Fitting facts to theory on Iraq

[Wayne Grabert]

Of interest to skeptics as lovers of critical thinking, should be this real-world example of selectively ignoring evidence in order to fit facts to theory. In this case, it led to war and a potential commitment of military occupation that could last "decades" (according to prominent neo-con and war supporter Max Boot).

The hunt for "WMD" in Iraq has thus far been futile. According to Seymour Hersh, the case for war against Iraq was based on intelligence reports doctored by a small group of ideologues in the Pentagon. Besides ignoring evidence that contradicted their ideas, they relied on "evidence" supplied by an unreliable source--the Iraqi National Congress. The INC was largely composed of men who (by the time the war started) hadn't set foot in Iraq in 20 years or more. The leader of the INC was convicted embezzler Ahmad Chalabi.

Here is a short article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5944-671612,00.html) that summarizes the matter.

Present and former CIA officials, quoted in The New York Times and The New Yorker magazine, claimed that a small number of powerful neo-conservative ideologues in the Pentagon were so determined to prove the existence of a banned weapons programme and links to al-Qaeda that they manipulated intelligence.

According to a report written by Seymour Hersh, the veteran New Yorker investigative reporter, the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans (OSP) relied too heavily on suspect intelligence provided by Iraqi defectors with links to the Iraqi National Congress, an opposition group headed by Ahmad Chalabi, an Iraqi exile.

Mr Hersh reported that intelligence gathered by the OSP drove the war agenda, often in the face of evidence that it was either unreliable or false. The OSP reported to Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Defence Secretary and a leading proponent of the war.

One former CIA official told Mr Hersh: “One of the reasons I left was my sense that they (OSP) were using the intelligence from the CIA and other agencies only when it fits their agenda. They were so crazed and so far out and so difficult to reason with . . . as if they were on a mission from God. If it doesn’t fit their theory, they don’t want to accept it.”

Mr Hersh maintained that key intelligence provided by Iraqi defectors with links to the Iraqi National Congress was disputed by the CIA.
Here is Mr. Hersh's lengthy, detailed article. (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact)
According to the Pentagon adviser, Special Plans was created in order to find evidence of what Wolfowitz and his boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, believed to be true—that Saddam Hussein had close ties to Al Qaeda, and that Iraq had an enormous arsenal of chemical, biological, and possibly even nuclear weapons that threatened the region and, potentially, the United States.

Note: I haven't had time yet to read all of Hersh's article myself.

[aerocontrols]

Speaking of fitting facts to theory...

How confident are you that Chalabi deserves (http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=NYS/2003/04/28&ID=Ar00600) the title 'convicted embezzler' without further elaboration?

I also think that it's worthwhile to note that the CIA officials that your article quotes may be the very same fellows who got into bed with Saddam in the 80s in the first place, thus have been enemies of Chalabi, who, unlike the United States, has always been the enemy of the Ba'ath party, as well as Saddam. (Stephen Pelletiere, your source for the theory that Saddam never gassed the Kurds, fits this category of CIA agent.)

MattJ

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Speaking of fitting facts to theory...

How confident are you that Chalabi deserves (http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=NYS/2003/04/28&ID=Ar00600) the title 'convicted embezzler' without further elaboration?

Extremely confident. It is a fact. Chalabi orchestrated an elaborate shell game in which large amounts of funds were shuttled around to other Chalabi shell companies with unsecured loans! He was convicted in absentia by the courts in Jordan.

EDITED TO ADD: How confident are you that "the CIA officials that your article quotes may be the very same fellows who got into bed with Saddam in the 80s in the first place"? As I recall, the fellows who jumped into bed with Saddam in the 80's were Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

[Wayne Grabert]

For those who don't wish to read all of Hersh's article, I'd like to highlight the following passage.
In August, 1995, General Hussein Kamel, who was in charge of Iraq’s weapons program, defected to Jordan, with his brother, Colonel Saddam Kamel. They brought with them crates of documents containing detailed information about Iraqi efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction—much of which was unknown to the U.N. inspection teams that had been on the job since 1991—and were interviewed at length by the U.N. inspectors. In 1996, Saddam Hussein lured the brothers back with a promise of forgiveness, and then had them killed. The Kamels’ information became a major element in the Bush Administration’s campaign to convince the public of the failure of the U.N. inspections.

Last October, in a speech in Cincinnati, the President cited the Kamel defections as the moment when Saddam’s regime “was forced to admit that it had produced more than thirty thousand liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. . . . This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and is capable of killing millions.” A couple of weeks earlier, Vice-President Cheney had declared that Hussein Kamel’s story “should serve as a reminder to all that we often learned more as the result of defections than we learned from the inspection regime itself.”

The full record of Hussein Kamel’s interview with the inspectors reveals, however, that he also said that Iraq’s stockpile of chemical and biological warheads, which were manufactured before the 1991 Gulf War, had been destroyed, in many cases in response to ongoing inspections. The interview, on August 22, 1995,was conducted by Rolf Ekeus, then the executive chairman of the U.N. inspection teams, and two of his senior associates—Nikita Smidovich and Maurizio Zifferaro. “You have an important role in Iraq,” Kamel said, according to the record, which was assembled from notes taken by Smidovich. “You should not underestimate yourself. You are very effective in Iraq.” When Smidovich noted that the U.N. teams had not found “any traces of destruction,” Kamel responded, “Yes, it was done before you came in.” He also said that Iraq had destroyed its arsenal of warheads. “We gave instructions not to produce chemical weapons,” Kamel explained later in the debriefing. “I don’t remember resumption of chemical-weapons production before the Gulf War. Maybe it was only minimal production and filling. . . . All chemical weapons were destroyed. I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons—biological, chemical, missile, nuclear—were destroyed.”

Kamel also cast doubt on the testimony of Dr. Khidhir Hamza, an Iraqi nuclear scientist who defected in 1994. Hamza settled in the United States with the help of the I.N.C. and has been a highly vocal witness concerning Iraq’s alleged nuclear ambitions. Kamel told the U.N. interviewers, however, that Hamza was “a professional liar.” He went on, “He worked with us, but he was useless and always looking for promotions. He consulted with me but could not deliver anything. . . . He was even interrogated by a team before he left and was allowed to go.”

After his defection, Hamza became a senior fellow at the Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington disarmament group, whose president, David Albright, was a former U.N. weapons inspector....

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Extremely confident. It is a fact. Chalabi orchestrated an elaborate shell game in which large amounts of funds were shuttled around to other Chalabi shell companies with unsecured loans! He was convicted in absentia by the courts in Jordan.

In a 24 hour period, he was conviced in a special "security court" held under martial law.

Petra Bank was the only major Jordanian bank that wouldn't loan Saddam Hussein money to fight Iran.

The trial was held weeks after Chalabi went on 60 Minutes with documents showing how King Hussein of Jordan was arming Saddam Hussein.

Pay no attention to all these facts that might upset your theory, and focus on that conviction. Jordanian courts are, after all, some of the most respected in the world.

MattJ

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

EDITED TO ADD: How confident are you that "the CIA officials that your article quotes may be the very same fellows who got into bed with Saddam in the 80s in the first place"? As I recall, the fellows who jumped into bed with Saddam in the 80's were Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

I'm 100% confident that they may be. (I said 'may' for a reason.) Pelletiere certainly is. You recall that Reagan and Bush did that jumping but perhaps you don't believe they did it all on their lonesome. You may also recall that of the three presidents that jumped into bed with Saddam Hussein, the Republican one that still has his faculties, according to you agrees with your anonymous CIA people (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16709&highlight=Bush+AND+speech) about removing Saddam Hussein. As does Jimmy Carter.

So yeah, thanks for helping me demonstrate that some of Saddam's old buddies are still sticking up for him. Was this supposed to be an argument that it's unlikely that similar career CIA officials would do so?

MattJ

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


In a 24 hour period, he was conviced in a special "security court" held under martial law.

Petra Bank was the only major Jordanian bank that wouldn't loan Saddam Hussein money to fight Iran.

The trial was held weeks after Chalabi went on 60 Minutes with documents showing how King Hussein of Jordan was arming Saddam Hussein.

Pay no attention to all these facts that might upset your theory, and focus on that conviction. Jordanian courts are, after all, some of the most respected in the world.

MattJ
I made a statement of fact: Chalabi is a convicted embezzler. If you would pay attention to sources other than the New York Sun, you'd know that the second largest bank in Jordan (Chalabi's) went belly up. Why? Because a bunch of unsecured loans went into default. Those are the facts that you ignore.

I'm not going to spend further time on your distraction over Chalabi. Where are the WMD? Why did Bush completely change gears in his speech aboard the Abraham Lincoln by having so little to say about WMD when talking about the war in Iraq? Instead, he pushed the Big Lie that Saddam was "an ally" of al Qaida and that the war was really about payback for 9/11. Note: No Iraqis were among the hijackers and no link has been shown between Saddam and al Qaida, despite the exhaustive efforts of the US, UK, Israel, and other countries to investigate the matter.

Why did Bush make those numerous references to 9/11 and terrorists? Because Bush knows that WMD may never be found in Iraq. He knows how the intelligence was fudged. He knows how he lied--repeatedly--about a
non-existent report (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020927-500715.htm) by the International Atomic Energy Agency that supposedly claimed Iraq was six months away from the development of a nuclear weapon (and he repeated the lie over and over after the IAEA disavowed the existence of such a report). He knows how Colin Powell used forged documents in front of the U.N. to claim that Iraq was trying to purchase uranium from Niger--even after he had been warned by the CIA that the documents appeared to be forgeries. He knows that other "evidence" presented by Powell was subsequently debunked by UN weapons inspectors. He knows that the US wasted no time after invading Iraq to thoroughly inspect 80 sites that its "intelligence" deemed the most likely to contain WMD and that it came up empty. He knows that Iraqi scientists who no longer have to worry about being monitored by Saddam's men still claim that Iraq has no WMD. (According to the biased headline used by yahoo news, Iraqis Won't Admit to Banned Weapons.)

Everyone is fooled at some time. However, someone who is a fool is someone who wants to be fooled and will ceaselessly defend those who have duped him. Are you falling into that trap, or are you willing to admit that Bush and his men have lied?

[Luke T.]

It is interesting that after 12 years of sanctions and on again, off again weapons inspections that many of the people who kept demanding the U.N. be given more time to disarm/inspect Iraq are the same ones demanding instant gratification/proof of WMD from the Bush Administration.

What has it been, less than a month since Baghdad fell?

I suppose if any WMD's are discovered, these same detractors will claim they were planted there.

:rolleyes:

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Luke T.
It is interesting that after 12 years of sanctions and on again, off again weapons inspections that many of the people who kept demanding the U.N. be given more time to disarm/inspect Iraq are the same ones demanding instant gratification/proof of WMD from the Bush Administration.

What has it been, less than a month since Baghdad fell?

I suppose if any WMD's are discovered, these same detractors will claim they were planted there.

