Wolfowitz: No Iraq ties to 9/11 or al-Qaida

[Wayne Grabert]

For once, the evidence supports something Paul Wolfowitz has to say. (http://www.antiwar.com/orig/leopold13.html)

Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, one of the main architects for the war in Iraq, admitted for the first time that Iraq had nothing to do with the September 11 terrorist attacks, contradicting public statements made by senior White House and Pentagon officials whose attempt to link Saddam Hussein and the terrorist organization al-Qaeda was cited by the Bush administration as one of the main reasons for launching a preemptive strike in March against Iraq.

In an interview with conservative radio personality Laura Ingraham, Wolfowitz was asked when he first came to believe that Iraq was behind the 9-11 terrorist attacks.

"I'm not sure even now that I would say Iraq had something to do with it," Wolfowitz said in the interview, aired Friday.

Wolfowitz's answer confirms doubts long held by critics of the Iraq war that the Bush administration had no evidence linking Iraq to 9-11 or al-Qaeda, but simply used the horrific terrorist attacks as a reason to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his Baathist regime.

(snip)

During the buildup to the war in Iraq, the Bush administration successfully convinced the public and members of Congress that Iraq had played some role in the 9-11 terrorist attacks, according to numerous polls that showed a majority of the American public believe Iraq was involved in 9-11 attacks, despite the absence of evidence to support the allegations.

The article I've linked contains a link to the Department of Defense transcript of the interview.

So none of the stated reasons for the war has been validated. There are no WMD or even "WMD programs." There are no credible Iraqi links to 9/11 or al-Qaida. The "liberation of the Iraqi people" fall-back argument was always a joke. For example, some newspapers in Iraq have been shut down for their anti-American criticisms (called "inciting violence") and Iraqis are being imprisoned without access to family or lawyers, (http://www.majority.com/news/prison.html) just like under Saddam (or Ashcroft, if they were in the US). I don't see any indication that genuine democracy will take root in Iraq any decade soon. The Iraqis generally seem eager to replace one brutal, authoritarian government with another, and the latter is not the US occupation, but an Islamic government.

So that leaves the question "what were the real reasons for the war?" I don't rule out that the neo-cons were actually detached from reality enough to actually believe that they'd create a pro-US, pro-Israeli democracy in Iraq. What a bunch of idiots!

[Segnosaur]

Ah, where to begin.... I'm going to re-arrange some of your points to make it flow better....

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
There are no credible Iraqi links to 9/11 or al-Qaida.

Thats fine. Most of us on the pro-war side didn't think Iraq was behind 9/11. However, that does not mean that Iraq was not involved with terrorism. (There are more terrorist groups than just al Quaeda). The UN basically said as much in 1441.

Sorry, claiming that the war was wrong because their was no link between 9/11 and Iraq is a big straw man.

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
There are no WMD or even "WMD programs."

Going from a statement about there being no links between 9/11 and no WMD program is a big jump in logic. The 2 issues are totally separate. They may very well find that they had no WMD, but it is still quite possible that they still had a weapons program, and there are reports that they had plans to restart things once the inspectors left.

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
The "liberation of the Iraqi people" fall-back argument was always a joke.

Only to you.

Even though Iraq is not a democratic paradise, people are freer now than when they lived under Saddam. And given the fact that the 'war' has been over for less than half a year (and terrorist attacks continue), you can't expect things to be perfect over night.

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
For example, some newspapers in Iraq have been shut down for their anti-American criticisms (called "inciting violence") and Iraqis are being imprisoned without access to family or lawyers, (http://www.majority.com/news/prison.html) just like under Saddam (or Ashcroft, if they were in the US).

And given the fact that there is still no functioning justice system in Iraq, how do you expect due process to proceed?

By the way, there is a world of difference between what the US and what Saddam did. Saddam had prisoners tortured/killed. The US is holding them, and will likely turn them over to Iraqi authorities once there is a functioning justice system.

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
I don't see any indication that genuine democracy will take root in Iraq any decade soon.

Oh good, you can predict the future!

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
The Iraqis generally seem eager to replace one brutal, authoritarian government with another, and the latter is not the US occupation, but an Islamic government.


Sorry, but in case you didn't know, many of the Islamic leaders are actually supporting the US. In fact, the southern part of Iraq (where the religious majority is from) is actually a lot more peaceful than the more secular, pro-Saddam areas.

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
So that leaves the question "what were the real reasons for the war?" I don't rule out that the neo-cons were actually detached from reality enough to actually believe that they'd create a pro-US, pro-Israeli democracy in Iraq.

I guess you're right. Iraqis (heck, all A-rabs) are filthy disgusting stupid animals, who only desire to be controlled by dictators. Isn't that what you're saying?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Thats fine. Most of us on the pro-war side didn't think Iraq was behind 9/11.

Who is this "us" you are refering to? Didn't a recent NY Times poll find that an amazingly high number of respondents believed that Iraq was involved with 9/11? I don't know for sure, but I suspect there was a pretty strong correlation between the folks who believed that Iraq was involved in 9/11 and pro-war supporters.

You may have known better, but I would not extrapolate your position to most of the pro-war supporters. Apparently a good fraction of pro-war supporters do think Iraq was involved with 9/11. You may want to play technical games with the word "most," but it would be a waste of your time.

If you want to say "a lot" or "many" pro-war supporters didn't think Iraq was involved I wouldn't argue. But to claim that most don't think so? Not justifiable.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Sorry, claiming that the war was wrong because their was no link between 9/11 and Iraq is a big straw man.
No it is not. It was a major part of the propaganda campaign by the Bush administration to rouse support for the war. There were countless references made by Bush & Co. to 9/11 and al-Qaida when discussing regime change in Iraq. On the USS Lincoln, during Bush's "victory" speech, he continued to imply such linkage, going so far as to say that Saddam and al-Qaida were "allies."

EDITED TO ADD: My point is underscored by the question that evoked Wolfowitz's comments. ("In an interview with conservative radio personality Laura Ingraham, Wolfowitz was asked when he first came to believe that Iraq was behind the 9-11 terrorist attacks. ") Ingraham was under the understandable impression that Wolfowitz, as part of the Bush administration and a leader of the push for war, believed Iraq was behind the attacks. As far as OTHER terrorists groups go, al-Qaida was the only one threatening the UNITED STATES. Unlike you, I am not an Israeli. And if Israel's government actually cared about ENDING terrorism rather than exploiting it, they'd remove the settlements rather than building them and they'd end their occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Going from a statement about there being no links between 9/11 and no WMD program is a big jump in logic. The 2 issues are totally separate. They may very well find that they had no WMD, but it is still quite possible that they still had a weapons program, and there are reports that they had plans to restart things once the inspectors left.
The reference to WMD was part of my discussion of the given reasons for war and how none of them have panned out. The main reason emphasized by the administration was Iraq's supposed possession of WMD. Remember?

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Only to you.
No, I am also joined by reality. I am also aware of how the Bush administration, like administrations before it, has no problem with authoritarian regimes it perceives as its friends (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.). So, yes, that argument was always a joke.

Originally posted by Segnosaur
By the way, there is a world of difference between what the US and what Saddam did. Saddam had prisoners tortured/killed. The US is holding them, and will likely turn them over to Iraqi authorities once there is a functioning justice system.
Read the article I linked to this point. The US is behaving in much the same way as did Saddam's regime. Iraqis in custody have been tortured and killed by US and British soldiers. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-07-26-soldiers-charged_x.htm)

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Oh good, you can predict the future!
The difference between the neo-cons and me is that they think they can predict the future, whereas on this issue I have successfully predicted the outcome on point after point. Go back through my old posts from the last year.

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Sorry, but in case you didn't know, many of the Islamic leaders are actually supporting the US. In fact, the southern part of Iraq (where the religious majority is from) is actually a lot more peaceful than the more secular, pro-Saddam areas.
Wrong! From the start of the occupation the Islamic leaders in the south put the US on notice that they expected the US occupation to be brief and that if it lingered, they'd turn on us. They have been patient so far in not openly rebelling. The religious majority also exists in central Iraq, but it is Sunni. There the mullahs are calling for the US to leave now.

Originally posted by Segnosaur
I guess you're right. Iraqis (heck, all A-rabs) are filthy disgusting stupid animals, who only desire to be controlled by dictators. Isn't that what you're saying?
No, I do not share your characterization of Arabs. You are attempting to construct a straw man by attributing your ideas to me. I am looking at the reality of the situation. Any impetus toward democracy has to be at the initiative of the Arabs; it can not be imposed. Left to themselves, I believe that eventually democracy would evolve among them, but not anytime soon. All our interventions are doing is radicalizing the region and strengthening the political power of Islamic fundametalism.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


Oh good, you can predict the future!




His view of the future is no different than the administration saying that by demolishing their current government and infrastructure we can establish a working democracy there. The only difference is, the military took action. They were "predicting the future" just as much as Grabert. His view of the future is no less legitimate than theirs. In the eyes of many Iraqis currently, it's far less.

Granted you can't expect things to change overnight, but the Iraqi people in many cases feel far worse off under the current occupation than they did under Saddam. As such, installing a pro-US democracy becomes all the more difficult.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


Who is this "us" you are refering to? Didn't a recent NY Times poll find that an amazingly high number of respondents believed that Iraq was involved with 9/11? I don't know for sure, but I suspect there was a pretty strong correlation between the folks who believed that Iraq was involved in 9/11 and pro-war supporters.



The 'us' I was referring to was the population of pro-war supporters here at JREF.

Yes, I am aware that a majority of people believed that Iraq was behind 9/11. But then, the anti-war side had quite a few people with, shall we say, credibility problems as well. (I suggest you watch the 'brain terminal' videos for an idea of what many of the 'average' anti-war side were thinking.)

I don't let the lunitics (like the people in the anti-war side who think the Jews were behind 9/11, or that Bush is automatically a Nazi) tar all anti-war people as wrong; I take each issue as it comes.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

No it is not. It was a major part of the propaganda campaign by the Bush administration to rouse support for the war. There were countless references made by Bush & Co. to 9/11 and al-Qaida when discussing regime change in Iraq. On the USS Lincoln, during Bush's "victory" speech, he continued to imply such linkage, going so far as to say that Saddam and al-Qaida were "allies."

As far as OTHER terrorists groups go, al-Qaida was the only one threatening the UNITED STATES. Unlike you, I am not an Israeli.


What the h*ll makes you think I'm Israeli? That is such a moronic comment.

Some of us actually believe that any terrorism in the world is a bad thing and should be stopped. I guess you have no problem seeing Jews killed (even if a few Americans die along the way, well, that's the cost of being a Jew.) I guess that's your right.

Of course, if other people in the world didn't think Iraq supported terrorism, why did they actually mention it in the UN resolutions?

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

The reference to WMD was part of my discussion of the given reasons for war and how none of them have panned out. The main reason emphasized by the administration was Iraq's supposed possession of WMD. Remember?


Guess what? Many of us supported the war based on our own criteria, based on what we have read from a variety of sources (both pro- and anti-war). I for one did not support the war because Bush said it was a good idea, or because he claimed they had WMD.

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

No, I am also joined by reality. I am also aware of how the Bush administration, like administrations before it, has no problem with authoritarian regimes it perceives as its friends (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.). So, yes, that argument was always a joke.


