraq or the ruling Ba'athist regime, from total defeat in 1991 and Saddam Hussein and the Revolutionary Council knew that. Little Hawk, I would dearly like to know your grounds and reasoning for making the statement that - "The idea that Saddam could possible pose a serious threat to the USA is so ludicrous that it surpasses the nonsense Hitler used to justify his attack on Poland!" I ask that question assuming that you meant to say, "The idea that Saddam could possibly pose a serious threat to the USA...". I don't find it ludicrous at all, and could think of many ways in which Saddam could have posed a serious threat to the USA, its allies and the middle-eastern region. You on the other hand rule it totally outwith the bounds of possibility. My "general emotional committment" as you put it, is more geared to challenging statements and arguements that I believe are flawed, or based on information that I know for fact to be incorrect - not to any great loyalty to "Empire". When taught to study History, I was taught to take any particular incident and look at it from all sides, in terms of background, the aims and objectives of the policies adopted, the reasons for those aims and objectives, rational behind the conduct of policy and ultimately the effects of pursuing that policy. A classic example of not following this advice is obvious when reading threads on this forum relating to the history of the British Isles, i.e. England/Scotland, England/Ireland. In studying the history of the British Isles it is essential that that includes the history of both Spain and France with regard to aims and foreign policy - it is glaringly obvious that many haven't. As to - "I'm just saying that you are analogous to a loyal Roman who defends and justifies the conquests of the Empire, while I am analogous to a free Briton or Gaul who detests the Empire." - all that sentence indicates to me is that you tend to see things in black and white. I tend to see more shades of grey and I believe a review of our posts would bear that out. |
|
12 Jun 03 - 09:47 PM (#966676) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Bobert Yo T, I notice that you have dropped your pre-invasion use of WMD and now when you use WMD there's the word "program" in close proximity. Ahhhh, did you come up with that yourself or are you perhaps parroting the Bush spin-masters? Ahhhh, nevermind. I know the answer to that one. Ahhhh, but is your side's final "This is our story and we're stickin' to it!"???? Nevermind. I think I know the answer to that one as well... Okay, I do have one question. Are you on Bush's payroll? You seerm so utterly partisan that this thought has come into my mind. Hey, if you are, then my hard earned tax bucks could be going to you to defend Bush? Now what a strange situation, indeed. Well, if you are a paid employee of the Bush adminisration, please lie to me and tell me you're not. Man, that would keep me up at night pacin' the floors... But, Teese, I like you even if you are a tad on the misdirected side... Bobert |
|
12 Jun 03 - 11:22 PM (#966686) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Amos The simple fact is that through incompetence or intent, the Resident put American soldiers in harm's way based on a false reality -- a reality that was intentionally falsified. The result of this mismanagement -- whether intentional or merely inept -- was several thousand Iraqi deaths, at least, including noncombatants in significant numbers, and a significant number of American and British deaths either by fire, accident or fratricide. He is either too slimy or too incompetent to retain his post and should be impeached. A It wasn't murder in the second degree It wasn't murder in the third; Ole Bush just went and dropped those folks Like a hunter drops a bird! He had PR, But he was using it wrong.... |
|
13 Jun 03 - 12:49 PM (#966817) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: TIA Okay, might as well rant in this thread... My newspaper yesterday had these six stories, all on the first three pages: 1) US soldiers by the thousands were engaged in fierce and deadly fighting in Iraq, 2) A detailed study of hospital records by journalists finds that at a very bare minimum, the war in Iraq has thus far created over 3000 civilian deaths, 3) The US has run out of places to look for WMD's in Iraq, 4) The US military is saying that it may take more than two years, and thousands more troops, before an Iraqi government can be installed, 5) US intelligence is convinced that Al Quaeda will strike against American interests in the near future, 6) More bloodshed between the Israelis and Plestinians. In the days following the toppling of the statue, I heard many commentators on thug radio and Fox news, and read dozens of editorials and letters-to-the-editor, calling on "the peaceniks" to admit they were wrong and apologize. In light of yesterday's paper, WRONG ABOUT WHAT? Yes, we "won" the war. But not one peacenik that I know objected to the war because they were afraid we'd lose. Yes, Saddam was a cruel tyrant. But, the peaceniks I know have also been active in human rights issues for most of their lives -- the warhawks are johnny-come-latelies to issues of concern for the world's poor and oppressed (but welcome aboard, are ya' gonna stick around?) Instead, many peaceniks were concerned that the war would become an unwinnable quagmire (see headline 1), that there would be many casualties among the civilians we were claiming to liberate (headline 2), that Iraq did not pose enough of a threat to the US to justify a first-strike (headline 3), that we could not hope to foist a government (even democracy) upon a sovereign nation (headline 4), and that a strike against an arab country would not prevent terrorism, but could actually incite more (headlines 5 and 6). So warhawks, what exactly were the peaceniks wrong about? Turns out we seem to have had a hell of a lot just about right. |
|
13 Jun 03 - 01:44 PM (#966844) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Don Firth The primary reason the Bush administration gave for the preemptive invasion of Iraq was the contention that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and that he constituted a clear and imminent threat to the United States and to the rest of the world. This is what we, the American public and the rest of the world, were told by the Bush administration, based, they said, on intelligence reports they had received. A secondary reason (insufficient to justify a preemptive attack, but presented as a sort of "moral imperative") was to bring democracy to the oppressed Iraqi people. There are three possibilities:— It is inarguable that Saddam Hussein had chemical/biological weapons. We know this for two reasons: a) he used poison gas during the Iran-Iraq war and he used it again on the Kurds; and b) we have the receipts, because he got these CB weapons from US back when he was our Son of a Bitch. 1. Saddam Hussein either hid them so well that we can't find them; or he sold them or passed them on to someone else (unsettling thought); or they passed their sell-by date and he disposed of them (quite likely, because the shelf-life of chemical/biological weapons is limited). Finding missiles with empty warheads that were designed for CB weapons would seem to indicate this. It is obvious that he did not have a nuclear program that could have constituted a threat to the United States or anyone else for years to come. 2. American intelligence reports were flawed. There are two possibilities here: intelligence agencies were either mistaken, or they lied to the Bush administration. This does not bode well for any future actions such as preemptive attacks on other nations based on intelligence reports, because it would appear that the intelligence agencies are, for whichever reason, simply not reliable. 3. The Bush administration lied to the American people and to the rest of the world. Why? Control of the Middle East is considered essential to maintaining America's status as sole Superpower in the world. Geopolitical domination of the world is greatly enhanced for whichever country controls the world's major oil reserves—whoever has its hand on the tap. The war on Iraq has been on the Right Wing agenda since the (to them) inconclusive and disappointing end of the Gulf War. Once again, it's all right HERE. And HERE. Is this the kind of government we really want? Don Firth |
|
16 Jun 03 - 05:29 PM (#967215) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Bobert TIA, Hmmmmm, three days later and no response from any of the war-nics. Reckon that speaks louder than the reems and reems of crap they wrote a few months ago. There is absolutely no pro-human justification for the Bush foriegn policy. It is steeped in evilness and greed. Hmmmmm? Just like his dopmestic policy. Dangerous situation.... Bobert |
|
16 Jun 03 - 05:54 PM (#967225) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Charley Noble Bobert- Be fair! Mudcat has been off-line for much of the weekend. I'm sure they'll contribute something contrite soon. Charley Noble |
|
16 Jun 03 - 06:26 PM (#967248) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: McGrath of Harlow Having them in 1992 did the trick didn't it? Stopped the invasion. If they'd really believed Iraq had them this time and was able to use them, does anybody seriously think there would have been an invasion this time? |
|
16 Jun 03 - 07:06 PM (#967269) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Bev and Jerry |
|
16 Jun 03 - 07:12 PM (#967273) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Bev and Jerry Sorry, our mouse jumped on the wrong button. Bad mouse! A few days ago the BBC news ran an old tape of Colin Powell telling the UN that we were certain Iraq had WMDs. He showed a picture of a specific site with circles and arrows on it and said this is where some WMDs are. This was immediately followed by a current tape of one of their reporters on the ground at that very site. The site had, of course, been bombed but when the reporter asked workers at the site if anyone had searched for WMDs there, they replied that no one has even been to the site since it was bombed. If we were so sure WMDs were there, how come we're not looking there? Bev and Jerry |
|
16 Jun 03 - 07:13 PM (#967274) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Gareth Well there's plenty of evidence of mass destruction, and yes this action "WAS IN MY NAME" Mark you it's funny this - 1/. Saddam appologists saying "We sold him the Weapons" ie "We have the reciepts" 2/. Saddam appologists saying " The UN inspectors need more time" 3/. Saddam appologists saying. "These weapons are neccessary to defend Iraq from Imperialist aggression" and now Saddam appologists saying " There were no WMD's therefore this invasion should not have happened " And also now Saddam appologists saying "Oh dear, that they haven't found (Mmm ! and what where those missiles ?????) any WMDs instantly shows the whole thing was a fraud" I suspect than when the dust settles a WMD program will be documented, Saddam appologists saying "It was planted" In the meantime more and more mass graves are discouvered. Tell me - do you Saddam appologists want his reign of terror back ?? If so be honest and post saying just that. Or is this just another excuse to critice the Shrub and Tony Blair. Oh and BTW - Will you now admit that sanctions did not kill Iraqui children, the corruption of Saddams regime did ? Gareth |
|