:rolleyes:
Large stockpiles of weapons were destroyed by December 1998 and some people (like Scott Ritter) thought the case might be that there was nothing left to be found.

It is interesting that the same people who called the UN inspectors "Inspector Clouseaus" and compared Hans Blix to Mr. Magoo are complaining that the Bush Administration (with over 100,000 troops and hundreds of inspectors on the ground and unrestricted access to Iraqi documents, government buildings and palaces, and unconstrained interviews with Iraqi scientists) needs more time to discover WMD. (Funny, no such weapons were used by Saddam during the war. What was he waiting for?) Months from now, if the situation is the same, these same supporters will claim that the WMD were given away to Syria or al Qaida before the war. :rolleyes: (Like that makes sense!)

[DavidJames]

Where I get confused is we were told that the WMD existed, not maybe, not possibly, but they Iraq HAD them. We were shown pictures, we had sources, we had proof. Never mind that we seemed to be unable to get the inspectors that information. We had proof, enough proof to go to war. So excuse me if I continue to be skeptical.

Show me the proof and I'm a believer - no different that UFO's or bigfoot. I've seen pictures of them as well :)

[Wayne Grabert]

Excellent points, David. The Bush League Administration has had ample opportunity to make its case. Instead, it is trying to change the argument. However, I am willing to give them more time, but they should allow the UN or at least some other third party to verify any finds to deflect claims that what was found was planted. For some reason, they are unwilling to take up Tony Blair's suggestions that they do just that.

[crackmonkey]

I think that a few more weeks are warranted for WMD searching, don't you? After all, the UN had 12 years. The US does have an advantage in that weost likely don't have anyone tipping off the Iraqis about impending inspections...
As for Scott Ritter - some papers turned up in Baghdad discussing payoffs to Ritter. Ritter denies it, and claims that he was offered bribes but turned them down - interestingly, the man named who was to offer the bribes was the same man who arranged for Ritter's trips to Baghdad and funded his film to the tune of $400,000 or thereabouts. Bears further scrutiny...
As far as Syria and al-Qaeda... of course, Saddam would NEVER try to ally himself with these enemies of his regime. The very idea of Saddam attempting to contact bin Laden is LUDICROUS. The thought of Syria aiding Iraq is laughable. The fact that there is proof of Saddam seeking out al-Qaeda and using weapons provided by Syria is beside the point... :rolleyes:

Originally posted by crackmonkey
As for Scott Ritter - some papers turned up in Baghdad discussing payoffs to Ritter. Ritter denies it, and claims that he was offered bribes but turned them down

Source please?

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
As for Scott Ritter - some papers turned up in Baghdad discussing payoffs to Ritter. Ritter denies it, and claims that he was offered bribes but turned them down - interestingly, the man named who was to offer the bribes was the same man who arranged for Ritter's trips to Baghdad and funded his film to the tune of $400,000 or thereabouts. Bears further scrutiny...
Get your story straight. It's not that "some papers turned up," it's that Ritter not only turned down the bribes, he immediately reported to the FBI the attempts to bribe him.

Originally posted by crackmonkey
The fact that there is proof of Saddam seeking out al-Qaeda and using weapons provided by Syria is beside the point... :rolleyes:
Provide this elusive "proof." And by "Syria," I assume you mean the Syrian government--the same government that was part of the Gulf War coalition in 1991 that fought against Saddam.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Lost Sailor


Source please?

Here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/05/04/writt04.xml

Interesting. Don't know whether to buy it, but interesting. Thanks!

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
Of interest to skeptics as lovers of critical thinking, should be this real-world example of selectively ignoring evidence in order to fit facts to theory. In this case, it led to war and a potential commitment of military occupation that could last "decades".

Kind of like the anti-war side selectively ignores evidence that contradicts their view? (The US armed Iraq, or any of the other easily-debunked arguments coming from the anti-war side.)

Lets face it, there has been disinformation on both sides. However, I feel the U.S. course of action was justified based on what I knew had been verified independently.

As for the 'decades of military occupation'... Guess what? The US had bases in places like Saudi Arabia for a decade to protect it and Kuwait, and patrole the no-fly zones. Now those bases can be removed or moved. Sounds more like a re-deployment, rather than taking on a new responibility for military occupation.

Oh, and don't pull that 'skepics' thing... This is not the same as trying to prove/disprove psychics or other occult subjects that have no evidence. We had evidence; it is a case of weighing probabilities to see which would give the best cost/benefit ratio.

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
The hunt for "WMD" in Iraq has thus far been futile. According to Seymour Hersh, the case for war against Iraq was based on intelligence reports doctored by a small group of ideologues in the Pentagon. Besides ignoring evidence that contradicted their ideas, they relied on "evidence" supplied by an unreliable source--the Iraqi National Congress.

Ok, first of all, you are assuming that support for war was 'based on' doctored intelligence reports. While I don't deny that there was disinformation, there was also plenty of unbiased information that showed Iraq was guilty. They were not fully cooperative with the weapons inspectors (despite apologists who felt they should be 'given more time', Iraq did not follow the rules layed out in 1440.) If Iraq really did disarm, they certainly went through a lot of problems to make themselves look guilty.

Remember, 1440 said 'complete cooperation' from the first day. Yet, Iraqi apologists kept saying "they're increasing their cooperation". Given the fact that they were supposed to be 100% cooperative at all times, how can you 'increase cooperation' from 100%?

Face it... whether they had weapons or not, Iraq did not comply with 1440.

Secondly, many people believe that even if WMD are not found, the side effects (liberation of the Iraqi people elimination of a source of terrorist funding and a base of operations) justifies military action. (Non-compliance with UN resolutions just provides the legal justification for invasion.)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Luke T.
It is interesting that after 12 years of sanctions and on again, off again weapons inspections that many of the people who kept demanding the U.N. be given more time to disarm/inspect Iraq are the same ones demanding instant gratification/proof of WMD from the Bush Administration.

What has it been, less than a month since Baghdad fell?

I suppose if any WMD's are discovered, these same detractors will claim they were planted there.

:rolleyes:

That says it all. The WMD argument was not that they were suspected, that they might, or that could have. You don't start a war for a sneaking suspicion. The WMDs, if that excuse was ever valid, would have been reasonably well known about, and produced pretty quickly, for the war to be justifiable.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Face it... whether they had weapons or not, Iraq did not comply with 1440.

Secondly, many people believe that even if WMD are not found, the side effects (liberation of the Iraqi people elimination of a source of terrorist funding and a base of operations) justifies military action. (Non-compliance with UN resolutions just provides the legal justification for invasion.)
It was the place of the UN, not the US, to decide whether Iraq was in non-compliance with a UN resolution and whether the appropriate response was going to war, so your "legal" justification fails.

Here is another perspective on the "side effects" (some might say "lame excuses") of the war: Facing the Consequences of War in Iraq. (http://www.independent.org/tii/news/030502Higgs.html)

[crackmonkey]

Yes 'Syria' is the same 'Syria' that fought (or at least stood opposed to) Saddam in the first Gulf War... as far as I know, it is the only 'Syria' on this globe.
Papers were found in the Intelligence building in Baghdad discussing an apparently fruitful meeting with a respresentative of al Qaeda, and plans to meet later with Osama himself.
Syrian weapons have been found in Iraq. The Iraqis managed to knock out a couple of US Abrams tanks using anti-tank missiles (I believe they were Strela AT weapons circa '96) provided by Syria - Iraq had nothing in its arsenal that could penetrate the Abrams' armor.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Yes 'Syria' is the same 'Syria' that fought (or at least stood opposed to) Saddam in the first Gulf War... as far as I know, it is the only 'Syria' on this globe.
Papers were found in the Intelligence building in Baghdad discussing an apparently fruitful meeting with a respresentative of al Qaeda, and plans to meet later with Osama himself.
Syrian weapons have been found in Iraq. The Iraqis managed to knock out a couple of US Abrams tanks using anti-tank missiles (I believe they were Strela AT weapons circa '96) provided by Syria - Iraq had nothing in its arsenal that could penetrate the Abrams' armor.
Iraq-alQaida links still in doubt. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,944752,00.html)

Another article calls the evidence ("a poorly scribbled hand-written document"!) dubious. (http://www.balochistanpost.com/item.asp?ID=3892) (Look at the fourth paragraph from the bottom. It can't be copied and pasted into a quote for some reason.)

I read an analysis (that I can't find now) that makes the case that the document was probably deliberately seeded for Sunday Telegraph reporters to find. The redacted portions, rather than being redacted with black ink, were covered with White Out that could be easily flaked off after reading the print by holding the paper up to light, and the reporters were given free reign to look through the building's files after the US had already been through it.

You have failed to back up your argument regarding Syria. Some smuggling into Iraq from Syria may have taken place, but there is no proof that the government of Syria was behind it. So provide proof; don't just repeat your assertions.

The bottom line is: The Bush administration lied about its justification for war against Iraq as Hersh has detailed. Yet the conservatives on this board continue to defend him. Just keep dropping your drawers and grabbing your ankles, boys!

[Wayne Grabert]

To further address the question of 1440: Iraq: How George Bush lied. (http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2003/524/524p12.htm)
This claim, repeated ad nauseum by the rest of the corporate media, is false. Neither Blix's report to the Security Council on January 27, nor that other supposed propaganda “coup” of the warmongers, US President George Bush's State of the Union address on January 28, provided any evidence to support a war on Iraq to “disarm” Saddam Hussein's regime.

(snip)

Despite this claim, Blix noted later in his report, “The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt”.

This “one exception” was outlined in Blix's interim report to the Security Council on December 19: “Some sites were inspected last Friday — the Muslim day of rest. In one of them, the Iraqi staff were absent and a number of doors inside locked, with no keys available. The Iraqi side offered to break the doors open — while videotaping the event. However, they agreed with a suggestion that the doors in question could be scaled [sic — Blix presumably meant sealed] overnight and the offices inspected the next morning.”

Despite this admission, in his January 27 report Blix vituperated that “Paragraph 9 of [UN Security Council] resolution 1441 states that this cooperation [by Iraq with inspectors] shall be, quote/unquote, active. It is not enough to open doors. Inspection is not a game of catch as catch can”. So, not even Iraqi officials offering to break down locked doors qualifies as “active” cooperation!

Iraqi cooperation

In his December notes, Blix stated that “Access to sites has been prompt and assistance on the sites expeditious. It seems probably that a general instruction has been issued not in any way to delay or impede inspection...” Even in the January 27 report he concedes: “We have ... had a great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable. Our inspections have included universities, military bases, presidential sites and private residences.”

The remainder of Blix's report proved none of Washington's accusations. Indeed, in a two-hour interview given at the UN headquarters with New York Times reporters Judith Miller and Julia Preston on January 30, Blix refuted assertions about Iraqi “cheating” and the notion that “time was running out for disarming Iraq through peaceful means”.

According to Miller and Preston, Blix “took issue with what he said were US Secretary of State Colin Powell's claims that the inspectors had found that Iraqi officials were hiding and moving illicit materials within and outside of Iraq to prevent their discovery. He said that the inspectors had reported no such incidents.