I do not like the fact that the US government has in the past (and probably will in the future) dealed favorably with certain dictatorships. But, I do realize that the world is complex, and I know that sometimes the lesser of two evils must be selected.

I also realize the issue of whether the US is friends with other dictatorships does not affect most of the reasons for going to war against Iraq.

Of course, now that Iraq is no longer controlled by Saddam (and the US doesn't need their influence), hopefully the US will start dealing more strongly with Saudi Arabia. If they fail to do so, then I will criticize Bush for that.

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Read the article I linked to this point. The US is behaving in much the same way as did Saddam's regime. Iraqis in custody have been tortured and killed by US and British soldiers. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-07-26-soldiers-charged_x.htm)

The fact that you would use that as evidence of how Bush and Saddam are the same shows how pathetic your arguments are.

First of all, you do realize that the soldiers have actually been charged with crimes related to their actions? That in itself shows the major difference between Saddam's actions and the US. (Had Saddam been in charge, the people would probably have gotten a promotion.)

Secondly, at this point in time, the soldiers are claiming innocence. Guess what? They may actually BE innocent. They were dealing with prisoners, who very well may have tried to escape. Sometimes force is necessary to control riot situations.

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Wrong! From the start of the occupation the Islamic leaders in the south put the US on notice that they expected the US occupation to be brief and that if it lingered, they'd turn on us. They have been patient so far in not openly rebelling. The religious majority also exists in central Iraq, but it is Sunni. There the mullahs are calling for the US to leave now.


Guess what? Not all of the Mullahs are calling for the US to leave. And guess what? Even when the Mullah's say they want the US to leave, the average Iraqi is not listening. Opinion polls show that the majority of Iraqis want the US to stay until the job is done. (That was the plan of the US anyways.)


Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

No, I do not share your characterization of Arabs. You are attempting to construct a straw man by attributing your ideas to me. I am looking at the reality of the situation. Any impetus toward democracy has to be at the initiative of the Arabs; it can not be imposed. Left to themselves, I believe that eventually democracy would evolve among them, but not anytime soon. All our interventions are doing is radicalizing the region and strengthening the political power of Islamic fundametalism.

Hey, you suggested that Iraq would automatically become and Islamic fundamentalist state. Why would you do that? I have much more faith in the Iraqi people. I believe that if they are given a fair opportunity, they can actually do something good with their country, without the assumption they will automatically be taken over by the fundamentalists.

You might believe that a democracy might evolve, but the history of the region shows that that is not likely to happen.

As for 'radicalizing' the region... in case you didn't know, the region had already been radicalized. 9/11 occured long before the US invaded Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan had been brutal Islamic dictatorships for years, and pretty much every country had no problem supressing human rights. And believe it or not, there has not been any large scale movement to Islamic fundamentalism since then. In fact, many dictators in the world are actually more willing to deal with the US than they were before the war.

[Wayne Grabert]

Segnosaur, I'm not going to waste my time debating each and every point with you. I will point out that you have not made a single argument for why the war was necessary or desirable. You just make repeated references to mysterious reasons why you and others on this board supported the war and continue to do so.

I don't know what you're talking about when you mention "opinion polls" of Iraqis. Care to cite a reference?

Further, I didn't say Bush and Saddam are the same. Saddam has more credibility. Saddam was telling the truth when he said Iraq no longer had banned weapons. Bush never told the truth even once regarding this issue, but lied repeatedly. Guys like Rumsfeld and Cheney made unequivocal comments about having proof that Iraq had banned weapons and was tied to al-Qaida. They were lying--just like they are now when they talk about Iraqi "liberation."

And while all terrorism may be bad, that doesn't justify fighting a proxy war on behalf of Likud and against US interests, especially when Israel creates its own problems and refuses to do what is necessary--and morally justified--to correct them.

EDITED TO ADD: My last paragraph is in reference to what I have inferred by your comments on this thread regarding Saddam's support for terrorists. Maybe this is the reason why you fail to state your reason(s) for supporting the war. It/they have nothing to do with furthering US interests or security. You are a staunch supporter of Israel living in Canada. The irony is that the war will not help Israel, but will help the Islamic fundamentalists.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
Saddam has more credibility. Saddam was telling the truth when he said Iraq no longer had banned weapons.

:eek: :jaw:

Wow is all I can say.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Grammatron

Wow is all I can say.
Why are you surprised? Haven't you been reading the news?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Why are you surprised? Haven't you been reading the news?

I guess I am not. I have not seen a single news source that claims Sadam was credible and/or that he had no WMDs

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I guess I am not. I have not seen a single news source that claims Sadam was credible and/or that he had no WMDs
Then start paying attention. Saddam was not trustworthy, but he still was more truthful than the current US president. That's not an endorsement of Saddam, but an indictment of the completely non-credible Duh-bya Bush.

Read my comments more carefully. I didn't say that Saddam never had what were called "WMDs," nor did Saddam ever claim to have never had them. They were destroyed in the 1990's. Not a single banned weapon has been discovered in Iraq since the invasion began.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Grammatron

I guess I am not.
...

Then start reading the news, then talk.

[Wayne Grabert]

I'll add that it would have been silly of Saddam to claim he never had chemical or biological weapons because he bought them from the United States!

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Ion

Then start reading the news, then talk.

I guess they don't have sarcasm where you are :rolleyes:

Then start paying attention. Saddam was not trustworthy, but he still was more truthful than the current US president. That's not an endorsement of Saddam, but an indictment of the completely non-credible Duh-bya Bush.

Read my comments more carefully. I didn't say that Saddam never had what were called "WMDs," nor did Saddam ever claim to have never had them. They were destroyed in the 1990's. Not a single banned weapon has been discovered in Iraq since the invasion began.

First of all, I keep my self up to date on all the news, that was a sarcastic comment as I stated above. Second I am not supporter of Bush but lowering his credibility below that of Saddam's is ludicrous. Third you quoting me out of context; that quote was in reply to your quote Saddam was telling the truth when he said Iraq no longer had banned weapons, something you have no proof off other than Saddam's "credibility."

Before Saddam kicked out the inspectors the first time, there were unaccountable banned weapons, which Iraq never presented or stated what they did with them. The most important fact that people outright ignore is that Inspectors INSPECT weapons not go out looking for them. If that was their job they would be called DETECTIVES.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Grammatron
First of all, I keep my self up to date on all the news, that was a sarcastic comment as I stated above. Second I am not supporter of Bush but lowering his credibility below that of Saddam's is ludicrous. Third you quoting me out of context; that quote was in reply to your quote Saddam was telling the truth when he said Iraq no longer had banned weapons, something you have no proof off other than Saddam's "credibility."
Of course, one can never prove a negative, so we cannot ever say Saddam had [u]no[u] banned weapons. All we can say is that our exhaustive search has failed to turn up a single one. Not proof, but pretty good evidence.

Originally posted by Grammatron
Before Saddam kicked out the inspectors the first time, there were unaccountable banned weapons, which Iraq never presented or stated what they did with them.
That simply does not mean he had still had them. The reasons he might have done this without telling us have been discussed before, but it really doesn't make any difference. The US claimed he had them. Theirs is the burden of proof.

Originally posted by Grammatron
The most important fact that people outright ignore is that Inspectors INSPECT weapons not go out looking for them. If that was their job they would be called DETECTIVES.
I don't believe that is an important fact, but rather one of the silliest arguments I've ever heard. What do you think a police inspector does?

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

I don't let the lunitics (like the people in the anti-war side who think the Jews were behind 9/11, or that Bush is automatically a Nazi) tar all anti-war people as wrong; I take each issue as it comes.

Some of us actually believe that any terrorism in the world is a bad thing and should be stopped. I guess you have no problem seeing Jews killed (even if a few Americans die along the way, well, that's the cost of being a Jew.) I guess that's your right.

I want to address these comments separately because it is part of the effort to smear opponents of the war as anti-Semites, though Segnosaur says that he doesn't mean to tar all anti-war people. It is also obvious to anyone who pays attention that support for the war was especially strong among right-wing supporters of Israel and that creating a Middle East more amenable to Israel was a major motivation of the neo-conservatives in the Bush administration, some of whom had been on Israel's payroll in the 90's.

It is not about "the Jews." Some of the leaders of the anti-war movement were Jewish. Many more of the movement's members were Jewish. Some of the Israeli government's harshest critics are Jewish--many of them living in Israel. Most of Israel's most ardent supporters in the United States (and who were the most ardent supporters of the war) are not Jewish. They are Christian fundamentalists who call themselves Christian Zionists.

Although they support Israel's right-wing, Christian Zionists also tend to be anti-Semitic. They don't support Israel for Israel's sake, but because they hate Muslims and also believe in the concept of Biblical Israel that will bring on the return of Jesus. This is known as the dispensationalist movement. According to that philosophy, when Jesus comes back, all the Jews in Israel will either convert to Christianity or go straight to hell.

Bush's government is a union of two radical groups: the imperialistic neo-conservatives (like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Pearl, Woolsey and Gingrich--some are on the Defense Policy Board as unpaid advisors, and not all of them are Jewish) and Christian fundamentalists (Ashcroft being the most outstanding example).

Further, I think there was more than one reason why the Bushies went to war. It was a convergence of reasons: neo-imperialistic aims in the Middle East, support for Israel, oil and cronyism, "he tried to kill my daddy."

[JAR]

Wayne Grabert, it's nice to see you back. I missed reading your posts. They're funny in a similar way as Jedi Knight's posts are.

I like what you put for your location which says: "Los Angeles, Imperial States of America."

I don't buy into the concept that the U.S. is an empire, but I still think what you put for your location is funny. I can see why people would think the U.S. is an empire being that our government often dominates world affairs, but in order to be an empire we would have to have an emperor.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Grammatron

First of all, I keep my self up to date on all the news, that was a sarcastic comment as I stated above. Second I am not supporter of Bush but lowering his credibility below that of Saddam's is ludicrous. Third you quoting me out of context; that quote was in reply to your quote Saddam was telling the truth when he said Iraq no longer had banned weapons, something you have no proof off other than Saddam's "credibility."

Before Saddam kicked out the inspectors the first time, there were unaccountable banned weapons, which Iraq never presented or stated what they did with them. The most important fact that people outright ignore is that Inspectors INSPECT weapons not go out looking for them. If that was their job they would be called DETECTIVES.
How can I quote you out of context when that was the total of the very little you had to say?

Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, was in charge of Saddam's weapons program. He fled to Jordan in 1995 along with boxes of documents. He told the UN and the US all they needed to know. He revealed to them how Iraq had destroyed many of its weapons in the early 90's so that the international community would not know the full extent of Iraq's weapons program. The evidence for that full extent came from Kamal. When Saddam lured him back to Iraq in 1996, Kamal was executed.

All of the information that Bush had for the "unaccounted" weapons that were not destroyed by the insepection teams came from Kamal. What was withheld by Bush was Kamal's testimony that these "unaccounted" weapons were already destroyed by Iraq in the early 90's! It was a deliberate deception by Bush that did not become public until a month before the war when transcripts of Kamal's testimony were leaked to Newsweek. However, the allegedly "liberal" news media hardly paid attention. The matter has been covered by other news outlets since. Do a Google search and inform yourself.