16 Jun 03 - 09:41 PM (#967324) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Bobert So, Gareth, you got a bone to pick with Saddam? Kill him, fir God's sake but don't kill a bunch of women, children and old folks, take over an entire country and pretend that you have some righteous highground for having done so. If Dan Rather could have gotten into do an interview with Saddam, then if you think that the US couldn't have killed him then name the bridge you'd like to bu7y and I'll have the papers drawn up. You see the world full of Saddam apologists. Well, what the heck are you folks who come to Bush's defense irregardless of the lie or offense to mankind de' jour? Bobert |
|
17 Jun 03 - 03:50 AM (#967418) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Teribus Bobert - a reply to one of your earlier posts that I was unable to submit - you are clutching at straws and using your highly selective memory to do so: "I notice that you have dropped your pre-invasion use of WMD and now when you use WMD there's the word "program" in close proximity. Ahhhh, did you come up with that yourself or are you perhaps parroting the Bush spin-masters? Ahhhh, nevermind. I know the answer to that one." I know the answer to that one as well Bobert - the mention of WMD and WMD Programmes, with respect to Iraq have been around for about 12-13 years. The "programme" aspect that you, mistakenly, attribute to either myself, or the current US Administration has been detailed in United Nations Security Council Resolutions since the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in 1990 and in instructions to IAEA, UNSCOM and UNMOVIC inspection teams - please feel free to check it out, then come back on this thread and tell me if that is correct - whether you will or not - ah well I think I know the answer to that one. Amos, I could not disagree more: 1. "The simple fact is that through incompetence or intent, the Resident put American soldiers in harm's way based on a false reality -- a reality that was intentionally falsified." The reality was the contents of UNSCOM's Report of 1999, combined with a period of nearly four years during which no monitoring or inspections could be carried out. Evaluations of intelligence, at least as far as the UK government goes, provide best and worst case scenarios - unless there is an overwhelmingly good reason to do otherwise, it is always prudent to weight the evaluation towards the worst case - by following this path you are less likely to be caught out by nasty surprises. Did Saddam Hussein have any WMD and were programmes in operation to develope such weapons? Time will tell, the items mentioned in the UNSCOM Report still have to be found, or evidence of there destruction has to be found. The war could have been avoided, had Saddam chosen to co-operate fully with UNMOVIC and IAEA from the outset. Why did he not do that? I can think of two possible explanations: Pride: Because it made the defeat of 1991 seem less complete. This was further bolstered by the fact that within 12 months of that war ending, the heads of government of the two most significant coalition allies (USA - George Bush Snr, and UK - John Major) had been removed from office, while Saddam remained in power. The lack of co-operation and deception schemes used to thwart the efforts of UNSCOM inspection teams enabled Saddam and the Ba'athist regime to demonstrate to the other Arab nations in the region that Iraq could successfully defy the will of the international community. By his actions he demonstrated that he could continue to do so with increasing impunity. As long as the regime in Iraq could convince the world, and its neighbours in the region particularly, that they still had a credible WMD capability Iraq would be considered as a power to be reckoned with. The effects of co-operation and verifiable evidence of disarmament as required by the United Nations Security Council leads to the second of the possible reasons; Security: Dissidents within Iraq had to be made to believe that the regime in power still possessed this capability. Iran had to be convinced that Iraq still possessed WMD and an ongoing WMD programme. "The result of this mismanagement -- whether intentional or merely inept -- was several thousand Iraqi deaths, at least, including noncombatants in significant numbers, and a significant number of American and British deaths either by fire, accident or fratricide." If any charge of mismanagement, or ineptitude, is to be levelled it should levelled fairly and squarely at the UN. My reasons for saying this are: 1. They dragged their collective heels with respect to outstanding resolutions pertaining to Iraq for years, adopting lethargic inaction as their preferred course. 2. After 911, a terrorist attack that Iraq had nothing to do with, but which Saddam Hussein publicly applauded, the US was forced to evaluate possible/probable locations and regimes from which a future attack on the United States could be launched or supported. 3. The US prompted the UN out of inaction and outlined what was required to put the verifiable disarmament of Iraq beyond doubt. This was vigorously resisted by France and Russia (Iraq's main trading partners) and by Germany. 4. The new resolution that both the US and UK insisted upon was weakened and delayed as much as possible by France, Russia and Germany but eventually arrived by unanimous vote as UNSC Resolution 1441. The US in the original draft wanted a specific threat of the use of military force should Iraq fail to comply with the requirements of the new resolution. Had that been allowed to stand - there would have been no war, because the message that would have sent to Saddam Hussein would have been clear and unmistakable – we, the international community, now mean business, comply or be removed from power. As it was, in its watered down version, Saddam saw room for manoeuvre and scope to continue his policy of prevarication and deception. "He is either too slimy or too incompetent to retain his post and should be impeached." On the contrary - he provided leadership when required, no matter how distasteful the task. As the man charged with the safeguarding the security of the United States of America and its citizens, he acted in a responsible manner - under no circumstances could he possibly have given Iraq's leader, or regime, the benefit of the doubt, that was simply not an option. |
|
17 Jun 03 - 04:37 AM (#967435) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Teribus TIA - regarding your six "Headlines" 1) US soldiers by the thousands were engaged in fierce and deadly fighting in Iraq, Inaccurate impression given, possibly due to the slant that particular editor wanted to put on the situation. The fighting, which was of fairly short duration, was confined to about three locations (in a country the size of France) known to be loyal to Saddam and the Ba'athists. The reason for this loyalty is due, by and large, to the fact that under Saddam these people were favoured at the expense of the people in other regions. The US military have made some glaringly obvious errors in their attempts to implement a "Hearts and Minds" policy, not surprising - they have never been very good at it, they do not study the concept and have never been used in the secondary role of "Aid to the civil power". 2) A detailed study of hospital records by journalists finds that at a very bare minimum, the war in Iraq has thus far created over 3000 civilian deaths, In which case the Iraqi people have come out ahead, albeit in a comparison of bad versus worse. If over a similar period Saddam had batted his average the number would have been in excess of 15,000. 3) The US has run out of places to look for WMD's in Iraq, I don't for one minute accept that and would love to know the grounds for making that statement. 4) The US military is saying that it may take more than two years, and thousands more troops, before an Iraqi government can be installed, Sounds pretty reasonable to me, did anybody think for one moment that this could be accomplished in a shorter time-frame? De-Nazification of Germany took over five years to carry through. 5) US intelligence is convinced that Al Quaeda will strike against American interests in the near future, That I believe would have been the case irrespective of any action in Iraq. 6) More bloodshed between the Israelis and Plestinians. Has more to do with Palestinian hard-line opposition to the possible effects of US engagement in the peace process with the possibility of progress based on concessions being made - has nothing to do with Iraq. |
|
17 Jun 03 - 06:13 AM (#967472) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Teribus Don, thanks for your post, which I read with interest, and would like to respond to. "The primary reason the Bush administration gave for the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq was the contention that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and that he constituted a clear and imminent threat to the United States and to the rest of the world. This is what we, the American public and the rest of the world, were told by the Bush administration, based, they said, on intelligence reports they had received." What you omit to mention in the above, is that having been given every possible opportunity to assist with the efforts of the UNMOVIC inspections teams, the Iraqi Authorities failed to comply with UNSC Resolution 1441. "A secondary reason (insufficient to justify a preemptive attack, but presented as a sort of "moral imperative") was to bring democracy to the oppressed Iraqi people." Due to the lack of co-operation on the part of the Iraqi Authorities, Regime Change became the only way by which whole-hearted Iraqi co-operation could be guaranteed. There are three possibilities:— It is inarguable that Saddam Hussein had chemical/biological weapons. We know this for two reasons: a) he used poison gas during the Iran-Iraq war and he used it again on the Kurds; and b) we have the receipts, because he got these CB weapons from US back when he was our Son of a Bitch. You omit to mention the stocks of materials, agents, munitions and delivery systems detailed by UNSCOM in January 1999. Your contention in b) above is not wholely correct if you are referring to support given to Iraq during the Iraq-Iran War. The US did not supply Iraq with CB weapons - we have been over this before and you have yet to come up with any compelling evidence that they did. What America did supply was the means by which the Iraqi's could improve their defences against CB weapons - it should be remembered that Iran had those weapons too. From your point 1. "Saddam Hussein either hid them so well that we can't find them;" Highly likely - the French, the Russians and the Germans, bought him enough time to accomplish just that "or he sold them or passed them on to someone else (unsettling thought);" If that is true then one of the main reasons given for the threat posed by this particular Regime has proved true. "or they passed their sell-by date and he disposed of them (quite likely, because the shelf-life of chemical/biological weapons is limited)." This could possibly be one of the favourites if I was a betting man - if this is the case then documentary evidence of their destruction and eye-witness accounts of those involved in the destruction will come out - unless those who carried this work out number among the occupants of the most recent mass graves discovered in Iraq. The reasoning given in parenthisis, is not strictly