“Similarly, he said, he had not seen convincing evidence that Iraq was sending weapons scientists to Syria, Jordan or any other country to prevent them from being interviewed. Nor had he any reason to believe, as President Bush charged in his State of the Union speech, that Iraqi agents were posing as scientists...

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

The WMDs, if that excuse was ever valid, would have been reasonably well known about, and produced pretty quickly, for the war to be justifiable.

How many times does it have to be explained to the anti-war people?

It was not the responsibility of the U.S. or U.N. to prove the existence of WMD before the war. It was the responsibility of Iraq to prove that they had totally disarmed, and were complying with UN resolutions.

Iraq did not.

They admitted to having weapons before the first round of U.N. inspections ended, and then when the second round started, they said "Poof, we don't have any. They were taken by the WMD fairy. She left a quarter under Saddam's pillow."

You may not like the fact that Iraq was put into a position where it had to prove its weapons were gone (certainly not an impossible task, had Iraq cooperated), but those were the terms layed out by the U.N. resolutions.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

It was the place of the UN, not the US, to decide whether Iraq was in non-compliance with a UN resolution and whether the appropriate response was going to war, so your "legal" justification fails.

The U.N. has shown itself to be irrelevant. Time and time again, when faced with the opportunity to improve the world and save lives, it fails to react. They failed to react in Kosovo (NATO had to do that), they failed to react in Iraq or any of a dozen middle east countries with poor human rights records, and they are failing to react in Africa, where some countries engaged in genocide.

Of course, I don't expect anything good to come out of the U.N., where the human rights committee is headed by Libya, and France and the world's biggest dictatorship can veto any action.

Now, the U.N. did set the rules... that Iraq had to comply. Anyone with more than 2 brain cells can see that they weren't complying as per the resolutions. (You may complain about degrees, but they were not complying 100% as they were expected to.) If the U.N. wasn't going to enforce its own laws, someone had to. (By the way, why didn't France or any of the other anti-war countries try to pass a resolution saying "Iraq is fully complying"?

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Here is another perspective on the "side effects" (some might say "lame excuses") of the war: Facing the Consequences of War in Iraq. (http://www.independent.org/tii/news/030502Higgs.html)

Another big steaming pile of cow-plop that masqarades as an 'argument' against war....

First of all, it uses the argument "you don't know what will happen, what happens next could be worse". I do acknowlege that is a possibility. Its a question of risk assesment... recent experiences in Kosovo and Afghanistan have shown that governments that engage in genocide can be replaced with less repressive governments. Nobody ever said it would be easy to do that in Iraq, but the rewards greatly outweigh the risks.

Secondly, he uses the ham-handed tricks of trying to draw negative visual imagry (describing the bombing, etc.) Why is it ham-handed? Because it attempts to sway people's opinions without giving proper counterweight to the alternatives. (When he was picturing the bombing in Iraq, was he also picturing the people stuck in the plastic shredders? Which image is more disturbing?)

Lastly, he claims that they could come up with ways to overthrow Saddam with "but a modicum of thought". Of course, he never actually gives any of those wonderful fantastic methods. But hey, who are we to doubt someone who can see all and know all? Hey, whey doesn't he fill us in on some of his wonderful plans so we can judge them on their own merit?

[aerocontrols]

Hersh's record (http://slate.msn.com/id/2082639/) on post-9/11 predicting.

Why are Sy Hersh's recent New Yorker defense pieces so consistently off the mark? Perhaps Hersh, who made his name tilting against the establishment, has become too willing to channel establishment sources' complaints. Indeed, most of his unnamed sources hail from the defense/intelligence establishment, which feels encroached upon by Rumsfeld and the rest of the new guard. If the question is, What's wrong with today's CIA?, Hersh reports back, it isn't enough like the old CIA. If the question is, What's wrong with today's Pentagon?, Hersh answers at the behest of his Army sources, Rumsfeld is mucking with tip-fiddle! If the Delta commandos and the Army generals talking to Hersh don't like Rumsfeld's policies—or the CIA, the DIA, and others resent similar turf encroachment by Wolfowitz's "cabal"—they know there is a place where their gripes can get a complete airing: A Hersh piece in The New Yorker.

Every bureaucratic struggle has at least two sides, and a reporter who recklessly throws in with one side against the other may publish blockbusters. But of what use are blockbusters that are consistently wrong?

Looks like this author agrees with me about the problem with exclusively relying on the old guard for information about this war.

[RandFan]

Searching for Scuds comes to mind. During the 1991 war we knew the scuds were there but damn if we could find them. Saddam was good at hiding things. The scuds were supposed to take an hour to prepare to move once fired but the Iraqis figured out how to move them in less time so that fighters could not find them after they were detected firing the missile.

It's a big dessert and it Saddam has been operating in secrecy for 12 years. If he could hide the scuds from us I think he could hide the WMDs.

Where I get confused is we were told that the WMD existed, not maybe, not possibly, but they Iraq HAD them. We were shown pictures, we had sources, we had proof. But no one said that we knew where they were exactly, that they hadn't been moved. No one that I know of from the administration said that we would find WMDs by a given date.

What I'm skeptical of is Sadism’s report. If he truly destroyed his WMDs why was he not able to document it. And not Scott Ritter, Hans Blix or anyone has been able to explain why Saddam would provide a fraudulent and incomplete report.

[Wayne Grabert]

WMD were a fantasy from the start. (http://www.sltrib.com/2003/May/05052003/commenta/commenta.asp)
The favorite fantasy headline of British comedian Spike Milligan was: "Archduke Franz Ferdinand Found Alive! First World War a Mistake!" We are unlikely to see a similar headline in any American paper soon, but in the rest of the world the continued failure of the U.S. and British occupation forces in Iraq to find any of the "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD) that were the alleged reason for their invasion is a diplomatic disaster and a joke in very bad taste.

Tony Blair ran into both phenomena and came away severely shaken when he visited Moscow last Tuesday. The British prime minister thought he had a good personal relationship with the Russian president, but Vladimir Putin is a former intelligence officer and, like his American and British counterparts, he was outraged at the way the U.S. and British governments misrepresented the intelligence they got from their own agencies in order to justify their war. Unlike the people at the Central Intelligence Agency and MI5, however, Putin was free to speak -- and did he ever.

(snip - Putin's ridicule of Blair here)

Two months ago, Blair talked a reluctant parliament into supporting the attack on Iraq by warning of Iraqi WMD ready to strike on 45 minutes' notice, and President George W. Bush warned of "mushroom clouds" if the U.S. didn't invade Iraq. It was all so desperately urgent, so hair-trigger dangerous, that Washington and London couldn't wait for the United Nations arms inspectors to finish their job; they had to bypass the U.N. and invade right away. So many thousands of Iraqis (2,500 civilians and perhaps 10,000 soldiers) were killed, 137 U.S. and British soldiers died, looters destroyed most of Iraq's cultural heritage while "coalition" troops stood idly by -- and nobody has found any WMD.

The rest of the world never really believed the White House's justification for war anyway. As U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said in late April, Washington and London built their case for going to war on "very, very shaky" evidence, including documents that subsequently turned out to have been faked -- and with the war now over, Washington isn't even bothering to insist that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the United States any more. "We were not lying," a Bush administration official told ABC News on 28 April. "But it was just a matter of emphasis."
Look, another pile of cow-plop:
They probably could be if the occupation turned out to be a brilliant success that produced a happy, prosperous, united and independent Iraq, but that does not seem likely. Instead, it is going sour very fast, with U.S. troops shooting civilian demonstrators, the Shia majority seeking an Islamic state, and the beginnings of a guerilla resistance to the foreign occupiers.

(snip)

On 22 April, former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook said he doubted that there was a single person in the intelligence services who believed that a weapon of mass destruction in working order would be found in Iraq, and accused the White House of trying to bridge the credibility gap by "re-inventing the term 'weapon of mass destruction' to cover any artillery shell with a chemical content, or any biological toxin, even if it had not been fitted to a weapon."

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
WMD were a fantasy from the start. (http://www.sltrib.com/2003/May/05052003/commenta/commenta.asp)

Look, another pile of cow-plop:


You know, you have a habit of posting long articles from web pages which are based on people's opinions, but with very few facts, and very few insights from you. Its a lazy way to exchange ideas; I wish you'd do more reasoning yourself and less regurgitating of other people's stuff.

I don't have time to do the full analysis, but much of what is in those articles is more cow-plop.

For example, they discuss the Russian president's reactions to the coaltion intelligence. But, it ignores the fact that Russia had interests in keeping Saddam in power (such as outstanding loans) which would have given bias to anyting the Russian leader said.

The article talks about "most of Iraq's cultural heritage looted". Latest estimates are that it was only a small fraction. (Saddam had been looting stuff long before the war too.

In the other article, reference is made of Robin Cook. Of course, he's a former minister, not a current one. I wouldn't put too much emphasis on his opinion because of that. (Didn't he resign because he disagreed because of the war? If he's the politician I'm thinking of, he'd have a definite bias.)

He also accuses the U.S. of reinventing the term Weapon of Mass Destruction to refer to anything biological/chemical, even if it had not been in a weapon. Well, guess what? Most reasonable people already assumed that having chem or bio agents were already considered WMD, even if not fitted to a warhead. (And there is NOTHING in the UN resolutions which indicated that the agents had to be ready for delivery.)

And, there was suggestions in the second article about things going 'sour'... Nobody ever thought it would be easy to rebuild Iraq. Problems were expected. I do remember hearing an opinion pole taken after the invasion, which stated that around 60-70% of Iraqis approved of the U.S. invasion. (So many in the anti-war side have been proven wrong that I can't believe anything they say... They said it would be a long campaign, it wasn't; They said Iraqis would rise up and defend Iraq, they didn't; They said there would be massive civilian casulties, there weren't. With all these mistakes, I'm more likely to disbelieve anything the anti-war side says than believe it.)

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
You know, you have a habit of posting long articles from web pages which are based on people's opinions, but with very few facts, and very few insights from you. Its a lazy way to exchange ideas; I wish you'd do more reasoning yourself and less regurgitating of other people's stuff. Wayne,

I have an awful lot of respect for you. But I have to agree with Segnosaur. Why not condense the article into a few salient points, quote relevant paragraphs from the article to support your position and then provide a source?

Each day volumes of information are added to the web that covers the entire political spectrum on current issues. I can find articles that oppose my opinion, that's not why I am here. I come to this forum to discuss those issues.

Thanks,

RandFan

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

In the other article, reference is made of Robin Cook. Of course, he's a former minister, not a current one. I wouldn't put too much emphasis on his opinion because of that. (Didn't he resign because he disagreed because of the war? If he's the politician I'm thinking of, he'd have a definite bias.)
He resigned just a few weeks before the war because of the campaign of disinformation.