Yes, absolutely, Bush has less credibility than Saddam Hussein. Saddam has a little, tiny bit. Bush has none.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by JAR
Wayne Grabert, it's nice to see you back. I missed reading your posts. They're funny in a similar way as Jedi Knight's posts are.

I haven't missed your posts. You never have anything to say worth reading.

I'm not really back. I don't intend to post much on this board. I've got too much to do and this was a temporary diversion, but now I have some meetings to keep.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Grammatron
I guess I am not. I have not seen a single news source that claims Sadam was credible and/or that he had no WMDs
So far I've read three. Saddam's aide said that Saddam had destroyed the weapons before he said just before the war that he had no weapons of mass destruction. Some Pentagon officials have said that this might actually be the case.

Saddam's aide also said that although Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, Saddam did intend to have them in the future.

The two other news sources that I read got their information on the subject from two different guys described as intelligence experts.

Just think about it. When Saddam said that he had no WMDs and then refused to allow an immediate inspection to see whether he had them, was he actually stupid enough to think that the U.S. government would believe him?

Chances are he wasn't. He probably didn't have weapons of mass destruction and hoped the U.S. wouldn't believe him when he said that he didn't have them.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, was in charge of Saddam's weapons program. He fled to Jordan in 1995 along with boxes of documents. He told the UN and the US all they needed to know. He revealed to them how Iraq had destroyed many of its weapons in the early 90's so that the international community would not know the full extent of Iraq's weapons program. The evidence for that full extent came from Kamal. When Saddam lured him back to Iraq in 1996, Kamal was executed.


It took 4 years and a defector to locate the weapons the first time. I don't know what Saddam has/had or did not have and I won't make such a claim. There are no credible sources that can state with absolute certainty one way or the other regarding Saddam's weapon programs. Feel free to prove me otherwise and make sure to present your sources.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tricky

I don't believe that is an important fact, but rather one of the silliest arguments I've ever heard. What do you think a police inspector does?

Allow me to present a loose analogy. If I get a fix-it ticket on my car for lets say a broken tail light, it is up to me to fix it and then show the inspection station that it is fixed, it's not police's job to go looking for my car to see if I did it or not.

[Mike B.]

Did Israel come out stronger from this war?

There is a President now who says that there should be a Palistinian state by 2005.

I mean I am not saying Sharon will play along, but I don't see how Israel really makes out in this war, beyond the fact that a dangerous and unstable leader near by gone. However, one might as well say that Kuwait really made out in this war.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Allow me to present a loose analogy. If I get a fix-it ticket on my car for lets say a broken tail light, it is up to me to fix it and then show the inspection station that it is fixed, it's not police's job to go looking for my car to see if I did it or not.
That is a very strange system. In Texas (and I suspect most places), if you get a ticket for something wrong with your car, you must have it fixed, inspected, and then show the inspection certificate to the police. The inspector may actually discover (using detective work) more stuff you will have to fix.

The UN inspectors tried to find out not only what was shown, but things that Saddam wouldn't reveal. Since they couldn't force him to show them in 1998, (not having a supeona), they left. Perhaps they were frustrated detectives, but still detectives. In 2002-3, they had more power and were given a lot more access. They still turned up nothing significant.

Your analogy is looser than Anna Nicole Smith at the Millionaires Club.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I guess they don't have sarcasm where you are :rolleyes:
...
Before Saddam kicked out the inspectors the first time, there were unaccountable banned weapons, which Iraq never presented or stated what they did with them.
...

It was in the news that the U.N. Security Council didn't want to war against Iraq based on "...unaccountable banned weapons...", but wanted to pursue peaceful inspections of Iraq instead.

Do they have electricity and newspapers where you are?

Ask for them, please... :rolleyes:

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Ion

Do they have electricity and newspapers where you are?


No, my computer runs on magic.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tricky

That is a very strange system. In Texas (and I suspect most places), if you get a ticket for something wrong with your car, you must have it fixed, inspected, and then show the inspection certificate to the police. The inspector may actually discover (using detective work) more stuff you will have to fix.


In California inspection stations are CHP (California Highway Patrol) or Sheriff stations.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Grammatron


No, my computer runs on magic.
Well, unfortunately for you, the world outside your computer (including WMDs in Iraq, ties between Iraq, September 11, and al-Qaeda) doesn't run on magic.

It runs on materially supported and consistent facts.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Ion

It runs on materially supported and consistent facts.

Still waiting for facts on how Iraq has no banned weapons.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Grammatron


:eek: :jaw:

Wow is all I can say.

If you think about it, what he is saying is that Wolfowitz has less credibility than Saddam, not so much a jaw dropping act of stupidity, as a condemnation of how low Wolfowitz has dropped in the credibility stakes. Don't forget, he is the guy who sees one of the benefits of invading Iraq as being able to shuffle the troops in Saudi out of there into Iraq.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky

That is a very strange system. In Texas (and I suspect most places), if you get a ticket for something wrong with your car, you must have it fixed, inspected, and then show the inspection certificate to the police. The inspector may actually discover (using detective work) more stuff you will have to fix.



That must be an HPD thing, every ticket I have received (from pct. 4) for a broken tail light (or something like that) only required me to get the light fixed with-in 10 days of the ticket. After that, all I had to do was, go to the courthouse and show them proof (usually a receipt) that the light had been fixed. I only paid a 10$ dismissal fee.

[ShowMe]

Iraq is 168,709 square miles, slightly more than twice the size of Idaho.

If you gave me 15 semi trucks and told me to hide them "somewhere in Idaho", and I was a ruthless mudering slob, I *guarantee* you wouldn't find those trucks for years.

Even if I never moved them.

Whether or not we had the right reasons for going to war I think it best that we did. Can someone do the right thing for entirely the wrong reasons? Of course.

Would it have been better to leave Sadaam in power? Ask the families of the thousands found in the mass graves.

[ImpyTimpy]

Exactly. Trucks can be placed anywhere. The problem is when you try and make those trucks into fully working mobile laboratories capable of mass production of chemical or biological weapons.

Wonder how Iraq is the only place that supposedly ever managed to pull it off... Next thing you know they'll be making mini nuclear reactors on school buses!!

Originally posted by ShowMe
Iraq is 168,709 square miles, slightly more than twice the size of Idaho.

If you gave me 15 semi trucks and told me to hide them "somewhere in Idaho", and I was a ruthless mudering slob, I *guarantee* you wouldn't find those trucks for years.

Even if I never moved them.

Whether or not we had the right reasons for going to war I think it best that we did. Can someone do the right thing for entirely the wrong reasons? Of course.

Would it have been better to leave Sadaam in power? Ask the families of the thousands found in the mass graves.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by ShowMe
Iraq is 168,709 square miles, slightly more than twice the size of Idaho.

If you gave me 15 semi trucks and told me to hide them "somewhere in Idaho", and I was a ruthless mudering slob, I *guarantee* you wouldn't find those trucks for years.

Even if I never moved them.

Whether or not we had the right reasons for going to war I think it best that we did. Can someone do the right thing for entirely the wrong reasons? Of course.

Would it have been better to leave Sadaam in power? Ask the families of the thousands found in the mass graves.

The must have been billions spent of satellite surveillance of Iraq by now, I can bet you there are analysts that know the place better than their own neighbourhood. A truck for them is nothing, it stands out a mile away. They had hundreds of sites they believed held something, and so far, they have all come up as a blank.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tony



That must be an HPD thing, every ticket I have received (from pct. 4) for a broken tail light (or something like that) only required me to get the light fixed with-in 10 days of the ticket. After that, all I had to do was, go to the courthouse and show them proof (usually a receipt) that the light had been fixed. I only paid a 10$ dismissal fee.
The only time I was ever stopped for a vehicle violation was for an expired inspection sticker. I got it inspected and showed the police. Sounds like your situation is similar. In any case, this does nothing to support the claim that "inspectors are not detectives". Every definition of "inspector" I can think of involves some type of detective work. Clothing inspectors aren't told where the flaws are in a pair of pants. They must use detective work to find them.

[ssibal]

This is sort of off-topic but I no longer believe that there are/were WMD in Iraq. I had said wait a year to see but the probability of something being found is next to nothing in my opinion. I just want to admit I was wrong about WMD, though I still agree with the war.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
Segnosaur, I'm not going to waste my time debating each and every point with you. I will point out that you have not made a single argument for why the war was necessary or desirable. You just make repeated references to mysterious reasons why you and others on this board supported the war and continue to do so.

Been reading the back and forth between the two of you and I must say, this is a cop-out. So far Segnosaur has stepped up toe to toe with you. Why the sudden backing away?;)

[Troll]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


The must have been billions spent of satellite surveillance of Iraq by now, I can bet you there are analysts that know the place better than their own neighbourhood. A truck for them is nothing, it stands out a mile away. They had hundreds of sites they believed held something, and so far, they have all come up as a blank.

I'd almost buy that. But it doesn't mesh with the surprise of finding burried MIGS.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by ssibal
This is sort of off-topic but I no longer believe that there are/were WMD in Iraq. I had said wait a year to see but the probability of something being found is next to nothing in my opinion. I just want to admit I was wrong about WMD, though I still agree with the war.
That is honest of you. I thought there were some WMDs too, but not worth going to war for. In fact, not enough of anything worth going to war for.

What do you think made the war worth it?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by ssibal
This is sort of off-topic but I no longer believe that there are/were WMD in Iraq. I had said wait a year to see but the probability of something being found is next to nothing in my opinion. I just want to admit I was wrong about WMD, though I still agree with the war.
It takes a big person to admit they're wrong.
Even if you still agree with the war do you think its OK to use inaccurate information to talk people into it? (eg. the Niger uranium issue?)

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Tricky
What do you think made the war worth it?

The removal of Saddam and his regime from power and the removal of UN sanctions.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by subgenius

It takes a big person to admit they're wrong.
Even if you still agree with the war do you think its OK to use inaccurate information to talk people into it? (eg. the Niger uranium issue?)

No, I do not.
*EDIT* And I mean to knowingly use inaccurate information.

[Ion]

That's brainwashing at its worst:
Originally posted by ssibal

The removal of Saddam and his regime from power and the removal of UN sanctions.
What did Saddam Hussein did to you?

Anything?

What did local despot Hussein did to Iraqi people when under U.N. sanctions in between 1992 and 2003?

Much, compared to what Bush did to Iraqi people in five months?

I don't think so.

By far, I don't think so.

"The removal of Saddam and his regime from power and the removal of UN sanctions." that's where Bush-induced brainwashing happens to you...

[Ion]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Still waiting for facts on how Iraq has no banned weapons.
Did you find the WMDs in Iraq, Gramma?

Because when you don't find WMDs in Iraq Gramma, you cannot say there are.

Unless you are a loony.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Ion

Did you find the WMDs in Iraq, Gramma?

Because when you don't find WMDs in Iraq Gramma, you cannot say there are.

Unless you are a loony.

Nice, right to the name calling.

So basically you can use lack of proof as proof, makes sense to me. Perhaps next you can prove to us how there is no God. Maybe you are just psychic and can see there are no weapons; well in that case Randi has a one million dollars for you if you can prove it.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by ShowMe
Iraq is 168,709 square miles, slightly more than twice the size of Idaho.

If you gave me 15 semi trucks and told me to hide them "somewhere in Idaho", and I was a ruthless mudering slob, I *guarantee* you wouldn't find those trucks for years.