correct, during the period when UNSCOM were operating in Iraq, they tested weaponised agents that should have gone past their natural decay dates and found them to be still in good condition. "Finding missiles with empty warheads that were designed for CB weapons would seem to indicate this." Saddams mistrust of his military was such that they were purposely denied stocks of ammunition. The CB munitions would be stored as found and only filled immediately prior to use. The significance of finding the CB warheads was that it indicated the stuff reqired to fill them still existed. Large stocks of these munitions (rocket and artillery shells and bombs) were detailed by UNSCOM in 1999. "It is obvious that he did not have a nuclear program that could have constituted a threat to the United States or anyone else for years to come." Again not strictly correct according to Dr. Mohamed Al-Baradei. In his last reports to the UN Security Council, Dr Al-Baradei stated that he was move or less convinced that Iraq did not have a nuclear capability, the only outstanding point he had to verify was that Iraq did not have an on-going nuclear programme targeted at the acquisition of nuclear weapons. From your point 2. "American intelligence reports were flawed. There are two possibilities here: intelligence agencies were either mistaken, or they lied to the Bush administration." You fail to mention the possibility that they could have been deliberately mislead. It is very difficult to actually argue this point from either side without knowing details of sources and means available for corroboration. It is also important to differentiate between intelligence data and intelligence evaluation of data. "This does not bode well for any future actions such as pre-emptive attacks on other nations based on intelligence reports, because it would appear that the intelligence agencies are, for whichever reason, simply not reliable." The policy of pre-emption was introduced by the nuclear age - nothing else. Intelligence is the only means by which nations can defend themselves. The more intelligence agencies co-operate with one another the less likely-hood there is of that intelligence being wrong, due to the number of sources and avenues for cross-checking. This co-operation between intelligence agencies has improved dramatically since 911. From your point 3. "The Bush administration lied to the American people and to the rest of the world." Really? What lies? That Iraq had WMD - they did according to UNSCOM, and no proof has been offered to date to contradict that report. That Iraq was pursuing WMD programmes - 380-odd rocket motors smuggled into Iraq, an active rocket development programme that was proscribed by the UN, equipment dismantled by UNSCOM in the period 1991 - 1998 found repaired and re-assembled in another location by UNMOVIC in 2002-2003. "Why? Control of the Middle East is considered essential to maintaining America's status as sole Superpower in the world." Really? the region provides the USA with less than 16% of its oil requirements, that 16 % could easily be taken from elsewhere. It is in the interests of the USA that no one country dominates the region, and that the region is stable. There is a whale of a difference. "Geopolitical domination of the world is greatly enhanced for whichever country controls the world's major oil reserves—whoever has its hand on the tap." Under such criteria geopolitical domination of the world is therefore firmly in the hands of Russia - the country with the largest oil and natural gas reserves and the worlds largest oil exporter. They always have been and still are. "The war on Iraq has been on the Right Wing agenda since the (to them) inconclusive and disappointing end of the Gulf War." A point you could argue only with 20 x 20 hindsight. Your links to "The New American Century", no doubt will be waved like a flag for months to come, but when you get down to the bare bones of it, they represent the conclusions of a think-tank, that is all. When those conclusions were drawn none of those taking part held any political office, or had any real responsibilities in the real world. I dare say that exhaustive research could uncover think-tank reports from a mass of different organisations in a mass of different countries, that would make you hair stand on end. They are not policy documents, they are merely the reults of a talking-shop. MGOH, says above - "Having them in 1992 did the trick didn't it? Stopped the invasion." No Kevin, Iraq's WMD did not stop the invasion - UNSC Resolutions stopped any full scale invasion and defeat of Iraq as they restricted the coalition to ejecting Iraqi occupying forces from Kuwait. "If they'd really believed Iraq had them this time and was able to use them, does anybody seriously think there would have been an invasion this time?" Coalition forces in 1991 knew that the Iraqi armed forces had CB weapons and credible delivery systems - it didn't stop them then Kevin - what was different this time? I vaguely touched on possible reasons for lack of use in 1991 and in 2003. CB weapons are fairly unreliable and have only been used historically in special circumstances against static or massed targets, they are of little use against highly mobile forces. Saddam's preferred means of delivery was from the air - Now Kevin exactly what did have Saddam not have in 1991 and in 2003 - an Air Force. The optimum time for an attack against the coalition forces in both 1991 and 2003 would have been during the build up with the assembly areas as target. On both occasions coalition air-power prevented him from doing that (remember the five week long intensive air campaign in 1990-1991, while the maintenance of the Southern No-Fly Zone prohibited deployment in the run up to 2003). |
|
17 Jun 03 - 08:40 AM (#967537) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Bobert Exhibit "A" I would like to enter the last three posts as evidence that the T-Bird is on the Bush payroll. I mean, since last night he (or she) haswritten not one, not two, but three "War and Peace" lenght rebuttral/position papers. Now, according to my Wes Ginny slide rule, that equals about 8 hours of work and no one in their right (no pun intended) mind would spend that amount of time arguing minute details unless they were getting paid for it. No one. BTW, T, is the position/ excuse de jour the "stability" of the region? Well, yer team is really doing a "bang up" job... Gotta go to work now, to earn money and pay taxes so that yer paycheck won't bounce this Friday.... Bobert |
|
17 Jun 03 - 09:02 AM (#967549) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: McGrath of Harlow Gareth - if I called you a "Bush apologist" I think you would object, and you would be entitled to object, because it would be a gross distortion of your point of view. Is it really that difficult to avoid sinking into that mode of argument? |
|
17 Jun 03 - 09:18 AM (#967561) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Teribus Hey Bobert, if that's your exhibit A - no wonder you keep adding 2 + 2 and getting an answer that = 5. Told you I could predict that you wouldn't check up on the wording of the relevant UN Resolutions and remits of IAEA, UNSCOM & UNMOVIC to find references dating back years to WMD Programmes - knew you wouldn't do that because it doesn't suit your arguement - bit inconvenient that isn't it - damn the answer's five again. No Bobert I am not on the Bush pay-roll, never have been, where you and I differ is that you have a bee in your bonnet about the last Presidential election that totally prohibits objectivity when viewing anything connected with the current US Administration - I am not handicapped in that way. By the way the first of those three posts was written days ago, just as Mudcat crashed over here. |
|
17 Jun 03 - 09:32 AM (#967573) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Gareth Kevin, By their deeds you will know them !!!! I presume then you wish no war had taken place, and Saddam was still in place. Gareth |
|
17 Jun 03 - 09:50 AM (#967581) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: GUEST Bobert - Maybe you ought to support the suicide bombers cause - your writing is becomming ranting. You sound like Bush. Your cause or no cause. Back to your Bible thumping - NASCAR? Alright! Don't see that killin' stuff going on there. Nice peaceful Sunday activity that brings families together. Seems they have a prayer and singing of the National Anthem. Hmm - sounds pretty wholesome to me. Teribus - I agree with you - facts and not rants - |
|
17 Jun 03 - 10:06 AM (#967587) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Wolfgang Gareth, you always overlook the possibility that a person can easily at the same time wish for Saddam to lose power but still be against the war. There are many things in this world I wish would change rather sooner than later but only for the tiniest fraction of these things I even come close to considering war/force as an acceptable means to speed the change. Wolfgang |
|
17 Jun 03 - 11:15 AM (#967637) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Gareth Mmm ! Wolfgang - Trouble is there are times when war is the lesser of two evils, and I fear that the simple elimination of Saddam Hussain by assasination as Bobert proposes, would have left the dynasty, and apparatus of repression intact. On the more general point that notorious right wing pro Bush news paper The Gaurdian has this to say on the subject Click 'Ere The second paragraph of William Shawcross's article says it all. Gareth |
|
17 Jun 03 - 11:32 AM (#967664) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Wolfgang A good newspaper, know for offering more than one point of view. Here's another point of view of today from the same source: Blair Accused of Exaggerating Iraqi Arms Wolfgang |
|
17 Jun 03 - 11:32 AM (#967665) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: GUEST Well I wouldn't exactly say that article was representative of the Guarian editorial line. But it just shows that it does print things which are contrary to its main stance. My main trouble, Gareth, with your point is that the argument about getting rid of a vile dictator was not the main reason put to the populace in persuading us it was a good idea. It if was, and we had an honest and open debate about whther this in a valid reason for going to war and nobody changed their mind about why it was happening, mid sentence - then I might be a bit more understanding of those pushing for the war. But it wasn't, and a whole load of people were persuaded to go along with something on a false pretexts. And in any case, it is hard to believe that it really all was about ridding Iraq of a dictator. If it was, why on earth did we start with Iraq. There are plenty of other countries with equally bad human rights abuses going on right now. Why aren't the very same people making huge representations to the UN about attacking Burma, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, China - over tibet, Russia - over Chechnya? No the argument you are now giving is only being championed now because its the only thing they have left. Getting rid of Saddam may have been a desirable side effect, but I don't think we should back wars made on false pretexts, just because they may possibly have a desirable outcome in one sphere. There are wider consequences of war - especially wars with underhand motives. |
|