Originally posted by Segnosaur
He also accuses the U.S. of reinventing the term Weapon of Mass Destruction to refer to anything biological/chemical, even if it had not been in a weapon. Well, guess what? Most reasonable people already assumed that having chem or bio agents were already considered WMD, even if not fitted to a warhead. (And there is NOTHING in the UN resolutions which indicated that the agents had to be ready for delivery.)
There was nothing in the UN resolutions that authorized the US/UK invading Iraq whenever they felt like it.

The whole WMD argument has already been proven to be a lie and always was a lie no matter what may be found (and I don't expect anything significant) in the future. Iraq was not an imminent threat and had no means to deliver WMD to the US if they possessed them.

Iraq had no ICBMs. The longest range missles they had barely exceeded the 150 kilometer range (without a payload) and Iraq complied with the UN demands to destroy them.

Iraq was not eager to use WMD on the US. It didn't when it had every reason to when the US invaded.

The suggestion that Iraq would give WMD to terrorists to detonate in the US is farfetched, without basis and absurd. First, there is no evidence Iraq still possessed "WMD." Second, Iraq never made any effort to give their weapons (when they had them) to any terrorist organization. Third, the international terrorist group with an anti-US agenda (al Qaida) had no relationship to Saddam and they were mutually hostile.

No WMD, no Saddam-al Qaida link, no honesty in any of Bush's arguments. BUSH LIED. Are you willing to admit that? He didn't lie about trivial sex scandals; he lied to start a war. The S.O.B. deserves to be impeached, convicted, and put in front of a firing squad for committing mass murder.

Originally posted by Segnosaur
And, there was suggestions in the second article about things going 'sour'... Nobody ever thought it would be easy to rebuild Iraq. Problems were expected. I do remember hearing an opinion pole taken after the invasion, which stated that around 60-70% of Iraqis approved of the U.S. invasion. (So many in the anti-war side have been proven wrong that I can't believe anything they say... They said it would be a long campaign, it wasn't; They said Iraqis would rise up and defend Iraq, they didn't; They said there would be massive civilian casulties, there weren't. With all these mistakes, I'm more likely to disbelieve anything the anti-war side says than believe it.)
Please cite references to that poll. I never heard anything about it and I would be surprised to learn that it would be possible to conduct such a poll scientifically within Iraq. It wouldn't justify the war anyway. The purpose of our military is to defend US interests. (But I note that the "justifications" for the war are constantly shifting.)

The anti-war side was not wrong about the war; you fail to understand the arguments. Though I can't account for each and everthing said by anyone against the war, I can make some general statements about what the anti-war side was saying.

The consensus wasn't that it would take a long campaign to depose Saddam. It was often stated that that would be the easy part. What was said was that we would be involving ourselves in a long-term quagmire. All signs indicate that is true.

The anti-war side didn't say that Iraqis would rise up and defend Iraq; the pro-war side said the Shi'ites would rise up and rebel against Saddam and fight alongside the Americans. THEY WERE WRONG. However, I and others said that after Saddam was deposed, the Shi'ites would demand a quick exit by the Americans and would turn their sites against US troops if that did not happen. I warned of the potential for guerilla war against the troops. I remember that I once said that if the war took place in the Spring (which it did), the guerilla war would start by the end of Summer, which is a little over four months away. I note that sporatic fighting between US troops and Iraqis is still taking place daily, and that troops are being killed by snipers.

The Bush administration has said it would not make any effort to count Iraqi casualties. Here is a recent article (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0503-02.htm) that discusses that aspect.
The numbers of Iraqis killed is a politically charged figure. Before the war, an estimate that originated with U.N. officials said that 500,000 Iraqis could be killed in the war, and was widely quoted by the war's opponents.

Before it collapsed, the Iraqi government claimed on April 3 that 2,252 civilians had been killed and 5,103 injured. Baghdad fell April 9.

Since the Pentagon won't make estimates, others have stepped into the void.

A London-based Web site, www.iraqbodycount.net, has been keeping a running estimate of Iraqi civilian deaths, based on media accounts from the battlefield. Its figures -- a minimum of 2,197 deaths to a maximum of 2,670.

The site's researchers required a minimum of two independent media reports about each incident included in the casualty estimates, and its sources ranged from Al Jazeera, the Arab satellite news channel based in Qatar, to the New York Times.

The site's researchers say they feel frustrated that casualties on the losing end of a war often end up faceless and forgotten. "However many civilians are killed in the onslaught on Iraq, their death toll should not go unnoticed by those who are paying, in taxes, for their slaughter," the site says.

The site is based on the work of Marc Herold, a University of New Hampshire economist who conducted a similar running count of Afghan war casualties. He said the Iraqi count is probably too low, since researchers have only included incidents that at least two news organizations reported on.

"Requiring two independent sources is laudable, but in many instances you have a single person at the scene who writes it up in great detail," said Herold.

He estimated that the London counters are probably 10 to 20 percent low in their estimate of civilian deaths.

So are the number of civilian casualities insignificant? It appears that they exceed the number of Americans killed on 9/11 by the terrorists. (Bear in mind that hundreds of the 3,000 killed that day were foreign nationals.) Those deaths are Bush's latest excuse for waging war in Iraq, even though Iraqis had no involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

I ask again: Are you willing to admit that Bush lied to start the war in Iraq?

[Segnosaur]

You're a slippery bugger aren't you, changing the topic on a whim....

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

He resigned just a few weeks before the war because of the campaign of disinformation.

As I understand, he also had other conflicts with members of the government. Still, someone with an agenda. You do love those types of guys, don't you....

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

There was nothing in the UN resolutions that authorized the US/UK invading Iraq whenever they felt like it.

But then, what's the point of a UN resolution if the UN is unwilling to enforce it?

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

The whole WMD argument has already been proven to be a lie and always was a lie no matter what may be found (and I don't expect anything significant) in the future. Iraq was not an imminent threat and had no means to deliver WMD to the US if they possessed them.

Iraq had no ICBMs. The longest range missles they had barely exceeded the 150 kilometer range (without a payload) and Iraq complied with the UN demands to destroy them.

Interesting way to argue... "Its all a lie, and even if they find a ton of VX gas, its still a lie." Don't you think its hypocritical to accuse the coaltion of lying, then saying you will ignore any evidence to the contrary?

A couple of other notes:
- The UN resolution didn't say that Iraq had to have weapons to reach the US.

- There were other nations that were allies of the U.S./U.K. that were under threat from Iraq, that would be in range.

- Guess what? If Iraq wanted to use chem or bio weapons on the US, they have a very effective delivery mechanism. Its called the US postal service. That's the nature of bio weapons; they aren't that effective on the battlefield, but they can be delivered using unorthodox methods. (I'm not saying Iraq was planning on it, but I'm just saying your argument that Iraq posed no threat to coaltion countries was a load of cow-flop.)

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Iraq was not eager to use WMD on the US. It didn't when it had every reason to when the US invaded.

They didn't have 'every reason' to use them. In fact, others have pointed out many reasons why the wouldn't have been (and if you pulled your head out of your butt, you'd remember that)

- Most likely reason is that it would swing a lot of anti-war world option (people claming "Iraq has nothing") to the side of the U.S. As it stands now, there are plenty of Saddam appologists willing to overlook anything he has done, but they probably wouldn't be able to do that had he used chem weapons. (You Do remember a comment by the french that they would join the coaltion if WMD were used)

- The weapons may not have been in place to launch an effective strike (moved to hide them from inspectors)

- There could have been a breakdown in communications between top level officials and field commanders


Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

The suggestion that Iraq would give WMD to terrorists to detonate in the US is farfetched, without basis and absurd. First, there is no evidence Iraq still possessed "WMD." Second, Iraq never made any effort to give their weapons (when they had them) to any terrorist organization. Third, the international terrorist group with an anti-US agenda (al Qaida) had no relationship to Saddam and they were mutually hostile.


Why do you think its so absurd that Iraq would support terrorists with WMD? (And remember, there is more than just the U.S. that could be a terrorist target.) They gave millions to Palestinian terrorists, they set up terrorist training camps within Iraq itself, and they've had terrorists living there (despite U.N. resolutions preventing them from taking them in).

Or do you deny that Iraq has done any of that?

As for your other points: First, you may not think that Iraq possessed WMD, but lets get the facts straight... They had them when the first round of inspections broke off, when the second round of inspections started, they were supposed to account for them. They didn't. Where do you think they went? Why would Iraq hide the destruction of the weapons, when that was exactly what they were supposed to do? Do you have an answer for that? Do you think the magical Weapons fairy took them away and left a quarter under Saddam's pillow?

Secondly, Do you think Iraq is going to declare whom they gave materials to?

Thirdly, as I said before, the U.S. would not be the only terrorist target. And even if it were, do you think that al Quaeda is the only terrorist group that would want to attack the U.S.? And do you think the supposed hatred would be enough to prevent them from working together to attack a common enemy? (Remember, bin Laden went from being supported by the U.S. to being an enemy in less than a decade.)


Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Please cite references to that poll. I never heard anything about it and I would be surprised to learn that it would be possible to conduct such a poll scientifically within Iraq. It wouldn't justify the war anyway. The purpose of our military is to defend US interests. (But I note that the "justifications" for the war are constantly shifting.)

Sorry, I never kept a link to the poll. (It was done by some news firm from India. Anyone have a link?)

As for defending US interests, a democratic Iraq, if the US manages to prevent problems, will stabalize the world. Iraqi oil will increase world supply (thus improving our economy), the elimination of a source for terrorist support will help prevent future conflicts. It will also help out our allys in the region.

To say that the western world will only react when there is an immediate threat is incredibly short sighted. You could be condeming large segments of the world to genocide. You could also be fostering conflicts which could eventually get out of hand and cause more problems than if the western world interveigned at the start.

Do you think the U.S. should be totally isolationist? What about humanitarian actions? Should the U.S. have tried to help people in Somalia and Kosovo? What about World war 2? should the U.S. have fought against Germany? (Remember, the U.S. was attacked by Japan, not Germany. And they were under no immediate threat from Hitler's forces.)

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

So are the number of civilian casualities insignificant? It appears that they exceed the number of Americans killed on 9/11 by the terrorists. (Bear in mind that hundreds of the 3,000 killed that day were foreign nationals.) Those deaths are Bush's latest excuse for waging war in Iraq, even though Iraqis had no involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

No, I don't think its insignificant. But I think the deaths of innocent civilians in Iraq during the war (probaby in the 10s of thosands at most), must be measured against the hundreds of thousands killed by Saddam's government, both directly and indirectly. Or do you deny that Saddam's actions were leading to the deaths of Iraqis?
Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

I ask again: Are you willing to admit that Bush lied to start the war in Iraq?

Hey, I admit, some of what we were told were either lies, or the truth was stretched. But then again, even more of the anti-war movement was based on lies than the pro-war side.

Of course, there was also a LOT of information supporting the pro-war side which was true, unbiased and verifiable. As someone who uses my brain, I was able to look at the evidence (for and against), weigh the possibility that certain pieces were valid or invalid, and come up with my opinions based on that.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
You're a slippery bugger aren't you, changing the topic on a whim....
How so? I responded to your post.