Even if I never moved them.

Sorry, but your analogy is flawed. Saddam was not personally driving trucks. Since the overthrow, the US has had unfettered access to Iraqi scientists, government officials, government buildings and documents. (Granted the latter were looted.) $200,000 rewards have been offered for information leading to the supposed weapons. All we hear is the same story from different sources given independently: the weapons were destroyed a long time ago; there were no active programs to replace them; "I would love to collect your reward, but I don't have any information to give."

We supposedly (according to Rumsfeld) already knew where to find the weapons (in the area between Baghdad and Tikrit). What about those aeriel photographs that Powell showed the UN of the new weapons factories? (They held vacuum cleaners and farm supplies.)

However, I suspect that years from now you will still be making your trucks-in-Idaho argument.

What will happen first?

A. Big Foot will be captured.
B. Jesus will come back.
C. Saddam's hidden WMD arsenal will be discovered.
D. You will admit that the whole WMD and Saddam/al-Qaida linkage propaganda were part of a terror campaign by Bush to fool people into supporting a war against Iraq while keeping secret his real reasons.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Mike B.
I mean I am not saying Sharon will play along, but I don't see how Israel really makes out in this war, beyond the fact that a dangerous and unstable leader near by gone. However, one might as well say that Kuwait really made out in this war.
I don't see how either, Mike. The fact is, though, that Israel pushed for war against Iraq. I argued before the war that Sharon was a nut for wanting the war since, if Iraq had any chemical weapons and scuds, he'd fire some of them at Israel as soon as the war started. Also, the invasion would strengthen Islamic militancy.

People don't always make rational decisions.

[Ion]

Poor intelligence, Gramma:
Originally posted by Grammatron

...
So basically you can use lack of proof as proof, makes sense to me.
...

Lack of proof is neither proof for nor proof against.

Lack of proof is:

don't claim.

You didn't know this?

It's elementary though:

don't claim without proof.

.) U.N. was doing the 'don't claim':

not claiming that there are WMDs in Iraq, but inspecting whether there are.

.) Bush's U.S. was not doing the 'don't claim':

claimed it knows of WMDs in Iraq, doesn't find them now in order to support the claim, so the claim was lying.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by ShowMe
Would it have been better to leave Sadaam in power? Ask the families of the thousands found in the mass graves.
Yes, it would have been better! I'm tired and this guy states the case well. (http://www.antiwar.com/orig/whiskey1.html)

I'll answer the hawks' question: Yes, I would have left Saddam in power.

Because at the end of the day, having a brutal but aging dictator sitting in a box in Baghdad would have been far safer for U.S. national security – and the health and welfare of the Iraqi people – than the bloody chaos we have unleashed.

Because booting Saddam back into the criminal underground resurrected not one of his previous victims, and added another 4,000 names or so to the list of casualties – and that doesn't include the thousands or hundreds of thousands more who will die in the insanity to come.

Because whatever chance Iraq had to eventually emerge from Baathist dictatorship into some less horrific form of government has been blown. The only options now are Lebanon-style chaos or an expensive, bloody U.S. occupation – followed by Lebanon-style chaos once we finally give up and withdraw.

Those are just the first few of his explanations, but I want to respect the policy of not extracting large portions from a source.

The essay was written weeks ago. "The 4,000 names" he refers to are an understatement. We now know that, at a minimum, over 6,200 Iraqi citizens were killed by the US and UK during the bombing part of the war. Additionally, thousands of Iraqi soldiers were killed. Thousands more Iraqis were maimed.

It was the responsibility of the Iraqis to liberate themselves, not our responsibility to undermine our national interest. We liberated ourselves from the British empire. Once the Iraqis took the initiative to overthrow Saddam, and that revolution had broad based support and a chance of succeeding, them we could have given the Iraqi people our support, like France gave us during our revolutionary war. Let me repeat for emphasis: It was the responsibility of the Iraqis to liberate themselves. It is possible for an insurgency to succeed. Many kings and dictators have been overthrown.

Bottom line: The conservatives, their beloved president and his neocon revolutionaries have made an ENORMOUS mistake – of the kind that keep historians busy arguing for decades: How could they have done something so stupid? It's the March of Folly, heading straight over a cliff.

And shouting, as they topple over the edge:

"But what about Saddammmmmmm?????????"

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Ion
That's brainwashing at its worst:

Name-calling, wonderful.

What did Saddam Hussein did to you?

Anything?

Hey, I saw someone robbing my neighbor's house but since he did not do anything to me I will not report him to the police....:rolleyes:

What did local despot Hussein did to Iraqi people when under U.N. sanctions in between 1992 and 2003?

Much, compared to what Bush did to Iraqi people in five months?

I don't think so.

By far, I don't think so.

Are you saying that in five months Bush has surpassed Saddam in the mistreatment of the Iraqi people? That is ridiculous.

"The removal of Saddam and his regime from power and the removal of UN sanctions." that's where Bush-induced brainwashing happens to you...

Must be some bugs in that "Bush-induced brainwashing" program. Rather than brainwash people in to voting for Bush they are wasting their time brainwashing people into thinking that removing Saddam and UN sanctions are a good thing.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Troll


Been reading the back and forth between the two of you and I must say, this is a cop-out. So far Segnosaur has stepped up toe to toe with you. Why the sudden backing away?;)
It's not a cop out. I'm not going to waste my time arguing about small points to someone who is likely a true believer. I addressed his main arguments in that very post you've excerpted and I issued him a challenge to explain why he supported the war. That's getting to the bigger matters, and so far he has backed away.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Yes, it would have been better! I'm tired and this guy states the case well. (http://www.antiwar.com/orig/whiskey1.html)
.


More like begging the question...

[Tricky]

I asked
What do you think made the war worth it?
Originally posted by ssibal
The removal of Saddam and his regime from power and the removal of UN sanctions.
Admittedly removing Saddam was a definite positive, but does that justify an invasion? Does killing more civilians that Saddam killed in the last ten years make us better than him? What was it about Saddam that was so much worse than other despots worldwide that made this war good? Does the removal of Saddam counterbalance the worldwide enmity the US now has garnered for this invasion? If so, then why not take out other despots? Are we worried that the rest of the world might hate us even more ?

As for the sanctions, the US supported those quite strongly. How can we claim honor for freeing them from the yoke we imposed?

There are a lot of questions here that war supporters cannot provide good answers to.

[Ion]

Originally posted by ssibal

...
Hey, I saw someone robbing my neighbor's house but since he did not do anything to me I will not report him to the police....:rolleyes:
...

1) Did you see proof of Hussein's 'imminent threat to the world' WMDs?

You didn't.

2) Did you see proof of September 11 link to Hussein?

You didnt.

3) Did you see proof of the al-Qaeda link to Hussein?

You didn't.

Yet, Bush's U.S. based its claim for needing to war Iraq, on these.

Now, this is brainwashing working on you, at its worst.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by ssibal


The removal of Saddam and his regime from power and the removal of UN sanctions.
The sanctions could have and should have been lifted before the end of Clinton's second term. It was not necessary to start a war and put ourselves in a quagmire to end the sanctions. So now the sanctions are over and the Iraqi people are even worse off than they were five months ago. Crime is rampant. Electricity is still not back to normal. Women and non-Muslims are being bullied and attacked by Islamic fundamentalists. That's a subject you should look up--how women in Iraq are much worse off now than during Saddam's regime.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by ssibal


More like begging the question...
Not much of a rebuttal.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Ion

1) Did you see Hussein's 'imminent threat to the world' WMDs?

You didn't.

2) Did you see the September 11 link to Hussein?

You didnt.

3) Did you see the al-Qaeda link to Hussein?

You didn't.

Now, that's brainwashing at its worst.

I saw him kill his people, starve his people. Invaded different countries...oh and pay $5000 to the family of a Palestinians suicide bomb. Yeah nice guy. Perhaps I should invite him for a cup of tea.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Tricky


Admittedly removing Saddam was a definite positive, but does that justify an invasion? Does killing more civilians that Saddam killed in the last ten years make us better than him?

Yes it does justify an invasion. I do not know about the figures of who killed more civilians but you make it seem as if the U.S. was targeting civilians the way that Saddam did. Does it make us better than him? Yes it does because we were not purposely targeting and killing people for not agreeing with a political party or for fun or whatever other reason.

What was it about Saddam that was so much worse than other despots worldwide that made this war good? Does the removal of Saddam counterbalance the worldwide enmity the US now has garnered for this invasion? If so, then why not take out other despots? Are we worried that the rest of the world might hate us even more ?

I have no problem with us taking out other despots.

As for the sanctions, the US supported those quite strongly. How can we claim honor for freeing them from the yoke we imposed?

As I recall, it was not solely the U.S. that imposed the sanctions on Iraq.

*EDIT to fix typo*

[Ion]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I saw him kill his people, starve his people. Invaded different countries...
How many people did you see him killing since 1992?

How many countries did you see him invade since 1992 while he was subdued by U.N.?

Any?

Which country?

Tell me.

[Ion]

Originally posted by ssibal

...
I do know know about the figures of who killed more civilians but you make it seem as if the U.S. was targeting civilians the way that Saddam did.
...

How many civilians Hussein did target in between 1992 and 2003?

Tell me.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Ion

How many people did you see him killing since 1992?

How many countries did you see him invade since 1992, and being subdued by U.N.?

Any?

Which country?

Every person that died from starvation or executed.

You right, he did not invade any countries after 1992.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Ion

1) Did you see proof of Hussein's 'imminent threat to the world' WMDs?

You didn't.

2) Did you see proof of September 11 link to Hussein?

You didnt.

3) Did you see proof of the al-Qaeda link to Hussein?

You didn't.

Did I ever say I did? No.

Yet, Bush's U.S. based its claim for needing to war Iraq, on these.

Now, this is brainwashing working on you, at its worst.

Exactly what does the U.S. claim for needing to go to war with Iraq have to do with whether or not I think the war was a good thing? Where is the brainwashing? I never accepted those three reasons you listed.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by ssibal


No, I do not.
*EDIT* And I mean to knowingly use inaccurate information.
Me neither. I don't understand how people can't see that they're seperate issues. (Somewhat off this topic)

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Grammatron

So basically you can use lack of proof as proof, makes sense to me. Perhaps next you can prove to us how there is no God. Maybe you are just psychic and can see there are no weapons; well in that case Randi has a one million dollars for you if you can prove it.
Grammatron, you seem like a bright guy and I mean that sincerely. Let's be realistic as well as logically consistent. The burden of proof is on the side making the claim. The claim was that Saddam currently possessed WMD and scud missiles and had an active nuclear weapons program. Prove it.

I felt confident that no WMD would be found in Iraq by the third day of the war. Why? Because I felt that if Iraq had any such weapons, we'd know about them within 48 hours after the invasion began because he'd use them! Why would he save them? How can you possibly argue that those weapons--if they existed--presented any threat to the US if Saddam wouldn't use his arsenal to save himself and his regime? (Not to mention that Saddam had no way of delivering those weapons to the US since he never possessed any long-range missiles. The argument that he'd give them to terrorists was another canard. He never gave anything to the Palestinians because he knew that it'd be suicidal. Israel and the US would know where the weapons came from and he'd be attacked. He wouldn't give them to al-Qaida for the same reason, plus, since al-Qaida wanted to see Saddam overthrown, it was as likely that al-Qaida would use the weapons against Saddam as against the US.)