17 Jun 03 - 11:36 AM (#967674) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: CarolC Another view from The Guardian... an insightful article from Peter Preston: The world won't forgive or forget |
|
17 Jun 03 - 01:28 PM (#967776) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: McGrath of Harlow An "apologist for Saddam Hussein" would be someone who defended and justified the man and his regime. I haven't come across many of those here or anywhere else. There were people who wanted to go to war to get rid of Stalin, back in the Forties and Fifties. The people who stopped this happening were not "apologists for Stalin" - they were people who believed that the overall consequences of that were likely to be disastrous. We've yet to see what the full consequenes of the recent war, and of the manoeuvering that brought it about, will turn out to be. |
|
17 Jun 03 - 02:16 PM (#967808) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: DougR True, Kevin, true. Not nearly enough time has passed to reach judgement on whether the war was justifiable or not. In time, those WMDs everyone is so concerned about might even be found ...or at least we may learn what happened to them. Bobert: It seems to me that in the relm of "gotcha", Teribus "gotcha"! Fear not, however. You are not alone. It appears to me he "got" Don and Amos too! DougR |
|
17 Jun 03 - 02:36 PM (#967818) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Little Hawk Subjectivity, glorious subjectivity...it is the delight of all opinionated people. With joy we leap upon the apparent inconsistencies and errors in our opponents' thinking, their failure to appreciate the painfully obvious, their knee-jerk thinking, and their lack of appreciation for THE FACTS...(ah, yes, those volumes and volumes of marvelous facts that we dig up to support our favourite postion and opinion...a marvel of impartiality and objectivity that it is...) Such fun. If I could spare 5 or 6 hours a day, I would outtalk all of you on it (except maybe Teribus)... :-) But I can't. Maybe see you after lunch. Have fun arguing and proving how absolutely right you all are in the meantime. :-) Too bad Saddam and Bush can't log on here and argue about it directly. That would be very entertaining, and I'm sure they have even more facts at their fingertips than we do. - LH |
|
17 Jun 03 - 03:12 PM (#967835) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Don Firth It is typical of Bush apologists to accuse those who are critical or dubious of the Bush administration of being unpatriotic, or of a whole variety of other epithets, such as accusing them of being "Saddam apologists." This is, of course, an attempt to intimidate the critics or the questioners into shutting up and stop asking embarrassing questions. This is a pathetic and contemptible tactic. Also, Teribus, I keep posting that link to the Project of the New American Century because it not only explains—proudly—what the Bush administration is up to, that particular "think tank" IS the Bush administration. Go to the "Statement of Purpose" link, scroll down, and read the signatories. 'Nuff said! Don Firth |
|
17 Jun 03 - 04:10 PM (#967877) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Gareth Well Don, I am afraid if the continue to refer to thinking people as war nicks, and Bush appologists then they will have to live with the consequences. I asked earlier if anybody was happy to see Saddam remain, and the silence was deafening. As with the honarable exception of Bobert, no alternative was suggested. It reminds me of the story of the Scientist, the Engineer, and the diplomat stranded on a desert Island, with only tins of baked beans to eat, and no can opener. The Scientist suggests heating a can gently do that the top eases off. The Engineer suggested using a stone to pubture the top. "Ah ! ays the diplomat "If we keep talking to the tin we can persude the tin to open it'self." Gareth |
|
17 Jun 03 - 05:32 PM (#967937) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Bobert GUEST, 9:30 am: So you ain't into Jesus, aaaah? Well, that's yer perogative. Hey, howz 'bout the teachings of Jesus? No good there, either? Hmmmmm? Other than the Bush adminisrattion, what do you believe in? As fir supporting "suicide bombers". Like I've said before, show me any post where I have said that and I'll kiss yer butt in the middle of the Mudcat Square. Fir real. Talk about ranters! Whew! When you can't find something concrete on someone to rant about, you just go 'head and make something up. Hmmmmm, seems like there are a few folks that you hold dear that have the same affliction. It's called lieing, BTW. Doug: Nah, T ain't got me, T's got you. What T does is assign lengthy homework assignments that involve hours and hours of reading. But when Don gives T a similar assignment, T doesn't like it. Hey, I have offered to do a little page fir page swap with you, Dougie. I'll read yer stuff if you'll read mine. Nah, didn't think you'd want to do that... But the offer is a standing one. And secondly, Doug, while we're talking about my pal, T, let me tell you the game that T likes to play. T will argue over how many angels can stand on the end of a pin. Yeah, T likes to keep the discussion right in the middle of T's magnifying glass. Well, what's going on in the world ain't gonna get solved with such narrow vision. Let me ask you a question, Dougie. When ythe Bush administartion was making its push for war it made darned sure that the media was in bed with them. The question is, when the country was moving toward war/no war, how many clergy people were hired by the media. Or peace organizers. Or professors of sociology. None! Nothing but military men were hired! That says something.... T: Didn't want you to feel left out. Hey, I voted Green so I knew my guy wasn't gonna make it. But I am less angry about the hyjacking of democracy by the Bush folks than his evil and greedy policies both at home and abroad.... Bobert |
|
17 Jun 03 - 06:01 PM (#967955) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: TIA The Saddam Apologists have been thoroughly trounced, and their straw strewn to the winds. Those who preferred that Saddam remain in power have been propped up (had to 'cause the straw was wilty) and swatted down. |
|
17 Jun 03 - 06:08 PM (#967961) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Little Hawk Ah, Gareth...since that silence is deafening you, and thus causing you pain...I will give you a response. Yes, I would be happier to see Saddam remain...than to see what has happened: international law violated brazenly by a superpower, a small country invaded illegally and smashed up by that superpower, the United Nations defied illegally by that superpower when it (the U.N.) would not fall obediently into line and support unprovoked aggression, the infrastructure and society of a small country devastated by weapons of mass destruction (B-52's, cruise missiles, etc...), thousands of people killed unnecessarily and millions having their lives turned upside-down in the process unecessarily, and so on... It's the same approach to World politics that was used by Nazi Germany, who also invaded dictatorships on occasion, supposedly for the most laudable of reasons (according to the Nazi propaganda). I would be much happier to see Saddam remain, weapons inspections continue, and problems be solved by further peaceful negotiation, not war. This is because I am not emotionally involved in supporting or justifying the latest war, while you are. Thus we tend to focus on different aspects of the "facts" while justifying our particular emotional predispositions in the process. This does not in ANY way indicate that I support Saddam's form of government in Iraq or anywhere else, but that I consider unprovoked aggression by superpowers (or minor powers) to be a far bigger problem in the World than Saddam's government was, that's all. Can you understand my position on that? I'm not saying you have to agree with it, but do you understand it? - LH |
|
17 Jun 03 - 07:17 PM (#968026) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Gareth L H - I suspect that you and I could rach a consensus. BTW as a Tintinetus (SP) suffer a deafening silence is no joke. Also BTW The Polish Government of 1939 was to democracy what Crawshay Bailey was to Union rights (sorry Trade Union Rights = the US of A) But trying to be objective Saddam Hussain was not open to negotiation, anymore than negotiation could have prevented the "Battle of the Greasy Grass" (Uk - Custers last Stand) My sypathies were all with "Sitting Bull" But he's gorn - let us pray that this is an apportunity to rebuild Mesepotamia. Oh and by the way. From what we have seen in the last few years bribary to Saddams Fammilly would have been a far more cost effective means of the US of A oil interests controlling Iraqui Oil. Gareth |
|
17 Jun 03 - 07:25 PM (#968029) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: McGrath of Harlow I'd much sooner Stalin had been dumped in 1945 too. But going to war to achieve it would have been too high a price. It was you, Gareth, who started talking about "apologists". I quite agree that it's ridiculous to call you a Bush apologist. But since I wouldn't myself be in favour of a war to overthrow Bush, does that mean it'd be fair to call me one? An opponent of an illegal war is not an apologist for the regime targetted, any more than an opponent of a lynch mob would be an apologist for a child murderer, for example. |
|
17 Jun 03 - 08:05 PM (#968052) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Gareth Kevin. A putive question - what war would you have been in favour of ???. - Recent history only. British intervation in Spain 1935 to support the elected Government??? Checkeslovakia (SP) 1938 ??? Poland 1939 ??? Greece 1941 ??? Should the British have armed the Viet Minh post 1945 ???? Should there have been armed intervention in Southern Rhodesia in 1965 ??? Should, ( And I think that we should have ) interveaned to break the US naval blockade and minefields of Nicuraguan Harbours ? Choices are not easy - and it is also a moral problem to say "Send in the Marines", when you yourself are not putting yourself in harms way. But there are occasions when decision have to be made on moral grounds. On Iraq I believe that the correct decisions were made. The problem now is to rebuild Iraq, and the rest of the Middle East. Carping over the putive decisions with 20/20 hindsite does not help the problem. I am afraid that human rights is not just a matter of a comfortable stroll down Oxford Street on a Sunday, and three choruses of "We Shall Overcome" Sorry I'am ranting. Gareth |
|
17 Jun 03 - 09:13 PM (#968086) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Don Firth It is not my wish to trade insults with someone who bears the honorable name of one of the knights of the Round Table, particularly one of the knights who hailed from Orkney, land of my forebears. But in my long life, I have participated in many discussions, often of matters political, and it has been my experience that when one resorts to insulting those with whom one disagrees, that is a sign that they have lost the debate. Or at the very least, they find themselves bankrupt of further argument. This is like the ink that a squid or octopus emits in an effort to confuse its surroundings so it can get away unscathed. There are so many valid reasons to oppose the war on Iraq (including on moral grounds) that to accuse those who do so of being "Saddam apologists" is really pretty lame. Unworthy, sir! Unworthy! But I have called you a "Bush apologist," and this is equally unworthy. If you will accept my apology, I will accept yours. If you actually have specific points to make, I'm perfectly willing to read them and think about them. Don Firth |