Originally posted by Segnosaur
As I understand, he also had other conflicts with members of the government. Still, someone with an agenda. You do love those types of guys, don't you....
Look in the mirror. The people with the agenda were the ones trying to engineer the war for years.

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Interesting way to argue... "Its all a lie, and even if they find a ton of VX gas, its still a lie." Don't you think its hypocritical to accuse the coaltion of lying, then saying you will ignore any evidence to the contrary?
It's not at all hypocritical for the reasons I explained. Read. I repeatedly stated BEFORE the war started that the WMD argument was a bogus one because Iraq did not pose a threat to the US (nor even its neighbors with the containment it was under). At that time I had doubts about the existence of banned weapons in Iraq, but I thought it probable they had some, though probably far less than Bush wanted us to believe. Now it looks like they didn't even have THAT.

Originally posted by Segnosaur
- There were other nations that were allies of the U.S./U.K. that were under threat from Iraq, that would be in range.
The only one that was for the war was Israel. Admit it: this war was in large measure a proxy war for Israel.

Originally posted by Segnosaur
- Guess what? If Iraq wanted to use chem or bio weapons on the US, they have a very effective delivery mechanism. Its called the US postal service.
:D :D :D

Originally posted by Segnosaur
- Most likely reason is that it would swing a lot of anti-war world option (people claming "Iraq has nothing") to the side of the U.S. As it stands now, there are plenty of Saddam appologists willing to overlook anything he has done, but they probably wouldn't be able to do that had he used chem weapons. (You Do remember a comment by the french that they would join the coaltion if WMD were used)
Oh, yeah, Saddam made all of his important decisions based on world opinion! He'd rather look good than protect his regime.

Your point about the French would be stronger, except that France's statements (http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1084093,00.html) were so vague that there was no reason to think it would make much difference.

Originally posted by Segnosaur
The weapons may not have been in place to launch an effective strike (moved to hide them from inspectors)
I thought they were supposed to be available within 45 MINUTES. There was much more time than that between when the inspectors left and the US invaded.

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Why do you think its so absurd that Iraq would support terrorists with WMD? (And remember, there is more than just the U.S. that could be a terrorist target.) They gave millions to Palestinian terrorists, they set up terrorist training camps within Iraq itself, and they've had terrorists living there (despite U.N. resolutions preventing them from taking them in).
I've given you reasons why it would be absurd. Why do you think Saddam would risk the inevitable retaliation that would result if he was so afraid of the French "threat"? There is also the problem of logistics. It is difficult to weaponize and deliver biological agents. How do you get the "mushroom clouds" from chemical weapons small enough to be smuggled in?

It's an argument that could be used against any country. How do we know that Israel won't give WMD to terrorists if we continue to insist upon establishing a Palestinian state? (If you recall, Israel has a terrorist past. I also posted a story on how Israel helped form and fund Hamas. Israel probably gave more to Hamas than the alleged "millions" you say Iraq gave them and other Palestinian groups. Also, in 1967 Israel attacked its neighbors and still occupies territory it seized at that time. Israel is a threat to her neighbors and possesses WMD. Will you please support the disarmament of Israel and war against Israel if Israel does not comply?)

Originally posted by Segnosaur
To say that the western world will only react when there is an immediate threat is incredibly short sighted. You could be condeming large segments of the world to genocide. You could also be fostering conflicts which could eventually get out of hand and cause more problems than if the western world interveigned at the start.
Ah, it is long-standing international law to only attack when attacked or when facing an imminent threat, not on the basis of what your crystal ball or favorite psychic says. Iraq posed NO threat to the US. Secondly, most of the Western world OPPOSED the war. Your last sentence more aptly applies to starting wars under false pretenses.

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Do you think the U.S. should be totally isolationist? What about humanitarian actions? Should the U.S. have tried to help people in Somalia and Kosovo? What about World war 2? should the U.S. have fought against Germany? (Remember, the U.S. was attacked by Japan, not Germany. And they were under no immediate threat from Hitler's forces.)
History lesson: Germany and Italy declared war on the United States (http://www.worldhistory.com/worldwarii.htm) less than a week after the Pearl Harbor attack.

I've stated in the past that a NON-INTERVENTIONIST (as opposed to "isolationist") foreign policy would still allow humanitarian intervention in extreme cases (such as genocide) in concert with the international community.

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Hey, I admit, some of what we were told were either lies, or the truth was stretched. But then again, even more of the anti-war movement was based on lies than the pro-war side.

Of course, there was also a LOT of information supporting the pro-war side which was true, unbiased and verifiable. As someone who uses my brain, I was able to look at the evidence (for and against), weigh the possibility that certain pieces were valid or invalid, and come up with my opinions based on that.
I congratulate you for your partial admission that the war was based on lies. I'm still waiting to see the truthful information supporting the war.

[Wayne Grabert]

Here is some more information about the genesis of the Iraq war and the connection to Israel. Ha'aretz claims Iraq war plotted by 25 neo-cons. (http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=280279) The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them, journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it's possible. But another journalist, Thomas Friedman (not part of the group), is skeptical

More background. (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EE09Ak01.html)


"Strauss thinks that a political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat," Drury wrote in her book. "Following Machiavelli, he maintains that if no external threat exists, then one has to be manufactured. Had he lived to see the collapse of the Soviet Union, he would have been deeply troubled because the collapse of the 'evil empire' poses a threat to America's inner stability.

"In Strauss' view, you have to fight all the time [to survive]," said Drury. "In that respect, it's very Spartan. Peace leads to decadence. Perpetual war, not perpetual peace, is what Straussians believe in." Such views naturally lead to an "aggressive, belligerent foreign policy", she added.

(snip)

Drury suggests it is ironic, but not inconsistent with Strauss' ideas about the necessity for elites to deceive their citizens, that the Bush administration defends its anti-terrorist campaign by resorting to idealistic rhetoric. "They really have no use for liberalism and democracy, but they're conquering the world in the name of liberalism and democracy," she said.

Many of the central characters in, or closely connected to, the Bush administration who pushed for this war (those mentioned in the Ha'aretz article) also were paid by Israel (or maybe it was the Likud party) to develop a strategy titled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/archive/1990s/instituteforadvancedstrategicandpoliticalstudies.h tm) that called for regime change in Iraq as a first step in remaking the Middle East more favorable to the policy goal's of Israel's right wing. Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.
I have no objection to Israel wanting to enhance its security, but I object to using the US military to make war on various nations to do it. Besides, the best thing to enhance Israel's security would be to make peace with the Palestinians, not push for "World War IV."

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Look in the mirror. The people with the agenda were the ones trying to engineer the war for years.

Maybe, just maybe, the people who have been trying to engineer the war for years knew that 1) U.N. weapons inspections were pointless (face it, they weren't able to find anything in the first round until defectors showed them where to look), and 2) Saddam really is a bad person.

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

It's not at all hypocritical for the reasons I explained. Read. I repeatedly stated BEFORE the war started that the WMD argument was a bogus one because Iraq did not pose a threat to the US (nor even its neighbors with the containment it was under). At that time I had doubts about the existence of banned weapons in Iraq, but I thought it probable they had some, though probably far less than Bush wanted us to believe. Now it looks like they didn't even have THAT.

But your statement (that the whole WMD argument was a lie) implies that they did not have any, not that the U.S. was under specific threat.

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Oh, yeah, Saddam made all of his important decisions based on world opinion! He'd rather look good than protect his regime.

In that case, why haven't answered the question.... If they really did disarm, why did Saddam not cooperate with the inspectors when he had the chance, and fully comply? What would be the advantage of withholding proof, when the withholding of proof would result in the overthrow of the government?

Its not so much that Saddam was worried about looking good, but 'world opinion' results in things like countries joining the coaltion, supporting resolutions, etc. If the government had lasted a few more weeks, and they didn't use WMD, then there would have been a chance that countries would tire of the war, leave the coaltion, etc. This may have caused the invasion to stop. If they used WMD, everyone in the coaltion, plus many of the anti-war people would have realized "Yup, the U.S. was right", and nothing would have stopped them.

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Your point about the French would be stronger, except that France's statements (http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1084093,00.html) were so vague that there was no reason to think it would make much difference.

First of all, I used France as a joke.... I know that immediately after one of the politicians said it, Chirac went and refuted the statement immediately. Given the postings on here after it happened, I figured everyone would have understood that.

Still, that doesn't mean that the use of WMD wouldn't have shifted world support towards the U.S.

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

I thought they were supposed to be available within 45 MINUTES. There was much more time than that between when the inspectors left and the US invaded.

That would depend on where and how they were stored, the transportation facilities available, how worried Iraq was that they'd be found and destroyed before they were launched, the type and delivery mechanism, etc. (Keep in mind that that was just one of the possibilities that I had covered.)

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

I've given you reasons why it would be absurd. Why do you think Saddam would risk the inevitable retaliation that would result if he was so afraid of the French "threat"? There is also the problem of logistics. It is difficult to weaponize and deliver biological agents. How do you get the "mushroom clouds" from chemical weapons small enough to be smuggled in?

Wait a sec... First of all, you say that he's not worried about world opinion, then you say that he wouldn't risk retaliation? or was that a joke?

As for your other statements... In my opinion, biological agents do not make good battlefield weapons (too slow acting, will also affect your own troops, etc.) They do, however, make very good 'terror weapons' (as the general panic showed during the last anthrax scare.) And it wasn't that difficult to deliver letters with anthrax in them, was it?

And you don't get 'mushroom clouds' from chem weapons. (I assume that's just poetic liscence). But he did have chem warheads that were ready to be filled.

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

It's an argument that could be used against any country. How do we know that Israel won't give WMD to terrorists if we continue to insist upon establishing a Palestinian state? (If you recall, Israel has a terrorist past. I also posted a story on how Israel helped form and fund Hamas. Israel probably gave more to Hamas than the alleged "millions" you say Iraq gave them and other Palestinian groups.)

Ummm... perhaps its the difference between modern and not-so-modern history?

Israel has been a free and democratic contry for decades. It has long-given up its terrorist past. Iraq, on the other hand, was giving money to Palestinian terrorists up until very recently. (You use 'alleged' millions... do you deny that Iraq has been finanically supporting terrorism?)

So, Iraq had the motive (to terrorize Israel, the US and any allies), the RECENT history (terrorist support within the past 5 years), and the means (actually having WMD).

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Ah, it is long-standing international law to only attack when attacked or when facing an imminent threat, not on the basis of what your crystal ball or favorite psychic says. Iraq posed NO threat to the US. Secondly, most of the Western world OPPOSED the war. Your last sentence more aptly applies to starting wars under false pretenses.

And if you tap your heels together 3 time and say "there's not place like home" you'll be returned to Kansas.

I've explained that so many times before... do you have some sort of internet filter on that prevents you from reading my rebuttals?

Just for the record... 1) The threat to the U.S. was not direct, it was to its allies, and to world stability in general. 2) Most of the world is either run by dictators (who have their own reason to oppose action), or who had alterior motives in Iraq (like the Russians and French who were owed money).