I can't prove that Big Foot doesn't exist. I can argue that various evidence of Big Foot was known to be a hoax and that would still not be proof. However, until you produce Big Foot, I'm not going to believe any such creature exists. Get the point?

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Not much of a rebuttal.

Not much of an argument for keeping Saddam.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Ion

How many civilians Hussein did target in between 1992 and 2003?

Tell me.

That is a typo, I meant to say "I do not know."

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Ion

How many civilians Hussein did target in between 1992 and 2003?

Tell me.

That was a typo, I meant to say "I do not know."

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by ssibal


Not much of an argument for keeping Saddam.
Not much of an argument for supporting the war.

[Ion]

Originally posted by ssibal

...
I never accepted those three reasons you listed.
Neither is the newest Bush's spin of 'liberating' Iraq.

See Iraq's guerilla war now against U.S..

What remains after all, are:

.) Iraq's oil, which I consider a despicable reason for war;

.) Hussein is not funding anymore the Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel, which I consider a positive, but there was no need for a U.S. mass killing of Iraqis for this.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Not much of an argument for supporting the war.

I think it is too late for that.

[Tony]

You guys are wasting your time trying to argue with Ion, the guy is a bonafide retard.

[Ion]

Tony Baloney has spoken like a war baloney.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Grammatron

Every person that died from starvation or executed.
...

How many Iraqis were executed by Hussein since 1992?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Ion

How many Iraqis were executed by Hussein since 1992?

Sorry, I don't keep count.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

The sanctions could have and should have been lifted before the end of Clinton's second term. It was not necessary to start a war and put ourselves in a quagmire to end the sanctions.

I do not think removing sanctions with Saddam still in power would have been a good idea.

So now the sanctions are over and the Iraqi people are even worse off than they were five months ago. Crime is rampant. Electricity is still not back to normal. Women and non-Muslims are being bullied and attacked by Islamic fundamentalists. That's a subject you should look up--how women in Iraq are much worse off now than during Saddam's regime.

Some people are worse off, some are not. Obviously the country is still not 'fixed' but things are improving. And funny you should mention electricity not being back to normal because it was not normal before the war.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Ion

Neither is the newest Bush's spin of 'liberating' Iraq.

Huh? That made no sense. Are you obsessed with Bush? I am not George W. Bush so please stop trying to assosiate anything he has said with myself.

See Iraq's guerilla war now against U.S..

What remains after all, are:

.) Iraq's oil, which I consider a despicable reason for war;

.) Hussein is not funding anymore the Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel, which I consider a positive, but there was no need for a U.S. mass killing of Iraqis for this.

Right, I think it was already clear you were against the war, so what is your point?

[Ion]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Sorry, I don't keep count.
Well, going to war and killing 7,000 Iraqi civilians, killing many thousands Iraqi army, maiming thousands, should be weighed against Hussein's count.

Hussein was a local despot, but now there is a general Iraqi guerilla against U.S., based on these thousands of Iraqis that U.S. has damaged forever.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Ion

Hussein was a local despot, but now there is a general Iraqi guerilla against U.S., based on these thousands of Iraqis that U.S. has damaged forever.

That's funny, because I've read reports that there are foreign fighters in Iraq helping to fuel the so called guerilla war.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Ion

Hussein was a local despot, but now there is a general Iraqi guerilla against U.S., based on these thousands of Iraqis that U.S. has damaged forever.

That's funny, because I've read reports that there are foreign fighters in Iraq helping to fuel the so called guerilla war.

[Ion]

Originally posted by ssibal

Huh? That made no sense. Are you obsessed with Bush? I am not George W. Bush so please stop trying to assosiate anything he has said with myself.
...
Right, I think it was already clear you were against the war, so what is your point?
1) I associate anything regarding the war on Iraq with Bush, because the war on Iraq is Bush's fabrication.

2) The point I am making is that out of the five reasons for the war in Iraq, there is only a small valid one, that could have been achieved otherwise.

The war is completely unnecessary to the thousands of Iraqi victims, and inside U.S. it is an un-patriotic act by Bush who achieved the death of more than 200 U.S. soldiers, wasting $74 billions of taxpayer money during an economic recession, and alienating the international community of countries.

I damn cannot think of one U.S. success by Bush in any endeavor he tried in three years of U.S. Presidency.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Grammatron


That's funny, because I've read reports that there are foreign fighters in Iraq helping to fuel the so called guerilla war.
You know what's funnier?

Foreign fighters in Iraq fueling the so called guerilla war, resemble foreign fighters in Afghanistan who fueled the so called guerilla war against U.S.S.R. in 1980.

That's the 'liberation' that Bush brought in Iraq:

alienating the locals and the internationals.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Ion

You know what's funnier?

Foreign fighters in Iraq fueling the so called guerilla war, resemble foreign fighters in Afghanistan who fueled the so called guerilla war against U.S.S.R. in 1980.

That's the 'liberation' that Bush brought in Iraq:

alienating the locals and the internationals.

How does it resemble it?

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Grammatron


That's funny, because I've read reports that there are foreign fighters in Iraq helping to fuel the so called guerilla war.
From what I've read, the guerilla war (so called by a US general in Iraq) is multifaceted. There are remants of Saddam's regime who don't like being out of a job; some of the guerillas are Iraqis out to avenge the deaths of family members; some are Iraqi Islamic fundamentalists; some are foreign nationals waging guerilla war against the infidel invaders just like the ones who went to Afghanistan in the 1980's to fight the Soviets. Of the latter group, this is something I predicted on this board before the war, and the war supporters made their goofy comments that I could predict the future and was psychic. You don't have to be psychic to make some predictions; you just have to be well informed and willing to see reality. Don't be surprised if the number of foreign guerillas increases greatly in a few months.

EDITED TO ADD: Something the war supporters don't recognize is how the Iraqi war betrayed the war on terrorism and the Afghan people. Rather than stabilizing Afghanistan with a large number of troops, making a strong effort to build that country's infrastructure and funding a national army, the Bushies have allowed the war lords to take over. That's because the resources (troops and money) that should have been applied to Afghanistan were withheld in order to pursue the war against Iraq that the neo-cons had as their goal for years.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Grammatron

How does it resemble it?
A foreign culture (U.S.S.R. then, U.S. now), forcing its values onto the locals under the pretext of a 'liberation', and drawing local and international guerilla resistence.

I guess it would be similar to Islam attacking U.S. in order to 'liberate' U.S. from Christianity and take the U.S.' gold too, with 'only' -say- 8,000 casualties.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Ion

A foreign culture (U.S.S.R. then, U.S. now), forcing its values onto the locals under the pretext of a 'liberation', and drawing local and international guerilla resistence.

I guess it would be similar to Islam attacking U.S. in order to 'liberate' U.S. from Christianity and take the U.S.' gold too, with 'only' -say- 8,000 casualties.

The guerilla resistence in Afghanistan was only because USA funded, trained and supplied it.

If the Iraqi war was about the oil then how come Germany, France, US and UK all got an equal share of it?

[Ion]

Originally posted by Grammatron


The guerilla resistence in Afghanistan was only because USA funded, trained and supplied it.

If the Iraqi war was about the oil then how come Germany, France, US and UK all got an equal share of it?
And the guerilla war in Iraq will become subsidized by someone.

Bechtel, Exxon, Halliburton, BP from U.S. are benefitting from Iraq's oil.

One of Bush's motives for war was to keep France and Germany achieve oil contracts with Iraq in Euros.

Bush wants all international contracts in the world to be done in dollars, that U.S. can print and distribute without work.

So much for Bush's 'free enterprise'.

[Ion]

Grammatron,

I will sleep now, and talk to you later.

[crackmonkey]

Ahhh... I believe 'BP' stands for 'British Petroleum'. I sincerely doubt that they're American...

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Grammatron


The guerilla resistence in Afghanistan was only because USA funded, trained and supplied it.

Talk about historical revisionism! The US assisted the resistance; it didn't create it. It would have existed if we had not become involved, just as the Viet Cong would have existed without help from the USSR.

[Ion]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Ahhh... I believe 'BP' stands for 'British Petroleum'. I sincerely doubt that they're American...
Yes, it stands for 'British Petroleum', is headquartered in U.K., and has an American run operation, with American interests in it.

I see BP across U.S..

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
Segnosaur, I'm not going to waste my time debating each and every point with you.

In that case, can you at least explain one of your biggest whoppers... How the deaths of POWs by American soldiers (after which those who were responsible were actually charged) shows that the US shows the same lack of regard for human life as Saddam (who maintained such actions as state policy).

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
I will point out that you have not made a single argument for why the war was necessary or desirable. You just make repeated references to mysterious reasons why you and others on this board supported the war and continue to do so.


You never asked before for the reasons I myself supported the war, and it was not under the topic of this thread. However, I feel my reasons had been covered in other threads, and should at least be obvious from my responses to your postings.

However, to summarize:
- Humanitarian reasons (Saddam was killing several thousand a month on average, torturing more)
- Iraq's support of terrorism
- Iraq's failure to abide by UN disarmament resolutions made me suspect that he still had WMD (and, even though it is likely he did not posess them at this time, what hasn't been answered is if Iraq truly had disarmed, then why did they not provide the documentation required by the UN?) And before you go spouting off about how Iraq had destroyed all their weapons, keep in mind that there were several breeches that were found prior to the war
- Oil (yes, Oil); not that I would expect the US to 'steal' Iraq's oil (The US imports far too little Iraqi oil); however, I do recognize that the world's economy will be improved by more stable supplies
- Long-term geopolitical effects - I recognize that the US has, unfortunately supported various dictators in the past; in many cases, it was a 'lesser of two evils' case. By installing a democracy in Iraq, several benefits are obtained: Having a 'friend' in Iraq means that they don't have to be as friendly with Saudi Arabia, it serves as an "example" for people living in other Islamic countries that, hey, they too can live without fear of being killed by their government (thus reducing the threat from Islamic terrorists), and it serves notice that the US is willing to act agressively.

I came to my conclusion that war was the 'best' option (of perhaps a bad group of options) based on my own reasoning, knowledge of politics and history (both from schooling, and from personal interest), and research from both pro- and anti-war sides. I did not support the war because Bush told me to, or because I thought Iraq was behind 9/11. And if others have taken the pro-war side for the wrong reasons, it is unfortunate, but I'd rather them take the pro-war side for the wrong reason, than take the anti-war side for other incorect reasons.

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
I don't know what you're talking about when you mention "opinion polls" of Iraqis. Care to cite a reference?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/20/iraq/main559521.shtml

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
And while all terrorism may be bad, that doesn't justify fighting a proxy war on behalf of Likud and against US interests, especially when Israel creates its own problems and refuses to do what is necessary--and morally justified--to correct them.


Although Israel was perhaps the 'main' target of Iraq's terrorist support, a few things should be noted:
- Some of Iraq's terrorist support was given to non-palestinian terrorist groups
- Many "innocent" people (including some Americans and some foreigners living and working in Israel) have died from some of the terrorist attacks
- Some of Saddam's support went to terrorist groups who had the total elimination of Israel as their goal. (Even if Israel did a total withdrawl from the west bank/gaza, dismanteled their settlements, and did verything else asked of them, these groups would still have a mandate to attack Israel). From their point of view, the only "morraly justified" way to correct the problem would be to leave the region.