|
17 Jun 03 - 10:05 PM (#968100) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Bobert Hey, remember back in the good ol' days when the most serious thing going 'round was "Did he or didn't he have sex with "that woman"'? Now we're on the brink of a world war and the economy is in ythe bottom of the crapper. Ahhhhhh, like I know that the usaul cast of suspects will think I'm nuts but, hey, look around. The world is really messed up and I think the Bush administartion had something (a lot...) to do with it. Our economy is messed up and I think the Bush administartion has something ( a lot...) to do with it. This ain't a rant. Just the truth... Don't want to hear what a screw up yer guy is, then go over to ebay, 'er stickyerheadinthesand.com.. Now that's a rant.... Bobert |
|
18 Jun 03 - 01:34 AM (#968154) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Little Hawk Yes indeed. How would Monika Lewinsky have handled the situation I wonder? Food for thought. :-) - LH |
|
18 Jun 03 - 04:12 AM (#968191) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Teribus Don, when was the "Project of the New American Century" written? I have read it and if memory serves me correctly I think the statement of principles was written 3rd June 1997. At that time I don't believe any of the signatories were part of any US Administration - some are now. Main difference now is that instead of sitting around merely discussing various matters, they are now responsible for formulating policy and seeing through that policy in the real world. To do that they have to contend with the vagaries and realities of political life - that tends to moderate even the most radical of agendas. |
|
18 Jun 03 - 10:17 AM (#968396) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: McGrath of Harlow "...what war would you have been in favour of ???" Gareth's question sounds simple, but the more you think about it, the more complicated it becomes. Is it to be answered in terms of "what would you actually have done if you had been back there at the time, with no more information about the future than anyone else?" Or "what would you do if you were transported back in a time machine knowing what you know now?" Or "what would have been the best thing to have done?" And are you imagining yourself as someone in a position to make the big decisions, or just as an ordinary bod having to decide what to do yourself, in a context where the big decisions are made by other people out of reach? (There are plenty of people who go off to fight in wars they don't think should ever have started, on both sides.) They all have different answers, and most of them I couldn't begin to supply. Fortunately we don't have to worry about those fantasy questions involving time machines, where we have to decide whether to choose a time line involving a war in 1939 that leads inexorably on to horrors such as Auschwitz, and speculating whether an alternative timeline might conceivably involve something even worse. (Inviting us to say "Hell, let's not play this game - lets pop on back to 1914 and stop the Archduke getting assassinated and getting us into this mess in the first place...") What we have to do in the real world is make what seems to us the best judgement on the basis of the information available. In the present context that means, as Gareth says, concentrating on the problem in hand "The problem now is to rebuild Iraq, and the rest of the Middle East." True enough. But "making the best decision on the basis of the information available" is at the heart of it - and that is why it really does matter if the people who make decisions on our behalf lie to us and lie to themselves. It isn't carping to try to find out the truth, because finding out the truth about things like that is our only hope of ensuring that we are collectively in a better position to sort out the truth from the lies next time. Truth matters. Anything that distorts the information on which me make our judgements undermines our ability to make the right judgements. |
|
18 Jun 03 - 10:42 AM (#968412) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: CarolC The "Project for a New American Century" contains the stated goals (in their own words) of the NeoCons who comprise the majority of the present US administration. The fact that they weren't in power when they wrote their statement of purpose is irrelevant. What is relevant is that they are right on schedule in accomplishing their goals. If that weren't the case it might be possible to say that political considerations provide a moderating effect. Since they are following the plan outlined in the "Project for a New American Century" pretty much to the letter, we can be quite confident that political considerations have not, so far, had any dampening effect on the actions of these people. |
|
18 Jun 03 - 11:15 AM (#968438) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Little Hawk Sort of like America's version of "Mein Kampf", eh? Goodness knows, that had millions of enthusiastic supporters, and with a little bit better planning and execution might even have succeeded. - LH |
|
18 Jun 03 - 11:22 AM (#968444) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Bobert Well, CarolC, the American people won't know just how badly they've hurt themselves until the look around and a century's worth of sopcial programs are gutted and they, or their parents or kids need services that every other civilized nation in the world provides its citizenry. Yeap, when the wrecking crew (neocons) are finished they will leave behind them a working class whose standard of living has been severly pushed back, state goverments not having the resopurces to educate our kids, senior citzens living in poverty and a massive record federal debt. But, hey, Boss Hog will have what he things is owed to him because he happened to be born into a family that has capital. Yeah, Joe Sixpack will still be blinded by the flag waving, the Budweiser and NASCAR next Novemeber so its looking very much like the Neocons will continue merrily down their path of destruction. But about the time the '06 midterms come around, the working man will have this thing figured out pretty well and the neocons will find the end of the path. Guarenteed. And I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see the Republican Party split right down the middle over it as folks try to disassociate themselves from the theivery. Bobert |
|
18 Jun 03 - 11:34 AM (#968453) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: DougR Bobert: I still think he "gotcha," but I understand why you don't agree. On the economy: you probably haven't been following the stock market have you? All indications are the economy is improving. It took years of neglect by the Clinton administration to create this economic turn-down, we can't expect it will be righted over night (anymore than we can expect the problems in Iraq to be corrected during the same time period). As to facts, Bobert, ole buddy, I don't think you are particularly interested in them. Teribus laid them out for you, and you reject them. The imbedded media was one of the best ideas for providing information to the public during a war that has come along in a long time. If you perceive it to have been a failure for some reason, I don't think you can blame the Bush administration. Blame the media. Personally, I think we got the best reporting of any war in my memory, and that goes back aways. DougR |
|
18 Jun 03 - 11:48 AM (#968461) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: McGrath of Harlow " a working class whose standard of living has been severly pushed back, state goverments not having the resopurces to educate our kids, senior citzens living in poverty and a massive record federal debt." Looking on from the outside, that sounds like a solid foundation for a New Deal. But this thread seems to have drifted rather a long way... |
|
18 Jun 03 - 03:04 PM (#968543) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Don Firth CarolC is right on the money. These folks have stated their intentions right out there where anybody and everybody can read them. It makes no difference whether the Statement of Principles was written and signed in 1997 or in 2003. We can see all of this currently being implemented by the Bush administration, so can there be any doubt? Or is it that when they were elected to office, their principles underwent a radical change? (Granted, this is fairly common in Washington circles). But when you can read the agenda and then see that agenda unfolding before your very eyes, how can a reasonable person deny it? "Under such criteria geopolitical domination of the world is therefore firmly in the hands of Russia - the country with the largest oil and natural gas reserves and the worlds largest oil exporter. They always have been and still are." I think not, Teribus. For your information:— As if January 2002, Russia is seventh in oil reserves (48,573 million barrels), after Saudi Arabia (261,750), Iraq (112,500), United Arab Emirates (97,800), Kuwait (96,500), Iran (89,700), and Venezuela (77,685). Russia is third in oil production at 7,014 million barrels a day, after Saudi Arabia (8.528) and the United States (8.091). The United States is the world's biggest consumer of oil at a rate of 19,993 million barrels per day, followed by Japan (5,423), China (4,854), Germany (2,814), Russia (2,531), South Korea (2,126), Brazil (2,123), Canada (2,048), France (2,040), India (2,011), Mexico (1,932), Italy (1,881), United Kingdom (1,699), Spain (1,465), SaudiArabia (1,415), Iran (1,109), Indonesia (1,063), Netherlands (881), Australia (879), and Taiwan (846). SOURCE. If you do the math, you'll note that Russia is using their oil reserves pretty fast. In fact, everybody, especially the United States, is using it pretty fast and it won't be all that long before it's all gone!. So clearly the country that has its hand on the Middle East tap has one helluva lot of power over the rest of the world. That, my friends, is what it's all about. After a long and stormy relationship with UNSCOM, in September of 2002, Iraq agreed to permit UN weapons inspections. In November of 2002, it accepted UN Resolution 1441. Hans Blix and his team were hot on the trail of anything that might possibly be there, but since they didn't find much of anything right away, they were pulled out, much to Blix's objections, and the United States launched its preemptive war. Have we forgotten our very recent history? Or is it that we get all our news on the Fox News Service? Even more recent news: Congressional hearings are starting today to investigate the very questions I posed above: Saddam Hussein did have chemical/biological weapons. Did he still as of the end of 2002? If so, where are they now? What about his alleged nuclear capability? Were American intelligence reports flawed to begin with (something we'd better find out for sure!)? Were our intelligence agencies lied to? And if so, just how gullible are they? Or were the much alluded to reports accurate, but cobbled later? And if so, by whom? Might it not be the case that the war on Iraq was on the agenda from the beginning and the only real problem the Bush administration had was in selling the war to Congress and the American people? Good questions all! Tony Blair seems to be getting a thorough hosing-down by the good folks of Great Britain. Now it looks like it may be George W. Bush's turn. Also, When George W. Bush announced, while standing on the carrier deck and squinting in the sun with the Stars and Stripes waving behind him, that the battle is over, he may have been a bit premature. It sounds like the rank-and-file, classes at West Point, by-the-book battles are over, but considering the number of drive-by shootings and pot-shots being taken at American troops, it appears that the guerrilla war is just beginning. Don Firth 2004. Regime change in the United States. |