And quite making it sound like knowledge of any thread requires paranormal knowledge. I know how the world works, I have a working knowledge of history, and I keep up to date with political developments. I can understand potential risks and benefits, even if you seem unable or unwilling too, and guess what? I don't need some magical formula to do that.

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

History lesson: Germany and Italy declared war on the United States (http://www.worldhistory.com/worldwarii.htm) less than a week after the Pearl Harbor attack.

Yes, I realize that Germany had declared war on the U.S. after Pearl Harbour. But the U.S. did not need to fight in Europe. They could have negotiated with Germany (hey, if you don't try to attack us, we won't attack you), or simply decided not to participate in land conflicts in Europe/Africa.

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

I've stated in the past that a NON-INTERVENTIONIST (as opposed to "isolationist") foreign policy would still allow humanitarian intervention in extreme cases (such as genocide) in concert with the international community.

Then how do you feel about U.S. actions in Kosovo? Justified or not?

How about the overthrow of the Taliban? Should they have gone in sooner? (Thousands were dying in Afghanistan.)

What about what's happening in places like Mosambique? Should they go in there now?

And if you said 'yes' to any of the above, then why is it valid to go in to those areas to stop bad things there, but not OK to go into Iraq, where Saddam had killed about a million people since coming to power?

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

I congratulate you for your partial admission that the war was based on lies. I'm still waiting to see the truthful information supporting the war.

Hey, I'm honest. Much more honest than your average anti-war person. I'm still waiting for admissions from the anti-war side that most of ther arguments against the war were cow-plop (example: US arming Saddam, all about oil, etc.)

And you have seen truthful information. You just choose to ignore it. (Remember your comment, "even if its found, its all lies", or however you stated it.)

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
But your statement (that the whole WMD argument was a lie) implies that they did not have any, not that the U.S. was under specific threat.
Damn, you're dense! It was a bogus justification for war. Example (read slowly and perhaps three times): A cane can be used as a weapon. Mike Tyson sees a crippled old lady with a cane across the street. Mike Tyson beats up old lady. Mike Tyson argues, "she had a weapon and I was being threatened." Segnosaur learns that Mike Tyson is a Republican and agrees with Tyson.

Originally posted by Segnosaur
In that case, why haven't answered the question.... If they really did disarm, why did Saddam not cooperate with the inspectors when he had the chance, and fully comply? What would be the advantage of withholding proof, when the withholding of proof would result in the overthrow of the government?
I can't speak for Iraq, but my impression was that they were giving token resistance out of pride. However, they were COOPERATING as the UN inspectors testified. They eventually came up with more documentation to support their contention that the banned weapons had been destroyed and handed that to the UN. However, before the material could be reviewed, the US got scared that their justification for war would be removed and immediately dismissed the new evidence and gave Saddam a deadline to leave the country. Why did Iraq take so long to gather that information? Either they're disorganized, stupid or both.

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Wait a sec... First of all, you say that he's not worried about world opinion, then you say that he wouldn't risk retaliation? or was that a joke?
Retaliation--as in massive military retribution. Is your incomprehension a joke?

Originally posted by Segnosaur
And you don't get 'mushroom clouds' from chem weapons. (I assume that's just poetic liscence). But he did have chem warheads that were ready to be filled.
I was quoting your hero Duh-bya who used the "mushroom clouds" phrase in his Chicken Little justification for war against Iraq in a nationally televised speech.

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Israel has been a free and democratic contry for decades.
Only if you're Jewish. It's an apartheid ethnocracy otherwise and you'll have your home destroyed. (http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/05/1607911.php) 120 Christian Homes In Jerusalem Area To Be Demolished By Israeli Soldiers
by Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions Tuesday May 06, 2003 at 01:18 AM
info@icahd.org 972-2-624-5560 PO Box 2030 Jerusalem 91020, Israel

The new homes were built by a group of limited income Palestinian Christian families who banded together as the Arab Orthodox Housing Project to build a new life. They obtained a 99-year lease from their Church, the Greek Orthodox Church, 22 years ago and then began the agonizing process of organizing and saving enough money to start construction. Thanks to Israel and our country's support of their policies, Christians are becoming an 'endangered species' in the Holyland. Right Wing Conservative Christians here in the U.S. actually help make this happen by supporting Ariel Sharon.

The bottom line is that the same accusation can be used against any country the Bush propaganda ministry decides to target. "They may develop nuclear weapons and give them to terrorists. They may give WMD to terrorists."

Originally posted by Segnosaur
[B] It has long-given up its terrorist past. Iraq, on the other hand, was giving money to Palestinian terrorists up until very recently. (You use 'alleged' millions... do you deny that Iraq has been finanically supporting terrorism?)
Israel has given up its terrorist past? Tell that to the Palestinians in the occupied territories who are subjected to the daily brutalities that are dished out under a policy of "transfer."

Let's see some proof that Iraq was giving millions of dollars to support Palestinian groups. What I've heard is that they were paying the families of suicide bombers $25,000 each.

Originally posted by Segnosaur
[B] So, Iraq had the motive (to terrorize Israel, the US and any allies), the RECENT history (terrorist support within the past 5 years), and the means (actually having WMD).
Funny, they never acted on that motive. What "terrorist support" they gave was directed at helping the Palestinians, not at threatening the US. What WMD?

Originally posted by Segnosaur
[B] Then how do you feel about U.S. actions in Kosovo? Justified or not?
I supported joining an international peacekeeping force. I did not support bombing Serbia. I suppose that distinction is more than your brain can handle.

[Mike B.]

WOW...everyone just feel the love in the room...:)

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
I can't speak for Iraq, but my impression was that they were giving token resistance out of pride. However, they were COOPERATING as the UN inspectors testified. They eventually came up with more documentation to support their contention that the banned weapons had been destroyed and handed that to the UN. However, before the material could be reviewed, the US got scared that their justification for war would be removed and immediately dismissed the new evidence and gave Saddam a deadline to leave the country. Why did Iraq take so long to gather that information? Either they're disorganized, stupid or both. Token resistence? 12 years, Saddam had 12 years. He spent 12 years lying and obfuscating. He broke many resolutions. This didn't just happen. He swore he didn't have anthrax and he was caught with his pants down. He is not innocent here.

From another thread

RandFan
Look, the US gave Saddam every opportunity to cooperate. We had told him for 12 years that if he did not cooperate he would suffer consequences. He has been caught over and over again lying.

We told him that we would force him out of Kuwait and he refused to cooperate and leave. We kept our word and forced him out.

We told him that we would disarm him of his WMD and gave him 12 years to complete the task. When the day of reckoning came we asked for a report and he was unable to document that he had destroyed the weapons he admitted to having.

...We have been up front with the Saddam from the beginning. We told him what would be the consequences for his actions. He chose not to comply. He chose to lie and obfuscate. If we were fixated on anything it was for Saddam to keep his agreements. If he had done that he would still be in power.

Saddam's biggest mistake was thinking that we would not or could not keep our promise and disarm him militarily.

He was wrong. That is the bottom line. He knew what he had to do to keep the United States from invading. He was giving plenty of time. He chose not to cooperate.

There is nothing more clear. The war was simply a result of Saddam's actions.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan
Token resistence? 12 years, Saddam had 12 years. He spent 12 years lying and obfuscating. He broke many resolutions. This didn't just happen. He swore he didn't have anthrax and he was caught with his pants down. He is not innocent here.

I'm talking about the period of late November 2002 till the start of war in March 2003. According to the inspectors, Iraq was being cooperative. Also, Iraq, after a couple of years of resistance, was very cooperative in the 90's when their banned weapons were destroyed. They became resistant again in 1998 after the CIA infiltrated the UN inspections.

Still, you present another weak justification for the war. There was no reason why there absolutely had to be a war at that time. Iraq was cooperating, was destroying missles, and no WMD were found.

You can have the last word on this one. I've made my points. I'll leave it to others, should they desire, to counter the pro-war arguments.

[crackmonkey]

Cooperating? Even Hans Blix said that Saddam's 'cooperation' was inadequate and grudging at best.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
I'm talking about the period of late November 2002 till the start of war in March 2003. According to the inspectors, Iraq was being cooperative. Also, Iraq, after a couple of years of resistance, was very cooperative in the 90's when their banned weapons were destroyed. They became resistant again in 1998 after the CIA infiltrated the UN inspections. I couldn't disagree more. They never fully cooperated. And there simply was no reason for it to take years. The whole thing was one big joke to Saddam who lied and only did what he absolutely had to.

Still, you present another weak justification for the war. There was no reason why there absolutely had to be a war at that time. Iraq was cooperating, was destroying missles, and no WMD were found. Yes, Saddam thought he knew just how much he could get away with. He knew he couldn't refuse to do anything. He made a mistake when he thought his feeble attempts were sufficient. He was ordered to be in full cooperation and he destroyed some missles on his own timetable. I'll bet he regrets that miscalculation.

[kedo1981]

Wayne wrote
"I can't speak for Iraq"


And yet you keep right on trying

[ithinksoiam]

Give it up Wayne. These so-called skeptics will never admit they were wrong. Even if facts bite them in the ass, they will still continue to argue in the same silly fashion.

Yes Sir, Yes Sir, Here I come Sir! Whatever you say Sir!!

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Damn, you're dense!

This, coming from someone who doesn't understand terms like "Complete" and "immediate" (such as how Iraq was supposed to give Complete cooperation Immediate). Perhaps you should invest in a dictionary.

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

I can't speak for Iraq, but my impression was that they were giving token resistance out of pride. However, they were COOPERATING as the UN inspectors testified.

Nope, they weren't.

First of all, there was material that was not declared at the beginning. (The missles that exceeded allowable range, empty chem warheads, UAV planes, etc.) You might think "these are minor infractions", but if they were so minor, why did Iraq not declare them up front?

And although they were giving access to buildings, they were NOT fully cooperating. The biggest stubling block is that they weren't giving access to Iraqi technicians and scientists.

Also, recall the resolution required complete cooperation. But if they were already cooperating, why did Blix keep saying they were "increasing cooperation"? How can you increase from 100%?

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

They eventually came up with more documentation to support their contention that the banned weapons had been destroyed and handed that to the UN.

Reminds me of the joke... How do you keep an idiot in suspense? I'll tell you tomorrow.

Or in this case, How do you keep an idiot convinced you've destroyed all your weapons? I'll send you the documentation tomorrow.

Are you familiar with what happened in the first round of inspections? Iraq repeatedly lied. Even when the inspectors thought they had them disarmed, a defector came along and showed them they missed a lot of stuff. In the latest round of inspections, Iraq played a game... they lied at the beginning, then when the lie was found out, they told a little bit of the truth, but not all of it... until another lie was found.

With that history, why should anyone believe that the last round of documentation would have been complete?

And here's a question for you... what if the U.S. had delayed the invasion, based on the latest round of documetation from Iraq, and that latest round also contained lies? Would you have supported the war then?