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
Maybe this is the reason why you fail to state your reason(s) for supporting the war.

I have never 'failed' to state my reasons for supporting the war. I was never asked in this thread before, and didn't consider it the place for it. But I've posted my reasons above.

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
It/they have nothing to do with furthering US interests or security.

As I've stated before, there are benefits to US interests (both economic and security-wise), not because of a direct Iraqi threat, but from various geopolitical and economic effects.

And even if it didn't serve direct US interests, couldn't the elimination of a brutal dictator that has killed hundreds of thousands of people be considered a charitable act? (After all, the UN wants the US to intervene in Liberia, where the US has even fewer interests, and where a lot fewer people have died.)

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
You are a staunch supporter of Israel living in Canada.

Who said I was a 'staunch' supporter?

I think Israel has made mistakes. But before I go and criticize them for their errors, I look at the actions of the Palestinians and other Arab governments around them and weigh things accordingly.

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
The irony is that the war will not help Israel, but will help the Islamic fundamentalists.

What's ironic is that you spend all this time talking about how the war was fought for Israel's sake, then at the very end say that it won't help Israel. That kind of negates your whole point, doesn't it? (The point that they were fighting for Israel's sake.)

As for helping Islamic fundamentalists... so far, there hasn't been much evidence of that.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


The must have been billions spent of satellite surveillance of Iraq by now, I can bet you there are analysts that know the place better than their own neighbourhood. A truck for them is nothing, it stands out a mile away. They had hundreds of sites they believed held something, and so far, they have all come up as a blank.

You know, this reminds me of the Simpson's episode, where Mr. Burns had stolen a trillion dollar bill from the govenment and the FBI wanted Homer to try to find it.

FBI agent: "We've tried satellite surveillance, but all we've been able to determine is that the bill is not on the roof."

My point being: Satellites can only do so much. They can't see activities inside buidings, they can't see 'everything' (not every inch of terrotory can be seen at all times), and its not possible to determine just what a particular truck is carrying.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


You know, this reminds me of the Simpson's episode, where Mr. Burns had stolen a trillion dollar bill from the govenment and the FBI wanted Homer to try to find it.

FBI agent: "We've tried satellite surveillance, but all we've been able to determine is that the bill is not on the roof."

My point being: Satellites can only do so much. They can't see activities inside buidings, they can't see 'everything' (not every inch of terrotory can be seen at all times), and its not possible to determine just what a particular truck is carrying.

That might be relevent if the claim had been "We can't see them with the satellites, but we think they are there somewhere."

No, Powell went and showed pictures and said, "See, here they are! These are building where they are stored, and this dirt lot is where they are buried."

Funny, when people objected to Powell's so-called evidence of weapons presented to the UN, they were dismissed because he even had satellite photos showing the sites. Now you are saying that satellite photos are unreliable? So much for Powell's case to the UN before the war.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by pgwenthold

Funny, when people objected to Powell's so-called evidence of weapons presented to the UN, they were dismissed because he even had satellite photos showing the sites. Now you are saying that satellite photos are unreliable? So much for Powell's case to the UN before the war.

That doesn't make sense... why would something be dismissed because there were satellite photos? Perhaps if they had conflicting evidence, but why would simply having photos make people say "Oh, photots. I'm going to dismiss the evidence now".

I don't exactly think what Powell did in his UN speach was a good thing. I do think that some evidence was exagerated.

That said, Satellite photos are useful, as long as you know ahead of time where to point the camera (and the target you're looking at doesn't know they're being observed, so they can't fool the camera.) From the sounds of it, aup was suggesting satellites as a wide-spread investigaton tool (i.e. let satellites search for certain objects). I'm just pointing out that they aren't as useful in that type of situation.

[Ion]

The wasting-life-Segnosaur, is at it, again:
Originally posted by Segnosaur

That doesn't make sense...
...
I don't exactly think what Powell did in his UN speach was a good thing. I do think that some evidence was exagerated.
...

It makes sense, when:

"I do think that some evidence was exagerated."

becomes:

I do think that most evidence was made of lies.

1) WMDs in Iraq, Segno?

2) September 11 link to Hussein, Segno?

3) al-Qaeda link to Hussein, Segno?

4) nuclear help from Niger to Hussein, Segno?

These are the lies that took place in Powell' speech in U.N. and Bush's speech in the U.S. Congress, both pushing for war on Iraq.

What takes place in Iraq now, is U.S. killing and stealing Iraq's oil.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
In that case, can you at least explain one of your biggest whoppers... How the deaths of POWs by American soldiers (after which those who were responsible were actually charged) shows that the US shows the same lack of regard for human life as Saddam (who maintained such actions as state policy).
What I said was that justice in Iraq under the US is much the same as it was under Saddam. People are imprisoned and have no access to family or lawyers. However, there has been disregard for Iraqi life (and others) from the start of the war: bombing a popular restaurant on a sketchy hunch that Saddam might be there (he wasn't, but a bunch of other people were killed), bombing a marketplace for whatever reason, deliberately firing into a hotel hosting foreign journalists, assassinating reporters from al Jazeera, etc. Stories like the one below from your link don't help matters.

Human Rights Watch alleged that troops used excessive force in the town of Fallujah when they shot and killed 20 protesters and wounded nearly 90 in two incidents on April 28 and 30. The military had no immediate comment on the report, but said it was conducting its own investigation.


Originally posted by Segnosaur
You never asked before for the reasons I myself supported the war, and it was not under the topic of this thread. However, I feel my reasons had been covered in other threads, and should at least be obvious from my responses to your postings.
And your reasons show that you have bought fully into the foolhardy neoconservative program. Why aren't you in Iraq?

Originally posted by Segnosaur

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/20/iraq/main559521.shtml
The link provides zero detail about who conducted the poll or how it was conducted. That makes it useless. Further, it doesn't justify the war. I don't doubt that many Iraqis want the US troops to stay "until the country is stabilized." What is the alternative? Total chaos and lawlessness. Even with the occupation, crime there has skyrocketed. They have no government, no army, hardly any police. The poll says nothing about what time table they have in mind or anything else.

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Although Israel was perhaps the 'main' target of Iraq's terrorist support, a few things should be noted:
- Some of Iraq's terrorist support was given to non-palestinian terrorist groups
Yes, an anti-Iranian group named the People Mujahideen that has been classified by the CIA as a terrorist organization, but which also operates freely and openly in the United States! The United States knowingly is harboring terrorists! It's time for regime change here. The People's Mujahideen is responsible for killing Americans in Iran during the last years of the Shah's regime. Some argument, Segnosaur. Did you think you were going to fool me with that?

Originally posted by Segnosaur
What's ironic is that you spend all this time talking about how the war was fought for Israel's sake, then at the very end say that it won't help Israel. That kind of negates your whole point, doesn't it? (The point that they were fighting for Israel's sake.)

It doesn't negate my point in the least since my point was the irony of doing something (in part) for Israel's sake that won't help Israel at all, and that may hurt Israel in the long run.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by ssibal

I have no problem with us taking out other despots.

And if we could magically remove all the despots today, what do you think would happen then? What would fill the power vacuums? Would it be vibrant, peaceful democracies that respect civil liberties and human rights? Hell no! We don't even have that here in the United States! Don't be naive!

The answer is: new despots.

I don't have the time to write you an essay explaining such concepts as legitimacy and rights to self-determination, so here it is in a nutshell. People get the governments they are willing to support and they overthrow the ones they don't. It is not the place of the US or any other country to decide for them what governments they should or can have.

How big are you willing to grow the government and how fast are you willing to bankrupt the country overthrowing despots and occupying foreign lands for the good of others? And is it a good idea to destroy liberty at home in pursuit of the foolish, futile pipedream of providing it to others?

If you are such a hawk in the name of being your brother's keeper, then why aren't you in Iraq? I'm sure your gung-ho ideas would make you very popular with the rest of the troops in your company who are wearing flak jackets in the 120' heat while they patrol the streets as targets. Maybe that would be why we'd read about you in relation to a friendly fire incident!

[Ion]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

...
And your reasons show that you have bought fully into the foolhardy neoconservative program. Why aren't you in Iraq?
...

Good question Segnosaur:

"Why aren't you in Iraq?"

Can you run?

Then, go.

Go, Segnosaur, go!

[Renfield]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Sorry, but your analogy is flawed. Saddam was not personally driving trucks. Since the overthrow, the US has had unfettered access to Iraqi scientists, government officials, government buildings and documents. (Granted the latter were looted.) $200,000 rewards have been offered for information leading to the supposed weapons. All we hear is the same story from different sources given independently: the weapons were destroyed a long time ago; there were no active programs to replace them; "I would love to collect your reward, but I don't have any information to give."

We supposedly (according to Rumsfeld) already knew where to find the weapons (in the area between Baghdad and Tikrit). What about those aeriel photographs that Powell showed the UN of the new weapons factories? (They held vacuum cleaners and farm supplies.)

However, I suspect that years from now you will still be making your trucks-in-Idaho argument.

What will happen first?

A. Big Foot will be captured.
B. Jesus will come back.
C. Saddam's hidden WMD arsenal will be discovered.
D. You will admit that the whole WMD and Saddam/al-Qaida linkage propaganda were part of a terror campaign by Bush to fool people into supporting a war against Iraq while keeping secret his real reasons.

Heh. This is so true. It's not like an arsenal of WMD are something you can hide easily, even if you have "a country the size of Idaho" to work with. It would be a big operation, with a lot of people involved. And yet nobody's talked. Even with Saddam out of power and a big reward out there for anyone who offers information.

Why not? Are cruel despot Saddam's people really that loyal? I don't think so.

On another note, aren't whether the war was the right thing to do and Bush's (lack of) credibility two seperate issues.
The fact is, they allways claimed they had incontrovertable proof of WMD's and Iraqi's involvement with AlQuada when they were trying to gain support for the war. The administration has pretty much managed to destroy whatever credibility the US had with the rest of the world.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

And if we could magically remove all the despots today, what do you think would happen then? What would fill the power vacuums? Would it be vibrant, peaceful democracies that respect civil liberties and human rights? Hell no! We don't even have that here in the United States! Don't be naive!

The answer is: new despots.

Well, luckily there is no such thing as magic and your magical situation would never happen. We remove a despot and we (hopefully) fill the power vacuum with something better.

I don't have the time to write you an essay explaining such concepts as legitimacy and rights to self-determination, so here it is in a nutshell. People get the governments they are willing to support and they overthrow the ones they don't. It is not the place of the US or any other country to decide for them what governments they should or can have.

Come on, that is like saying it is not the place of anyone to decide whether or not a woman should be with an abusive husband.

How big are you willing to grow the government and how fast are you willing to bankrupt the country overthrowing despots and occupying foreign lands for the good of others? And is it a good idea to destroy liberty at home in pursuit of the foolish, futile pipedream of providing it to others?

Uhm, I merely said that I had no problem with us taking out other despots. This does not mean that I want the U.S. to go out and invade every country and change their governments/leaderships. If I see a quarter on the floor I will pick it up, but I do not actively search for quarters to pick up. The same applies with my stance on the U.S. removing despots, if the opportunity presents itself I think we should take advantage. Bush created the opportunity, whether you think it was for oil, WMD, lies, or anything else he created a situation where Saddam could be removed and I am glad that he was removed.