|
18 Jun 03 - 10:08 PM (#968745) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Bobert Doug: You still don't read my posts very carefully before responding. What I said about the media is that in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, a time during which "supposedly" no decision had been mad (yeah, right), there were some 153 "experts" hired by the BiG Four to help sort out the information so that the public would be that "informed citizenry" that Tom Jefferson said is a crucial element in democracy. Okay, 153 folks broght in under contract long before the first strike. Guess the make up? Peace workers, zero. Clergy, ahhhh, zero. Sociologists, ahhhh, make that another zero. Anyone who disagreed with Bush, a big zero. Former military men? 153! Now that what is called stacking the deck, Doug. You know it and I know it. That's the altimate stacking of the deck. Like what options did you, Joe Sixpack or anyone have? None, that's what, becuase you and Joe Sixpack were not given information. Yeah, you were given the comapny line which you gleefully repeated like a danged parrot. But you were not given a danged shread of information. And you still aren't. Nor is your here, the T-ster, who sits with his or her magnifying glass with this sinister little focus and does nothing more than parrot the company line. No, Doug, T didn't get me becuase he/she can't. T is all ready gotten in a bad way. When a person looses all ability of independent thought, they are gotten. If Bush said tomorrow that all balck people or all Catolics would have to be deported for security rrsons, T would get on that bandwagon, too. It's required. Something in the True Believer code... Bobert |
|
18 Jun 03 - 10:57 PM (#968752) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Little Hawk Nice to see that things are still rolling along here... :-) - LH |
|
19 Jun 03 - 06:35 AM (#968923) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: McGrath of Harlow Surely the bottom line is that honest and honourable people can disagree about what is the right thing to do and the wrong thing to do, but there is no room for disagreeing that it is wrong for politicians to try to conceal or twist the truth about public issues. And it doesn't matter a straw whether they are in our political camp, or the other. That's one area where zero tolerance should apply. If it did, it'd mean a pretty massive clear out of public figures in all our countries. That won't happen of course, but that's no reason why decent people should continue to defend the liars, just because they agree with them politically. |
|
19 Jun 03 - 06:59 AM (#968932) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Teribus Hi Don, Thanks for the information, regarding oil reserves and production figures. With regard to the Russian figures, YUKOS Chairman and CEO Mikhail Borisovich Khodorkovsky has gone on record as recently as 11th February this year, stating that red tape from outdated Russian laws had meant no new definitive estimates of Russian oil reserves had come out in eight years. As such the country's proven oil and gas reserves were underestimated. |
|
19 Jun 03 - 08:02 AM (#968946) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Teribus Kevin, In the context of Iraq, your bottom line post is based entirely on perceptions - right thing to do, wrong thing to do and truth. It is your perception that the action taken against Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist Regime in Iraq was the wrong thing to do. It is also your perception that politicians tried to conceal or twist the truth regarding that situation. My perception on the other hand is that the action taken was the right thing to do under the circumstances, and it is my perception that I have not been lied to with regard to that situation. Intelligence information was gathered, it was then subject to evaluation and best and worst cases presented to Cabinet for decision, formulation of policy and implementation of the agreed policy. In considering this, it should be remembered by all that the accuracy of your intelligence can never be guaranteed 100%, and that the evaluation process is not an exact science. It is not a case of decent people continuing to defend liars because they happen to agree with them politically, again that is your perception. I have asked, and to date have not received any clear cut and overwhelming evidence that the British people were lied to by anybody. |
|
19 Jun 03 - 01:54 PM (#969205) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: McGrath of Harlow Intelligence reports always include an element of guesswork, true enough. But that is a completely different thing from distrorting the contents of these reports in order to achiueve a politiucal end. As you say my perception is that we have been lied to by our leaders. I am pretty certain that I would still think that even if I was wholly in favour of the war. |
|
19 Jun 03 - 01:58 PM (#969209) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Don Firth In other words, Teribus, your statement about Russia having the largest oil reserves and being the largest oil exporter was something you picked up out of thin air? Be that as it may, rather than making any real attempt to refute other people's arguments, you tend to nit-picking minor details in what appears to be an attempt to divert attention from the main issue. Your posts are long, highly detailed, and have an aura of being well researched. However, if one makes the effort to check out your "facts," they don't always measure up, and are generally about some side issue rather than the main point. Good diversionary tactic, but it does have one flaw. A lot of your assertions can be checked for verification. Google is a wonderful thing! I remember hearing Tavis Smiley attempting to interview Condoleezza Rice a week or so ago regarding the missing WMD issue, and she dodged every question by trying to change the subject, picking on minor side issues, and making veiled remarks about the impropriety of questioning the president's motives "in a time of crisis." Interviewing her was like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall. And when, undaunted by her evasiveness, he persisted in bringing her back to the point by continuing to asking the same questions, she got a bit testy and cut the interview short. And there was nothing untoward about Smiley's questions. They were the same questions that I asked above. And the same questions that are now being asked in Congress—and not just by Democrats, either. Now, if some independent (e.g., UN) agency does manage to verify the existence of these alleged WMDs, and/or where they went, and are also able to verify that they were not planted by the U. S. or its cohorts, then I would say that vindicates the intelligence agencies and the Bush administration. This does not, however, justify the pre-emptive invasion of another country. Any more than a self-appointed sheriff is justified in shooting everyone in town who carries a six-gun (or he suspects has a Derringer stuck in his boot) on the grounds that they might shoot someone. Even an arch-conservative like the late John Wayne wouldn't do a thing like that. It raises the question of who the real outlaw is. Sorry if I seem to come on a bit harsh here, Teribus, but often when I read your posts, I note that you have a lot of detail, but frequently seem to have either missed or are avoiding the main point of the post you're attempting to refute. Don Firth |
|
19 Jun 03 - 04:29 PM (#969284) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: ard mhacha Correct Don, a long-winded sermon and always avoids the point, could Teribus be a politician?. Ard Mhacha. |
|
19 Jun 03 - 06:43 PM (#969347) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Bobert Ya know what makes this "intellegence" issue a real joke is that it isn't like they told Bush this stuff and there were no other voices. There were millions of other voices saying, "Hey wait, let the inspectors finish their work". Millions of folks in the street should have sent up a big alarm to Bush that maybe he needed to get some other opinions. Now we learn that folks within the intellegence community are privately saying that they felt manipulated and pressured bu the Bush folks. Hmmmmm? There does seem to be a tendency of Bush and his folks to turn a deaf ear toward anything that doesn't match their game plan. I think this is becoming increaingly apparent to even folks in the Republican party. Damn the torpedos. Full staeam ahead. Take no prisoners. Ya know, the world doesn't work like this.... Bobert |
|
19 Jun 03 - 07:07 PM (#969366) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Gareth Bobert Never the less Saddam Hussain as gone, there is little likelehood now of him arming fundamentalists, who seem to be anti any political system other than thier own. You have suggested "Assasination" as an alternative. How would this have been done ? Was this tried ? Gareth |
|
19 Jun 03 - 07:21 PM (#969379) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Bobert Well, now Gareth, I ain't big into killin' no one but between killing one bad one or killin' tens upon thousands of good 'ens and kids and women, the pragmatist in me yell, "Kill the bad one!" But it has to be those choices. With that said, I know that the company line is that "Well, we tried to get the rascal." But did we? Let me ask you this, Gareth. If CBS could get Dan Rather in to not only interview but have it taped, then how is it that folks can buy that line, "Well, we tried to get the rascal"? I mean, here you have the most sophisticated military in the world that lands behind enemy lines and does all kind of covert nasty stuuf before the war starts but we can't find and kill on bad man? Well, I ain't buying it. Bottom line is that you had way to many motivations for the Bsh/Cheney/Rice/Pearle/Runsfield/Wolfowitz team that they couldn't have cared less about Saddam or the pee shooters that Iraq had. This ain't about that. This is all just part of the plan, Hal. Lean back and enjoy the ride, Hal. There's no reason for alarm, Hal... Bobert |
|
19 Jun 03 - 10:12 PM (#969433) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: TIA Gareth - Where is the evidence that Hussein ever armed fundamentalists...or even intended to? From what I have read, the fundamentalists wanted nothing to do with Hussein. As far as I can tell, the link between Islamist fundamentalist terror attacks and Hussein has existed only in GWB's speeches. If I am wrong, please direct me to the correct information. |
|