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me 3 or more times, I'm either a complete idiot, a U.N. weapons inspector, or Wayne Grabert.

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

The bottom line is that the same accusation can be used against any country the Bush propaganda ministry decides to target. "They may develop nuclear weapons and give them to terrorists. They may give WMD to terrorists."

Perhaps I'm more willing to use by brain to look at each case on its merrits, rather than base everything on one possible worst case scenario.

If the U.S. suggested Canada or Mexico might give WMD to the enemy, then yes, the U.S. woudl be wrong... we don't have the history, or the technology to do it. If they suggested North Korea, they may be accurate, again because of the history (they sell a lot of weapons) and the technology they have.

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Let's see some proof that Iraq was giving millions of dollars to support Palestinian groups. What I've heard is that they were paying the families of suicide bombers $25,000 each.


You don't think giving money to families of suicide bombers is considered supporting terrorism?

As I've mentioed before, they have done other things to support terrorism, including: giving santuary to people with known terrorist links, terrorist training facilities, and cash to other terrorist organizations (Hamas, Abu Nidal). And, as I've said before, even though they were not involved in 9/11, Saddam had let some al Quaeda operatives move in to Iraq.

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

I supported joining an international peacekeeping force. I did not support bombing Serbia. I suppose that distinction is more than your brain can handle.

You're right, my brain is more interested in taking existing information, processing it and coming up with a logical course of action based on current evidence, rather than just spouting off anti-war drivel.

So you didn't want a bombing campaign in Serbia, nor an invasion in Iraq.

Perhaps I'm a war monger, but its more likely that I'm just less willing to see hundreds of thousands of people die because countries are not willing to step in and stop genocide.

I once asked if the U.S. should have gone to war in Germany in World war 2... And yes, I know that germany actually declared war on the U.S. But, as I argued before, the U.S. did not have to actually engage germany; they could have stayed out of the ground war in Europe all together. With that in mind, I ask again, do you think the U.S. should have stayed out of Europe, considering germany did not present an immediate threat.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by ithinksoiam
Give it up Wayne. These so-called skeptics will never admit they were wrong. Even if facts bite them in the ass, they will still continue to argue in the same silly fashion.

Yes Sir, Yes Sir, Here I come Sir! Whatever you say Sir!!

Do NOT play that "skeptics must doubt US action" card.

I am a skeptic. I do not believe in telpathy, UFOs, god, or invisible pink unicorns. I believe that scientific progress is the best hope for man kind.

Being a skeptic does not mean that you have to disbelieve everything. Do I have to be skepitcal about the sun coming up tomorrow? No, because I have plenty of evidence... a history of the sun coming up ever day prior to this, a knowlege of physics and nuclear processes that keep the sun working, etc.

In the case of Iraq, we HAVE plenty of evidence to believe that Iraq was be a problem. (Past human rights abuses, failure to cooperate with inspectors in the past, etc.) My belief that an invasion was the correct course of action was based on knowlege from many areas (not just what the government said.) Only an idiot (or a Wayne Grabert, or you) would dismiss that track record and say "There is no reason to believe there's a problem."

As long as you're on your high-horse, why are you skeptical of U.S. statements only? Why were you not skeptical of Iraqi statements? Wayne Grabert was willing to believe that the latest Iraqi documents would provide all the documentation required to show disarmament. Are you going to critcize him for not being skepitcal of Iraq? Or does skepitcism only apply to democratically elected leaders?

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me 3 or more times, I'm either a complete idiot, a U.N. weapons inspector, or Wayne Grabert.

I'll show you who the fool is, you d[ummy].

Frustrated, US arms team to leave Iraq. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40212-2003May10.html)
BAGHDAD -- The group directing all known U.S. search efforts for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is winding down operations without finding proof that President Saddam Hussein kept clandestine stocks of outlawed arms, according to participants.

The 75th Exploitation Task Force, as the group is formally known, has been described from the start as the principal component of the U.S. plan to discover and display forbidden Iraqi weapons. The group's departure, expected next month, marks a milestone in frustration for a major declared objective of the war.

Leaders of Task Force 75's diverse staff -- biologists, chemists, arms treaty enforcers, nuclear operators, computer and document experts, and special forces troops -- arrived with high hopes of early success. They said they expected to find what Secretary of State Colin L. Powell described at the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5 -- hundreds of tons of biological and chemical agents, missiles and rockets to deliver the agents, and evidence of an ongoing program to build a nuclear bomb.

Scores of fruitless missions broke that confidence, many task force members said in interviews.

(snip)

"Why are we doing any planned targets?" Army Chief Warrant Officer Richard L. Gonzales, leader of Mobile Exploitation Team Alpha, said in disgust to a colleague during last Sunday's nightly report of weapons sites and survey results. "Answer me that. We know they're empty."

And back to the original topic, US rivals turn on each other as weapons search draws a blank. (http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,953497,00.html)
Last week the US flew 2,000 more experts into Iraq. The Iraq Survey Team will join 600 experts already there. Organisations in Iraq hunting for weapons now include teams from the US and British armies, the CIA, the FBI and the Defence Threat Reduction Agency. Yet at more than 110 sites checked so far they have found nothing conclusive. It has been an exercise in false alarms.

(snip)

The search is especially vital for The Cabal. In the brave new world of post-11 September America, this tight group of analysts deep in the heart of the Pentagon has been the driving force behind the war in Iraq. Numbering no more than a dozen, The Cabal is part of the Office of Special Plans, a new intelligence agency which has taken on the CIA and won. Where the CIA dithered over Iraq, the OSP pressed on. Where the CIA doubted, the OSP was firm. It fought a battle royal over Iraq and George Bush came down on its side.

The OSP is the brainchild of Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who set it up after the 2001 terrorist attacks. It was tasked with going over old ground on Iraq and showing that the CIA had overlooked the threat posed. But its rise has caused massive ructions in the normally secretive world of intelligence gathering.

(snip)

'Rumsfeld set up his own intelligence agency because he didn't like the intelligence he was getting,' said Larry Korb, director of national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. 'He doesn't like Powell's approach, a typical diplomat, too cautious.'

Former CIA officials are caustic about the OSP. Unreliable and politically motivated, they say it has undermined decades of work by the CIA's trained spies and ignored the truth when it has contradicted its world view.

'Their methods are vicious,' said Vince Cannistraro, former CIA chief of counter-terrorism. 'The politicisation of intelligence is pandemic, and deliberate disinformation is being promoted. They choose the worst-case scenario on everything and so much of the information is fallacious.' But Cannistraro is retired. His attacks will not bother The Cabal, firmly 'in the loop' of Washington's movers and shakers. Yet, even among them, continued failure to find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is a growing fear. The fallout from the war could bring them down.

In the months before the war I posted information on Rumsfeld's phony "intelligence" operation. Looks like I was right--again.

And I wasn't "willing to believe that the latest Iraqi documents would provide all the documentation required to show disarmament," if by that you mean I already drew a conclusion. However, unlike a true believer like you, I wasn't willing to dismiss it. There already was evidence in Iraq's favor: the known destruction of banned weapons and the absence of any banned weapons in the hundreds of places the UN made surprise inspections.

Rumsfeld said, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," but what a dolt like Rumsfeld (or you) doesn't know or care about it that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim and in the absence of evidence, the hypothesis should be rejected.

So where are all those weapons, p[lease]? You call yourself a skeptic? You're not when it comes to politics. In that case you're a true believer--and a fool.

If Bush fools someone once, shame on Bush. If Bush fools someone many times and ceaselessly, then shame on Segnosaur.

So f**k you, *******!

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by ithinksoiam
Give it up Wayne.
Good idea. Thank you.

[Segnosaur]

YOu know, in all your ranting, I notice you avoided the hard questions that I had asked...

Like, if we got the Iraqi documents, and the were themselves shown to be a lie yet again, would you have then supported the war.

And, did you think the U.S. should go to war with germany in WW2.

I guess reality sucks when you're presented with the hard questions, doesn't it.

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

And I wasn't "willing to believe that the latest Iraqi documents would provide all the documentation required to show disarmament," if by that you mean I already drew a conclusion. However, unlike a true believer like you, I wasn't willing to dismiss it. There already was evidence in Iraq's favor: the known destruction of banned weapons and the absence of any banned weapons in the hundreds of places the UN made surprise inspections.


Well, let me see...

Iraq destroys weapons they weren't supposed to have, but they only do this AFTER they have been discovered, and ONLY with thousands of U.S. troops parked next door. Well, excuse me for doubting Saddam's sincerity. Why did they not destroy them years earlier? Or better yet, not produce them? (Complying when you have no option to comply does not show good faith.)

Oh that's right, you don't speak for Iraq.

So you weren't willing to believe Saddam's documentation already... Yet you think that the U.S. was wrong because they invaded before they could find the lies in it?

And, once again, I notice you never stated whether you would have thought the U.S. was right to invade, had they waited, but found the document contained lies.

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

So where are all those weapons, p--ck? You call yourself a skeptic? You're not when it comes to politics. In that case you're a true believer--and a fool.


Guess what? I do admit, there is the possibilty that weapons will not be found. But you know what? That's irrelevant. I supported the invasion because the information available at the time did not show Iraq to be complying with disarmament resolutions. (Not to mention genocide and other minor matters.)

Perhaps in your mind they were complying, but then you also don't understand the meanings of the words 'complete' and immediate'.

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

If Bush fools someone once, shame on Bush. If Bush fools someone many times and ceaselessly, then shame on Segnosaur.


Excuse me, but guess what, I got the majority of my information from places OTHER than bush. I know history, I follow the news, I know the general biases of various organizations, and even if you ignore everything that Bush said, there was still penty of reason to support the war.

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

So f**k you, *sshole!

So this is what happens when someone with limited reasoning skills and intelligence has their opinions challenged. Interesting.

You may want to go and edit your post to block out the swear. Tht is against forum rules.

[Tricky]

Wayne, I know you are just as frustrated as the arms inspectors with the intransigence of some of our Bush apologists here, but I agree you should delete the obscenity. it does nothing to support your case.

But Seg, other than the termination, you can't really argue that Wayne has provided a very strong case. There are links to reputable news sources showing that the Bush administration is neither capable of nor truly interested in proving their assertions of WMDs. Of course, we already knew that when they forbade the return of the UN weapons inspectors. This is a very bad move on their parts. Now, even if they DO find WMDs (as I suspect they will) few will believe that they weren't planted.

This "us against the world" posture is going to hurt the US in the long run. We may be the most powerful country in the world, but we must not try to become dictators. Adopting a "prove us wrong" posture should win them the disdain of good skeptics who know where the burden of proof is supposed to lie.

[rdtjr]

Originally posted by Tricky
Of course, we already knew that when they forbade the return of the UN weapons inspectors. This is a very bad move on their parts. Now, even if they DO find WMDs (as I suspect they will) few will believe that they weren't planted.