If you are such a hawk in the name of being your brother's keeper, then why aren't you in Iraq? I'm sure your gung-ho ideas would make you very popular with the rest of the troops in your company who are wearing flak jackets in the 120' heat while they patrol the streets as targets. Maybe that would be why we'd read about you in relation to a friendly fire incident!

You can support something without being directly involved.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by ssibal

Come on, that is like saying it is not the place of anyone to decide whether or not a woman should be with an abusive husband.
Under the law, the woman cannot be forced into a divorce by a third party, can she?

It's another analogy that does not really apply to Iraq, but if the woman makes an effort to separate herself from the husband, then assisting her is the right thing to do. That's why I think it is right to take the side of the people when a government loses legitimacy. That's not how the US typically acts. It tends to support the dictator until it becomes too obvious that he's going down. That's why Carter was so slow to withdraw support from Somoza and the Shah (not that it would have helped us any in the latter case) and Reagan was so slow to withdraw support from Marcos.

Originally posted by ssibal
You can support something without being directly involved.
Like with Bush and Cheney and their support for the Vietnam war.

[Ion]

Originally posted by ssibal

...
Bush created the opportunity, whether you think it was for oil, WMD, lies, or anything else he created a situation where Saddam could be removed and I am glad that he was removed.
...

I am not glad that Hussein was removed by Bush, after Bush lied about his motives, killing Iraqis, and stealing Iraq's oil:

.) international democracy is losing in this process;

.) the removal of Hussein by Bush is akin to U.S.S.R. 'liberating' Afghanistan in 1980.

I am all for removal of Hussein, without lying about the motives, without mass killing of the Iraqis, and without stealing Iraq's oil.

For example, when this is done under a consensus and monitoring by the U.N. international community in order to prevent a single predator -like Bush- to play a solo war game and lie about it.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Under the law, the woman cannot be forced into a divorce by a third party, can she?

No, but the husband can be forcibly removed from the home by a third party (i.e. police) , even if the woman does not want it.

It's another analogy that does not really apply to Iraq, but if the woman makes an effort to separate herself from the husband, then assisting her is the right thing to do. That's why I think it is right to take the side of the people when a government loses legitimacy. That's not how the US typically acts. It tends to support the dictator until it becomes too obvious that he's going down. That's why Carter was so slow to withdraw support from Somoza and the Shah (not that it would have helped us any in the latter case) and Reagan was so slow to withdraw support from Marcos.

Well, do you think that the Iraqi government had legitimacy? By removing the government the U.S. was at least indirectly taking the side of the Iraqi people.


Like with Bush and Cheney and their support for the Vietnam war.

I cannot tell if that was a sarcastic comment or if you are simply stating the obvious? Yes if they supported the Vietnam war they would not have to join the military to show that support. Do you think that anyone who supports a war has to join the military?

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by ssibal

Well, do you think that the Iraqi government had legitimacy? By removing the government the U.S. was at least indirectly taking the side of the Iraqi people.

Just as I suspected, you don't understand the concept. A government is legitimate if the people recognize and accept its authority. If they accept it as the government, if they are not trying to overthrow it, it has legitimacy. They don't even have to like it; they just need to recognize and accept it.

What the US did in Iraq was illegitimate. It (and I won't use "we" in this case since I did not support the action) attacked a sovereign nation without provocation in order to impose its will.

It's become clear to me what the war was really all about. It was a crusade of the neo-con religion.

I have news for the neo-conservatives:

--As long as the United States and Israel do not change their policies and actions, they will continue to be hated by Arabs and other Muslims.
--Democracy in the Middle East does not equal love for the United States and Israel.
--Democracy cannot be imposed by force from the outside with a realistic expectation that it will take root. It's like trying to impose by force an understanding of algebra on a four-year-old.

The neo-con thinking goes like this: The United States and Israel don't need to change themselves; we can just change the Middle East to our liking.

It's delusional, insular thinking that is only going to lead to more death, destruction and the diminishment of our influence in the world. It is an attempt at an end run around doing what the US and Israel should be doing, which is to quit f*cking over those people, especially the Palestinians.

Neo-cons like Rice and Bush say that Iraq is central to the security of the United States. What those empty-heads don't understand is that their policies are achieving the exact opposite: an increase in the threats to the United States.

It is a religious crusade involving the magical thinking of the neo-conservatives. Overthrowing Saddam was supposed to magically transform Iraq into a prosperous Jeffersonian democracy with a deep, grateful love for the United States and an acceptance and love for Israel in spite of whatever actions either took towards other Arabs. This magical transformation was supposed to have a domino effect on the rest of the Middle East whose people would envy Iraq's success and then overthrow their authoritarian governments. Gee, I wonder if it was also supposed to bring Jeffersonian democracy to the racist, apartheid state (http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/breaking_news/6427482.htm) of Israel?

Want to know what will really happen? A guerilla war will drag on in Iraq until the US leaves in frustration. That will likely lead to civil war in Iraq till eventually Iraq becomes another 1990's style Afghanistan with a Taliban-like government controlling most of the country. Meanwhile, Afghanistan has in many ways gone back to the state it was in ten years ago.

[Ion]

I agree with this:
Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

...
The neo-con thinking goes like this: The United States and Israel don't need to change themselves; we can just change the Middle East to our liking.
...
Neo-cons like Rice and Bush say that Iraq is central to the security of the United States. What those empty-heads don't understand is that their policies are achieving the exact opposite: an increase in the threats to the United States.
...
Want to know what will really happen? A guerilla war will drag on in Iraq until the US leaves in frustration. That will likely lead to civil war in Iraq till eventually Iraq becomes another 1990's style Afghanistan with a Taliban-like government controlling most of the country. Meanwhile, Afghanistan has in many ways gone back to the state it was in ten years ago.
When next year Bush gets booted out of the office of the U.S. Presidency and enters -like a true parasite- the board of directors in some big corporation, then the newly-elect U.S. President must be very intelligent in order to repair for years to come Bush's aberration.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Just as I suspected, you don't understand the concept. A government is legitimate if the people recognize and accept its authority. If they accept it as the government, if they are not trying to overthrow it, it has legitimacy. They don't even have to like it; they just need to recognize and accept it.

What the US did in Iraq was illegitimate. It (and I won't use "we" in this case since I did not support the action) attacked a sovereign nation without provocation in order to impose its will.

I respectfully disagree with both your idea of a legitimate government and with what the U.S. did in Iraq being illegitimate.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by ssibal


I respectfully disagree with both your idea of a legitimate government and with what the U.S. did in Iraq being illegitimate.
Then I suggest you spend some time defining the term for yourself. If it is "what I like is legitimate and what I don't is not," then that is very arrogant. Then ask yourself how such a definition (whatever one you settle on) would affect foreign policy and where that would lead. More war? More hatred directed toward the U.S.?

What if others decided to apply the same standard toward us? (I really wish there were a country that could come along and do to the Bush administration what the US military did to Iraq. So I guess the fact that someone in the US wishes this makes (in your eyes) the government of the US illegitimate and any attempt by a foreign state or other entity to overthrow the government legitimate. Wow! Isn't it nice how that works? Then they can install me as the head of a puppet government! I'm liking this!)

Anti-Americanism is a consequence of American intervention. It's so predictable that the CIA invented a term for it: blowback. Blowback is the unintended negative consequences of an interventionist foreign policy. Example: In 1953 the US and UK orchestrated the overthrow of Iran's democratic government and the assassination of its prime minister (Dr. Mohammed Mossadeq) to prevent the nationalization of Iran's oil fields. The Shah was returned to power by the US. The Shah was a brutal dictator who nationalized the oil fields a couple years later anyway. The Shah was overthrown in 1979 and a very anti-American Islamic theocracy took his place. As payback, the US embassy in Tehran was seized and its occupants held as hostages for over a year.

The founders of this country had the right idea. Rather than going abroad looking for monsters to destroy, (http://www.thisnation.com/library/jqadams1821.html) we should, in the word of Thomas Jefferson, seek "peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."

That link is to a speech by John Quincy Adams from 1821. Reflect on how well that philosophy served us till then.

She [America] has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own._

She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy._

She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all._

She is the champion and vindicator only of her own._

[ShowMe]

http://www.afhr.org/en/graves.html


This link has a PDF that shows all of the known mass graves in Iraq (currently known, anyway).

The contention that the war killed "twice as many civilians as Sadaam" (as was previously mentioned on this thread) is ludicrous.

Given time & no WMD being found I will be happy to say I was wrong. At this point I doubt anything major will be discovered, but I feel there *could* be.

Why? Because, if I was a evil despot, all of the people that were involved in hiding these factories would be killed as soon as they were built and functional. Those people that worked in them would never leave; they would be housed on site and killed at the first sign of trouble.

Dozens of factories would be built to look like gas factories, but would actually house something incredibly benign. And I would have them worked only by women, so idf the US (or any other country) ever bombed the place I would have some wonderful propaganda footage.

The above is certainly not an attempt to justify anything, simply pointing out a different point of view. Trying to say that it would be better to have left Sadaam in power is asnine to me; the articles I've been referred to are large on cionjecture and very short on any type of proof.

Did Bush et. al lie? Hard to say...at the very least there was a major breakdown in intelligence reporting and/or interpretation. Whether the intelligence was good and the administration lied, or whether the intelligence was simply screwed up, will eventually come out.

The war has happened, it's useless to argue about it at this point. Shtting the barn door after the horse is gone, as it were.

what will be interesting from this point out is; what now? What happens in Iraq now?

[Wayne Grabert]

Here is an article on the mass graves (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=792) that keeps matters in perspective.

Few people, of course, doubted the depths to which Saddam would sink in maintaining his iron grip on Iraq. And reports of the 1991 uprisings and their terrible toll are an undisputed part of the recent history of the region.

What seems to have been forgotten, however — if only in the West — is the role that the United States played in the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis who rose up, in spite of what they knew to be overwhelming danger, to overthrow the hated dictator. Among Iraq's Shiia majority it is burnt into the collective memory in a way that will come back to haunt Iraq's new American rulers long into the future.

"Our betrayal by the United States will never be forgotten," says an Iraqi physicist jailed and tortured by Saddam. "People remember how they were urged to rise up against Saddam, and how the Americans then turned their backs. They even helped Saddam massacre the Shiia."

Let's not forget the role the US played in unnecessarily killing thousands of Iraqis.

It partly resulted from the American forces' massive attack on retreating Iraqi troops making their way back from the disastrous invasion of Kuwait.

The fierce and concentrated air assault on the soldiers, who were driving across open desert between Kuwait City, Basra and Um Qasr, was described at the time as "shooting fish in a barrel."

In less than 48 hours, tens of thousands died, their blood running in rivulets through which traumatized American ground troops soon found themselves wading. The Basra road retreat was symbolized by a photograph of charred Iraqi bodies slumped over the side of a partly incinerated tank.

In a chilling mirror image of Hilla today, the bodies were bulldozed into pits in the sand, from where the families of the dead were never to recover them or identify what was left of the corpses. Few of those who survived to limp home to their families have recovered from the scene.