19 Jun 03 - 10:53 PM (#969445) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Little Hawk If arming fundamentalists is the problem, indict the government of the USA which has done more to arm fundamentalists in the last 20 years than probably anyone else. They did it in order to hurt the Russians. Remember? Oh, and they also armed Saddam and the Saudis. Saddam was anathema to Islamic fundamentalists. They only thing they liked about him was his defiance toward the USA, Israel, and Britain. Now that Saddam has been deposed fundamentalists have a good shot at running Iraqui society...if they can just get the American troops out of there. That may not be too easy. Real democracy in Iran would mean a triumph for Islamic fundamentalism...followed, I'd figure, by a quick end to said democracy. How ironical. This war was not fought for freedom. It was fought for gain. - LH |
|
20 Jun 03 - 03:53 AM (#969527) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: McGrath of Harlow " there is little likelihood now of him arming fundamentalists" - however if these WMDs really do exist, the chances of them getting into the hands of fundamentalists could well be much greater than they were before. The main case against Saddam, and a strong case, is that he was a repressive and vicious tyrant, and Islamic fundamentalists were among the people who he was most vicious in repressing. |
|
20 Jun 03 - 04:06 AM (#969535) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: GUEST,kiwi guest the USA has te stockpile of WMD. Better eliminate these and get some world peace. |
|
20 Jun 03 - 04:45 AM (#969554) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Teribus Don, My statement about Russia having the largest oil reserves and being the largest oil exporter was not something I picked up out of thin air. It was from a talk to the Institute of Pipeline Engineers given by the former Saudi Arabian Petroleum Minister Sheikh Zaki Yamani. In which he addressed the emergence of the Russian Federation with, "It's extremely vast energy supplies", on the world market. Proven oil reserves in Russia total about 50 billion barrels and gas reserves equating to approximately 40% percent of the worlds gas reserves. These reserves will be significantly enhanced with investment in modern oil and gas technology, particularly in the areas of reservoir engineering, transportation infrastructure and exploration. Russia's peek oil production in 1988 under the Soviet regime amounted to approximately 500 million metric tons per year - that equates to roughly 11.4 million barrels a day. The intervening years saw a brief decline, which is currently and rapidly being reversed. Those years have also seen the opening up of Russia to precisely the type of investment and application of modern technology that Sheikh Yamani was talking about. Traditionally Russia's export market for oil and gas was to the eastern European countries of the Waraw Pact. Those markets still exist and their energy requirements as they catch up to the West are expanding. Russia supplies western Europe with something like 25% of its natural gas needs, that market is also expanding. Russia is now free to sell its oil and gas to the world market, and it is acknowledged as being in a position to counter OPEC. Production costs in Russia currently run at just around $1 per barrel, to fuel the Russian economy under its modernisation programme requires a stable oil price of around $21 per barrel. For quite sometime now oil has been retailing in the range of $25 - $32 per barrel. The Saudi's also require a price of around $21 per barrel but their production costs are higher than Russia's. For this reason, there is not one major player in the oil and gas industry who has not shown great interest in Russia. To those investors Russia represents a vast country and with regard to reserves and they have only just barely started to look for it. If that is thin air to you pal - start investing in it. |
|
20 Jun 03 - 01:42 PM (#969799) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Don Firth My point still remains. As of the latest reports, Iraq has the second largest known oil reserves and Saudi Arabia is number one. Other than your post, I have not found anything that contradicts this. It's partly a matter of who has the oil, but it's mostly about who controls it. Control of that much oil is geopolitical power, and that's what the Bush administration is really after. It's what this war was all about. If it turns out that Russia does indeed have the world's largest oil reserves (speculation at this point), then that may put a temporary crimp in the Bush administration's program, but if you know this for sure, I'm sure the Bush administration does too, and they undoubtedly have a contingency plan. Right now, however, Russia's oil reserves are in the realm of counting the proverbial unhatched chickens, and lots of people have gone bust drilling for oil they were sure was there, but ended up with a bunch of dry holes. That's the rule rather than the exception. Ask any oil man. Ask Bush. But this, as I mentioned above, is a side-issue and a diversion from the matter under discussion. If anyone wants to discuss oil reserves, they should start another thread. Don Firth |
|
20 Jun 03 - 02:54 PM (#969843) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Little Hawk Could we get a little more background and facts on that, Teribus? I, for one, will not be satisfied until you rebut the latest fallacious liberal statements on this forum with at least a 4,000 word point-by-point denunciation and a statistic-laden reply which renders us all speechless with admiration. :-) Tell you what...let's say we all just agree with you from here on in, and say, "You are absolutely right about everything, Teribus." Ummm...well...hmmmm...gosh, there would just be this huge silence after that. Then what? You'd have to find a new hobby. Think about it, man! Opponents are the spice of life for those of us who like to debate and prove how right we are. Without them we would have no one to triumph over, no one to score devastating points against, no thrill of victory and agony of defeat, no thirst for verbal revenge. Be glad we don't see it your way, I say...you need people who disagree with you. - LH |
|
20 Jun 03 - 08:44 PM (#969981) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: McGrath of Harlow I assume that since, of course, Teribus always checks his facts, the figures about Russian oil output in Soiviet times relate to Russia, and not to the USSR. |
|
20 Jun 03 - 11:30 PM (#970038) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Bobert Little Hawk: Poor ol' T was just born a few centuries late. He or she would be just as content arguing over how many angels coule fir on a pin. Sad. I mean, when we look at the history of man and war, we find some purdy danged simplistic ends to 'em. Peace ain't the tough. But, no, T wants reems and reems of documents. All i's dotted and all T's (no pun intended" crossed.... Reminds me of a few engineers I know. No flexability. No imagination. Just reema and reems of details... But, hey, I like T. Why? Heck if I know, but I do... As long as T ain't assigning me yet one more lengthy reading project, thank you. Bobert |
|
21 Jun 03 - 12:27 AM (#970053) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Little Hawk I like him too, but I can't resist bugging him for some reason... Like I said, he reminds me of myself not very long ago. - LH |
|
21 Jun 03 - 03:41 PM (#970277) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: McGrath of Harlow Actually angels on the point of a pin wasn't a daft thing to argue about, it's just a graphic way of summing up what is involved in speculating as to whether a disembodied spirit could have any spatial coordinates, and stuff like that. |
|
21 Jun 03 - 04:54 PM (#970297) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: SeanM Well, skeptic though I am, there may finally be something to nail things down one way or another... WMD potential find We'll see what the results are. According to the article, there's reference to Iraq's nuclear program. In addition, from what the reports infer, this site was not "found" in optimal condition, but with papers "strewn" about the floor. I'm personally siding (from initial comments) that they've likely stumbled onto an intelligence community find. Whether anything "useful" to any side comes out is entirely up in the air, though... M |
|
21 Jun 03 - 07:44 PM (#970357) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Bobert Actually, WMD, is a mute point. The Bush PR/spnsters knew a long timw ago there weren't any, so they carefully cobbled the "Saddam was a bad man" advertising program and have been hammering that to the point that most Americans, according to polls, couldn't care less oif there were WMD. Sad commentary on the independent thinking ability of the average American, ain't it. But what else would I expect ina thouroughly dumbed down America where information/misinformation is so carefully crafted for consumption. Bobert |
|
21 Jun 03 - 09:51 PM (#970403) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Little Hawk Not too long ago, historically speaking, he was their bad man. He was kind of comparable to Ngo Dinh Diem or Manuel Noriega or Fulgencio Batista or a host of others in that way. Use him while it's convenient for the USA, dump him when it's not. Bin Laden was also their bad man not very long ago, when he was killing Russians for them. He was a "freedom fighter" then. I wonder who the next ugly "face" will be? They've got to have a really unamerican and evil-looking "bad guy" in order to market a war successfully to Joe Sixpack (to use your term, Bobert). The most convenient thing of all is to have a bad guy whom no one can find (like Bin Laden). Then you can launch wars and interventions pretty well anywhere you like, supposedly to go after him. - LH |
|
22 Jun 03 - 08:54 PM (#970650) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: mg Do not worry in the long term about running out of oil. We will have found better, safer, cleaner sources of energy way before then. Although the short-term could be messy if we entrust our energy to the oil conglomerates. Every single educated person of the non-poverty classes I believe has an obligation to be working toward their own energy sufficiency. For starters, how about in exchanging holiday presents this year, we all give, and ask for, energy reducers..as simple and cheap as a length of rope for a clothes line..or a single solar lantern for the yard..or a solar candle that you set in the sun and bring in at night to light your home....how about training our children to run around and get warm, and to wear sweaters, rather than overheating them at home or at school. I think only premature infants, the infirm elderly, and others with health problems need as much heat and air conditioning as we now consume...how about separating our garbage better and instead of having these unbelievable garbage dumps, with the inevitable epidemic caused by them at some point, burning the burnable garbage...there is a ton of stuff we can do and will do if prices of energy rise....but I think we are buying into an artificial scare about running out of oil...we have corncobs do we not????? And engineers who could run whatever remaining factories we have here on them, as well as cars, refrigerators etc. mg |
|