This "us against the world" posture is going to hurt the US in the long run. We may be the most powerful country in the world, but we must not try to become dictators. Adopting a "prove us wrong" posture should win them the disdain of good skeptics who know where the burden of proof is supposed to lie.

Tricky, it's important to note that there were reasons for not letting the U.N. Arms Inspectors back in, among them that there is evidence that France and Russia were leaking Inspection Team information and plans to the Iraqis... and where do you think that data came from?

As for the rest of this debate: I say it's entirely moot. Iraq has never fully complied with the terms of the cease-fire of 1991. Under the terms of that agreement the international community had free-reign to reinitiate hostilities to force compliance at anytime. I'm sure several folks here could generate a whole list of the violated terms, but I'll just point out what I consider to be the most egregious - the accounting for and return of kidnapped Kuwaitis. A few remains, and a few living individuals, have been recovered but as many as 500 are still missing. Someone at my office recently did some math to give this perspective = if the same percentage of Americans citizens were missing it would be about 300,000 people.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by rdtjr


Tricky, it's important to note that there were reasons for not letting the U.N. Arms Inspectors back in, among them that there is evidence that France and Russia were leaking Inspection Team information and plans to the Iraqis... and where do you think that data came from?

As for the rest of this debate: I say it's entirely moot. Iraq has never fully complied with the terms of the cease-fire of 1991. Under the terms of that agreement the international community had free-reign to reinitiate hostilities to force compliance at anytime. I'm sure several folks here could generate a whole list of the violated terms, but I'll just point out what I consider to be the most egregious - the accounting for and return of kidnapped Kuwaitis. A few remains, and a few living individuals, have been recovered but as many as 500 are still missing. Someone at my office recently did some math to give this perspective = if the same percentage of Americans citizens were missing it would be about 300,000 people.

No one ever thought that someone like Saddam was going to be an Abraham Lincoln in keeping his word The Kuwaitis appeared to be just as flexible with it in the first war too.

The fact is, the impression everyone was given was that the US could produce masses of WMD in pretty short order.

From the same story quoted by Wayne.



Leaders of Taskforce 75's diverse staff - biologists, chemists, arms treaty enforcers, nuclear operators, computer and document experts, and special forces troops - arrived with high hopes of early success.

They said they expected to find what Secretary of State Colin Powell described at the United Nations Security Council on February 5 - hundreds of tonnes of biological and chemical agents, missiles and rockets to fire them, and evidence of a program to build a nuclear bomb.

Scores of fruitless missions broke that confidence, many taskforce members said in interviews.



It just hasn't happened. Now, even if the US does find the hundreds of tonnes of WMD, it is too late. The expectation built up prior to the war can never be met.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by rdtjr
Tricky, it's important to note that there were reasons for not letting the U.N. Arms Inspectors back in, among them that there is evidence that France and Russia were leaking Inspection Team information and plans to the Iraqis... and where do you think that data came from?
Well who were they going to leak it to now? That might be a reason against the inspections teams before the invasion, but certainly not now. Besides, I am untrusting (with good reason) of anything that people say "there is evidence for", without seeing that evidence. That is what makes me a skeptic.

Originally posted by rdtjr
As for the rest of this debate: I say it's entirely moot. Iraq has never fully complied with the terms of the cease-fire of 1991. Under the terms of that agreement the international community had free-reign to reinitiate hostilities to force compliance at anytime. I'm sure several folks here could generate a whole list of the violated terms, but I'll just point out what I consider to be the most egregious - the accounting for and return of kidnapped Kuwaitis. A few remains, and a few living individuals, have been recovered but as many as 500 are still missing. Someone at my office recently did some math to give this perspective = if the same percentage of Americans citizens were missing it would be about 300,000 people.
I think the debate is anything but moot. I believe it is vitally important that the US take the high ground and not simply quash those who dissent. I do not disagree for a moment that Saddam was a ruthless dictator who deserved to be ousted, but we cannot simply show ourselves to be no more than a stronger ruthless dictator. I suspect the number of civilian dead in Iraq as a result of our invasion is something larger than 500, though I have seen no numbers since the tightly controlled media are not allowed to report such things. We don't even know if Saddam is dead or alive, so how can we know about the fate of faceless civilians?

My whole argument about this war is, and has been, that it was not in the long-term best interests of the US (I do, in fact, love my country). To blatently make up excuses (WMDs) for a war and then dismiss them afterwards as "moot" makes my country look like a bunch of thugs who do whatever they want because they have the most guns. Forgive me for being unpatriotic, but that is not the image or the reputation I want our nation to have.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Tricky
My whole argument about this war is, and has been, that it was not in the long-term best interests of the US (I do, in fact, love my country). To blatently make up excuses (WMDs) for a war and then dismiss them afterwards as "moot" makes my country look like a bunch of thugs who do whatever they want because they have the most guns. Forgive me for being unpatriotic, but that is not the image or the reputation I want our nation to have. Hi Tricky,

I have the utmost respect for you and I don't ever think that dissenting with any administration is being unpatriotic but I must say that I disagree with your position. The war was a result of 12 years of lies and obfuscation on the part of Saddam. The US was up front from the start. We told Saddam what was expected of him and the consequences of his inaction. The fist Gulf War should have been a stern warning to him of our resolve. We worked with the international community for 12 years. I cannot reasonably conclude that we have acted as thugs. That others might conclude that is not a reason to fail to act. The UN failed to enforce its resolutions and France insured that it would not have the ability to ever enforce the resolutions.

To be sure the United States has a mixed record when it comes to foreign policy. But one cannot look at our record and only deduce that we do whatever we want simply because we have the most guns. We do seek diplomatic resolutions to many of our problems and we do much good in the world. There is nothing that will guarantee that we will be viewed favorably in the world there are times that we must act in our best interest.

I believe that this is one of those times. You clearly do not. I respect the position that you and Wayne have taken. Having looked at the issue from all sides I am convinced that we did the right thing.

Thank you,

RandFan

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Tricky
Wayne, I know you are just as frustrated as the arms inspectors with the intransigence of some of our Bush apologists here, but I agree you should delete the obscenity. it does nothing to support your case.

Do I count as a 'Bush apologist'? I've said before that I don't trust everything that Bush said. But I supported the invasion based on the evidence that was available at the time. (Even ignoring data provided by Bush, there was still a lot going against Iraq, including their history of deception, failure to comply with latest resolutions, statements by Blix, independent news media, etc.)

I don't like the fact that Bush may have lied about some aspects. (Some times I think the right actions were taken despite Bush, rather than because of him.)

Originally posted by Tricky

But Seg, other than the termination, you can't really argue that Wayne has provided a very strong case.

Since you and he are on the same side, I assume that you mis-worded the above statement. (i.e. that i can't argue that he HASN'T provided a strong case.)

I do think is case is weak on many levels. First, he claims that only 'he' is a skeptic because he's not willing to dismiss the claims of an organization that has lied repeatedly. Secondly, he doesn't even know what the terms 'Complete' and 'Cooperation' mean. His 'debating' style consists of publishing long exerpts of articles, with no analysis, and of course ignoring important excepts.

Look at his link to the article on the U.S. debanding a serach team... but he fails to acknowledge this part: "...hunt will continue under a new Iraq Survey Group...", and "the greatest impediment to the weapons hunt, participants said, was widespread looting of Iraq's government and industrial facilities". So, he's using articles to prove his points, but he ignores many of the key points. Weak, weak analysis on his part.

Originally posted by Tricky

There are links to reputable news sources showing that the Bush administration is neither capable of nor truly interested in proving their assertions of WMDs. Of course, we already knew that when they forbade the return of the UN weapons inspectors. This is a very bad move on their parts. Now, even if they DO find WMDs (as I suspect they will) few will believe that they weren't planted.

I do think its strange that they refused help from U.N. inspectors (after all, you would think that they would want all the help they could get). I can think of a few reasons (not necessarily good ones)...
- Pure ego... the U.S./UK and the coalition fought the war while the U.N. was a hindrance. Why should the U.N. get ANY of the glory if weapons are found? (This is a bad reason for the U.S. to do it.)
- How do you coordinate U.N. inspectors with the U.S.? Do you assign them to different sites than the U.S.? (If you do, and the U.S. finds something at its site, and the U.N. doesn't find anything, people will still not believe that its planted.) Do you send them to the same sites? (If the military looks first and finds something, again people think its planted.)
- Many feel that the U.N. inspection process was apologetic to Saddam. (i.e. would word their statements to lessen how negatively Saddam's actions were viewed). If the inspectors had an anti-U.S. bias (as they might, after all the U.S. cut their job short) they might overlook evidence that was, well, weak but valid.

Again, not apolgizing for the U.S. not allowing U.N. inspectors in (in fact the first reason I gave makes them look bad), just trying to come up with ideas.

Originally posted by Tricky

This "us against the world" posture is going to hurt the US in the long run. We may be the most powerful country in the world, but we must not try to become dictators. Adopting a "prove us wrong" posture should win them the disdain of good skeptics who know where the burden of proof is supposed to lie.

Personally, I think the U.S., for the first time, is in a position to do a lot of good in the world. For years, they had supported dictators and looked the other way when human rights abuses happened, because the greater threat at the time was Russia, and the U.S. sometimes needed to support one of their own puppet governments to prevent the Soviets from taking over.

Now, without having to worry about the Russians sticking their noses into everything, the U.S. can be a lot more careful about choosing their friends, and when something serious (like genocide) is taking place, they can step in and stop the slaughter of innocent civilians without worrying about other superpowers stepping in and taking over.

And is it really 'becoming dictators' if they overthrow someone like Saddam and replace them with a democracy? (Creating a democracy in Iraq will not be easy, but if they accomplish it, the rewards will be great.) Aren't you assigning moral equivalency of a dictatorship with a democracy?

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
Of interest to skeptics as lovers of critical thinking, should be this real-world example of selectively ignoring evidence in order to fit facts to theory. In this case, it led to war and a potential commitment of military occupation that could last "decades" (according to prominent neo-con and war supporter Max Boot).

The hunt for "WMD" in Iraq has thus far been futile.


the hunt has still been futile

According to Seymour Hersh, the case for war against Iraq was based on intelligence reports doctored by a small group of ideologues in the Pentagon. Besides ignoring evidence that contradicted their ideas, they relied on "evidence" supplied by an unreliable source--the Iraqi National Congress. The INC was largely composed of men who (by the time the war started) hadn't set foot in Iraq in 20 years or more. The leader of the INC was convicted embezzler Ahmad Chalabi.

Looks more and more like this is the case


Bush completely change gears in his speech aboard the Abraham Lincoln by having so little to say about WMD when talking about the war in Iraq? Instead, he pushed the Big Lie that Saddam was "an ally" of al Qaida and that the war was really about payback for 9/11. Note: No Iraqis were among the hijackers and no link has been shown between Saddam and al Qaida, despite the exhaustive efforts of the US, UK, Israel, and other countries to investigate the matter.

WHat is the link between al Qaida and Saddam's regime?

al Quaida is evil
Saddam's regime is evil
As they are both evil they obviously work together.