22 Jun 03 - 10:26 PM (#970687) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: DonD Well, I just read this whole thread from beginning to end. Actually, I did doze off during some extended Teribus texts, just like in college. (Short pithy sentences, please, for us ADD people.) As a Saddam apologist -- I think he's a sorry excuse for a human being -- and a Bush antagonist -- I think he's a sorry excuse for a human being, too -- my attitudes are best expressed in the song I posted above (New Iraq war song), with Mary's kind improvements. For those too unmusical to ever read anything but BS threads, the chorus about says it all: Red is the blood that we have caused to flood As behind our brave troops we did rally, And black is the oil that waits beneath the soil Of the Tigris and Euphrates valley. And to forestall certain predictable technical diversions, I know that the oil is not really under the Tigris or Euphrates, which have separate valleys. |
|
23 Jun 03 - 01:27 AM (#970749) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Little Hawk Yes, Mary, we can all do our own part in our own way. Good suggestions. More individual responsibility makes for a far better World. - LH |
|
23 Jun 03 - 02:43 PM (#971081) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: McGrath of Harlow Latest polls have 29 per cent of people in the UK who think Blair was telling the truth over Iraq. |
|
23 Jun 03 - 08:55 PM (#971287) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Bobert Well, that just goes to show ya about polls, McGrath. Her in the good ol US of A you read polls that say 60m to 70 percent of the folks think Bush is doing a good job but then I go out into the real world and find most folks think that Bush is a jerk. And I live around a lot of Repubs. I reackon them pollsters are taking exit polls from a NASCAR race... So I wouldn't put much faith in the 29% mark. It's probably like 7 or 8%.... Bobert |
|
24 Jun 03 - 04:06 AM (#971408) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Wolfgang If polls are cited I'd like to see the source and the exact wording of the question, for I am as skeptical here as Bobert is though for completely different reasons. You care to read another selected poll from the UK? The issue of whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction is only being raised again now because people who opposed the war throughout are trying to find a new reason for saying it wasn't the right thing to do 68 % did agree with that statement (TIMES, June 14th, 2003) Wolfgang |
|
24 Jun 03 - 11:51 AM (#971605) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: GUEST May 4, 2003, 12:21 AM (GMT+02:00) Syria is reported by DEBKA-Net-Weekly's intelligence sources as having secretly disposed of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction by moving them into eastern Lebanon for burial in the Beqaa Valley. Iraq's biological weapons may be there too. They were interred deep under the heroin poppy and cotton fields in two of the most fertile regions of Lebanon: the valley stretching between Jabal Akroum, the town of al Qbayyat and the Syrian border, and the land lying between the towns of Al Hirmil and al Labwah between the Orontes River and the Syrian frontier. On February 14, about a month before the start of the war in Iraq, DEBKA-Net-Weekly Issue 97 ran an article captioned "Is Iraq's WMD cache in Lebanon available to Al Qaeda?" To subscribe to DNW click HERE Now, our intelligence sources can disclose exclusively that the relocation of Iraq's WMD systems took place between January 10 and March 10 and was completed just 10 days before the US-led offensive was launched against Iraq. The banned arsenal, hauled in giant tankers from Iraq to Syria and from there to the Bekaa Valley under Syrian special forces and military intelligence escort, was discharged into pits 6-8 meters across and 25-35 meters deep dug by Syrian army engineers. They were sealed and planted over with new seedlings. Nonetheless, their location is known and detectable with the right instruments. Our sources have learned that Syria was paid about $35 million to make Saddam Hussein's forbidden weapons disappear. Before US secretary of state Colin Powell arrived in Damascus on Saturday, May 3, the Syrians made the placatory gesture to Washington of speeding and upgrading the handover of Iraqi fugitives from the Saddam regime sheltering in Syria |
|
24 Jun 03 - 03:58 PM (#971747) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: McGrath of Harlow Of course just because people think that Blair and Bush were telling porkies, that wouldn't necessarily mean they oppose the war. And there could well be some people who don't think they were lying who were and are against the war. They are different questions. I get irritated at the assumption that it's ok to adjust our beliefs about matters of truth and falsity to match the way we'd like the facts to turn out. It seems to happen in issue after issue - for a classic example, the vote-counting issue in the US Presidential election. True enough human beings have a tendency to do that kind of thing, but it shouldn't be shrugged off as inevitable. Honest people try to resist that kind of temptation. |
|
24 Jun 03 - 07:33 PM (#971842) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Gareth What Kevin McGrath is edging around is that in an oppinion poll published in todays Gaurdian, 48% of the GBP (Great British Public) consider, despite the efforts of the vocal minority, think that the Miliotarey Action against Saddam Hussain was justified. Kevin - a simple question. How would you have disposed of Saddam Hussain and his regime ? Gareth |
|
24 Jun 03 - 08:11 PM (#971863) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: McGrath of Harlow I'm not edging around it - in fact that was precisely what I had in mind when I suggested that the fact someone thinks that the war was justified wouldn't require that they think that Bush and Blair weren't lying. Those poll results put together seem to indicate that this is actually a rather common point of view. Most people probably assume that professional politicians in general are liars anyway. As implied in such aphorisms as "An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought." As for Saddam's regime - if containment was a good policy last year and the year before that, it was a better policy this year; if an invasion to get rid of him was a good policy this year, it would have been just as good a policy years ago, and no worse next year. |
|
24 Jun 03 - 08:57 PM (#971880) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Little Hawk I don't fiddle around worrying about a weasel in the henhouse when there's a berserk Tyrannosaurus Rex rampaging in the garden, Gareth. What we should be asking ourselves is how to dispose of George Bush and his regime. They are a threat to the whole World. Saddam wasn't. He couldn't even defeat Iran with large scale American supplies of high tech weaponry. I doubt that he could have defeated any nextdoor neighbour except for tiny Kuwait. America, however, has the power to seriously threaten any nation...and frequently uses it. - LH |
|
25 Jun 03 - 06:00 AM (#972015) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: McGrath of Harlow Pedantic drift - I believe the current thinking is that Tyrannosaurus Rex wasn't up to much as a predator, and wasn't equipped to go tackling anything sizeable that was still alive and kicking. It's reckoned it was a scavanger, mostly going round chomping up dead or dying dinosaurs. |
|
25 Jun 03 - 07:17 AM (#972049) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: TIA Gareth (and other war supporters) - How much time did you spend worying about the poor oppressed Iraqi people in say...1997, or maybe 1999? This is a serious question - not rhetorical nor sarcastic. Perhaps I have misjudged the war supporters, and they have actually been fellow human rights advocates for years. I may be laboring under a mistaken impression because I have not recognized our local war supporters as people who have been active in local human rights groups. If (as the polls seem to indicate), there are huge numbers of Brits and Americans who are concerned about the world's oppressed peoples, I hope they are putting their money and efforts where their mouths are - that would be great news to the people of the Congo, Burma, Liberia, and many others who continue to suffer oppression. My only fear is that this neo-human-rights movement may see war as the only solution to oppression. |
|
25 Jun 03 - 07:23 AM (#972054) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: McGrath of Harlow How much time did you spend worying about the poor oppressed Iraqi people in say...1997, or maybe 1999? I suspect that in the case of Gareth the answer to that question might be "quite a lot". It's not as simple as some people seem to think. There are people on both sides in this question who care a lot about human rights, and people who couldn't give a toss. (I mean "on both sides" in the big world, rather than the Mudcat, where I think there's generally a shared concern for human rughts, even when we might disagree about what thta implies when it comes to policies.) |
|
25 Jun 03 - 03:42 PM (#972287) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: TIA If McGrath is correct, Gareth is far less "on the other side" than I may have believed. Sorry. |
|
25 Jun 03 - 07:12 PM (#972363) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Gareth Ooooh! Kevin. I am so embarresed at your comments. I must appologise to those that thought that my past and documented history was pure war mongering, I mean, there was I in the 1970's calling for Sanctions against South Africa, and boycoting South African products, before it became fashionable to do so. Ooops, and my past membership of the Connolly Society, was of course a pure example of my support of English Imperialism. Oh, and my boycott of Chilean Produce post 1973 was intended to show my support for the dictatorship. Actually I think I may have posted on the 'Cat over the Pinochett affair suggesting that Pinochet, should be returned to Chile, in a wooden box I also made my self very unpopular in loeftish circles in the early 1990's suggesting that Allied forces should have driven on to Bagdhad, using tactical nukes to get Saddam if neccessary. I suspect over the last few years the loss of life would have been less than has actually occured. I must confess to a disregard for the mantra's of the left, but I have one incurable fault. I believe in the art of the possible, and what is morrally right, can not be legally wrong. Which makes me a maverick / War Monger / pro capital punishment etc ? - Well so be it - I sleep easy. Gareth Ho ! Ho ! Ho Chi Min ! We will fight, and we will win !! |
|
26 Jun 03 - 06:48 AM (#972573) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Teribus Kevin, you say that: "As for Saddam's regime - if containment was a good policy last year and the year before that, it was a better policy this year;" That statement is only true when looked at from Saddam Hussein's point of view. There was no such thing as a policy of containment. Containment was what some thought the failure to impliment UN Resolutions combined with the restraints imposed by UN Sanctions could achieve. That thinking was wrong on two counts: 1. It was hopelessly optimistic taking into account both the man and regime he led. 2. The sanctions were as effective as a collander and at some point they would have had to have been lifted. The result for the future could only have got worse not better. |
|
26 Jun 03 - 02:35 PM (#972855) Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs? From: Little Hawk ARGH!!! McGrath, you have insulted all Tyrannosaurs with that vile assertion, and I DEMAND an apology!!! SCAVENGERS??? How dare you?!! Ooooo...you are gonna pay dearly for this one. - LH |