And what of Gen. Barry McCaffrey, the general who ordered the massacre of Iraqi troops returning home? He was made Drug Czar by Duh-bya Bush. (Birds of a feather....)

Don't forget the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who were killed by the overly harsh and punitive sanctions. First the US bombed every single water purification plant in Iraq in 1991, then refused to allow Iraq to import chlorine to purify its water because the chlorine could have a dual use. (Why not have the UN monitor and operate the water plants? Because the US wanted to make the sanctions as harsh as possible.)

I have news for you: those mass graves, as horrible as they are, were from 1991, not 2003. Meanwhile, atrocities are a way of life in Africa and other parts of Asia.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by ShowMe
The war has happened, it's useless to argue about it at this point. Shtting the barn door after the horse is gone, as it were.

No, it is not. The people who started the war are still in power and are making plans for more such wars. It is important to understand how they lied and how stupid their policies are so that more such wars will be opposed and prevented.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

...
I have news for you: those mass graves, as horrible as they are, were from 1991, not 2003.
...

I was going in this direction, when earlier in the thread I asked Grammatron and ssibal:

"How many Iraqis did Hussein execute since 1992?"

and wanting them to compare these ten years under Hussein with 7,000 civilians and thousands in the army that were killed and maimed by Bush's U.S. in three months.
Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

...
Meanwhile, atrocities are a way of life in Africa and other parts of Asia.
Bush's concern with 'liberating' anything, is non-existent prior to invading Iraq.

The fool was not prepared to claim 'liberation' of Iraq, and to actually have to do it:

the 'liberation' of Iraq has no plans made in advance.

The fool believed he would find WMDs in Iraq to impress the world while secretely looting oil.

[Mr Manifesto]

A few questions which I don't believe have been answered in this thread or any of the other threads along similar lines yet (though I won't pretend to have gone through them all with a fine-tooth comb).

What terrorist groups were being supported by Saddam?

Why do you think Iraq didn't let weapon inspectors have free run of Iraq?

What's the definition of a weapon of mass destruction? This question is important. It may help to answer a final question.

Which country could be considered guilty of causing the most deaths with weapons of mass destruction since World War II?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

What I said was that justice in Iraq under the US is much the same as it was under Saddam. People are imprisoned and have no access to family or lawyers. However, there has been disregard for Iraqi life (and others) from the start of the war: bombing a popular restaurant on a sketchy hunch that Saddam might be there (he wasn't, but a bunch of other people were killed), bombing a marketplace for whatever reason, deliberately firing into a hotel hosting foreign journalists, assassinating reporters from al Jazeera, etc.

The article that you linked to was not about people being imprisoned, or American bombing efforts, or any of the stuff you mentioned. It was specifically about US soldiers being charged in the deaths if Iraqi POWs. So, I say again: How does a case where American soldiers kill POWS (and actually get charged) show any equivalancy with Iraqi actions under Saddam (when the deaths of prisioners was a matter of state policy.)

Or are you going to dodge the question by throwing out all sorts of garbage again?

As for the issues you did raise:
- As I've said before... there is no Justice system in Iraq; untill judges and police forces are trained (and they currently ARE being trained), things like the status of criminals will be in limbo.
- You claim that the US does not regard Iraqi life; yet the US went though great troubles to minimize Iraqi casulties. I have also heard that before launching military strikes, they consult laywers to see if these actions are valid under the geneva convention
- You complain about them bombing a marketplace. But such events can and do occur as accidents, not as policy
- You complain that they fired on a hotel containing journalists. However, any foreign correspondants should know that Iraq is a war zone, and as such their lives are at risk. Pro-Saddam forces have been known to use human shields in their attacks; if American troops are fired on from the hotel by pro-Saddam forces, then they have every right to protect themselves
- You claim that reporters from al Jazeera were assasninated. Now, assasination implies a direct targeting. Unless you actually have some evidence that this was the case (which I doubt), I suggest you withdraw your slander against the American military

Frankly, your suggestion that deaths caused either by accident or in the name of self defence are morally equivalent to state-santioned murder and torture is distasteful.

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

The link provides zero detail about who conducted the poll or how it was conducted. That makes it useless.

Although it is unfortunate that the poll did not provide more information, it does not necessarily make it useless.
- It was published in a main stream new source, not NewsMax, etc.
- It is more proof of what the 'average' Iraqi thinks than you have ever provided
- I have seen other supporting opinion polls (which I don't always keep links for). In fact, once such opinion poll was actually published in December of last year (before the war), in a British Newpaper, based on a survey conducted by a European company. They did covert interviews in 3 main cities in Iraq, and they found that, even before the invasion, the majority of Iraqis wanted American intervention. (Unfortunetly, the link to the article has expired.)

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Yes, an anti-Iranian group named the People Mujahideen that has been classified by the CIA as a terrorist organization, but which also operates freely and openly in the United States! The United States knowingly is harboring terrorists!

Will you ever get tired of throwing out red herrings? The existance of 'terrorist' groups in the US does not make it OK for Iraq to harbour terrorists.

It should also be noted that this particular organization (the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq) also has supporters in places like Europe and Canada, so it is not just the US that is guilty. It should also be noted that it is fighting against a brutal dictatorship, and it has changed its tactics and focus since it was formed. Still, I find it ironic that you would complain about how this group is free in the US, in the same paragraph you say it was classified as a terrorist organization. Does the fact that it was actually classified as a terrorist organization actually mean anything to you?

The issue (which you have once again totally ignored) was Iraq's support of terrorism, and in particular terrorism that didn't target Israel. One such organization is Abu Nidal, supported in part by Iraq, and resposible for terrorist attacks in places like Beirut, Pakistan, and Rome. It should also be noted that Iraq gave santuary to a palestinian terrorist who had killed an American during the hijacking of the Achilie Laurel cruise ship and was convicted in Italy.

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

It doesn't negate my point in the least since my point was the irony of doing something (in part) for Israel's sake that won't help Israel at all, and that may hurt Israel in the long run.

Oh, that's right... only you, with your massive huge brain power, could ever figure out that the invasion of Iraq will negatively affect Israel. Nobody on earth would ever have thought of such a thing. :rolleyes:

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

And if we could magically remove all the despots today, what do you think would happen then? What would fill the power vacuums? Would it be vibrant, peaceful democracies that respect civil liberties and human rights? Hell no!

Just out of curiosity, just where exactly did he suggest that the US should go and remove all despots? Or are you just creating another straw man?

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Would it be vibrant, peaceful democracies that respect civil liberties and human rights? Hell no! We don't even have that here in the United States! Don't be naive!


Do you worry that you may ever become a parody of yourself? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

I don't have the time to write you an essay explaining such concepts as legitimacy and rights to self-determination, so here it is in a nutshell.

And I don't have time to write an essay explaining how people deserve human rights.
Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

People get the governments they are willing to support and they overthrow the ones they don't. It is not the place of the US or any other country to decide for them what governments they should or can have.


That's right... its all the Iraqi's fault! They wanted Saddam in power! The went to him and begged him to slaugher innocent women and children, and run some of their dissidents though a plastic shredder!

Sorry, but the idea that people will always be able to 'rise up' and overthrow their oppressors is a rediculous notion. It sounds idealistic, but in the real world, we realize that:
- Many dictatorships are too strong to be overthrown without outside interference
- Even if it could, it could cause more deaths and sufferning than is required.

Remember, even the American revolution had a little help from France.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
What terrorist groups were being supported by Saddam?


Some Iraqi terrorist support:
- Payments made to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, and to groups such as Hamas
- Kurdistan Workers’ Party, an organization fighting the Turkish government
- Abu Nidal, having carried out operations in several countries, such as Lebannon, Pakistan, Italy
- Provided santuary to various terrorists. One such case is a palestinian terrorist convicted in Italy for the death of an American abord the Achilie Laurel (sp?)

See: http://www.cfrterrorism.org/sponsors/iraq.html

Edited to add: Rikzilla has published a rather extnsive list of Iraqi terrorist connections in the past, but I haven't seen it lately.

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Why do you think Iraq didn't let weapon inspectors have free run of Iraq?


You know, that's a very good question. I've asked that several times, and have never got a decent answer.

Assuming Iraq did destroy their weapons, why impede the inspectors at all? Why didn't they document everything? In fact, if they really wanted to show they had disarmed, why didn't they actually invite the inspectors back in after 1998 (and before 1441) to actually let them observe any weapons destruction?

The posibilities I can think of are:
- Saddam wanted to 'appear' dangerous so that he would be a hero to the Islamic world, but underestimated US resolve
- Saddam had tried to rebuild his weapons programs, but because of sanctions, wasn't able to obtain materials he needed, but he wanted to cover the fact that he had tried to rebuild them
- Saddam was misinfomed by the people around him; people didn't want to risk angering the dictator by telling them they couldn't rebuild his weapons program, so they lied to him, telling him "Yup, everything is OK"
- Saddam had gotten rid of weapons themselves, but he wanted to keep a plan in place to rebuild his weapons program once the inspectors left
- Iraq never destroyed its weapons, but hid them or sent them to other countries (I'm not claiming they did, its just one of the possibilities)

But that's all guesswork right now.

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

What's the definition of a weapon of mass destruction? This question is important. It may help to answer a final question.


Most people assume that a weapon of mass destruction is Nuclear (atomic bomb, nuclear bomb, or 'dirty' bomb), biological (viruses, bacteria, or 'toxins') or chemical (VX gas, blistering agents, etc., designed to cause serious injury or death. Tear gas may be put into this category, but since its non-lethal, some may leave it out.)

These are weapons of 'mass destrction' not because they necessarily kill a lot of people, but because a large number of people will die from its use than would die from an equivalent mass of 'conventional' wepons.

[Mr Manifesto]

So, Saddam has funded Palestinian terrorists -or freedom fighters, depending on whose side you're on- an organisation that stopped using terrorist tactics in 1999 (the PKK- one (http://www.terrorismanswers.com/groups/kurdistan2.html) link of many), and a terrorist who may have been in hospital in Iraq with or without Saddam's knowledge- we can't be sure.

So much for supporting terrorists.

Compare this with the United States who have supported the Khmer Rogue (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/Support_PolPot_RS.html), among plenty of others. Let us not forget, too, that the US sold out Nelson Mandella to the South African apartheid regime, putting him in jail for decades. The US have not denied this, but have fallen back on the ol' "It wasn't my administration, don't blame me" argument.

The Iraqis didn't let the inspectors have a free run of Iraq because the US were trying to illegally use the inspectors to spy on Iraq. The US has the right to refuse (http://www.oneworld.org/ips2/feb98/us_weapons.html) weapons inspectors for reasons of national security. Why doesn't Iraq have this right?

When it comes to defining what constitutes a weapon of mass destruction, it's interesting to note that bombs don't count, even though they do exactly the same thing that chemical, biological and nuclear agents do- kill lots of people indiscriminately. It's a good thing that WMD's don't have that defintion, because it would have the US in the top five- if not No 1 with a bullet- contenders for the country to have killed the most people with WMD'S- even exluding the number the US have killed with nukes.

Makes you think, doesn't it?

[Ion]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

...
Do you worry that you may ever become a parody of yourself? :rolleyes:
...
That's right... its all the Iraqi's fault! They wanted Saddam in power! The went to him and begged him to slaugher innocent women and children, and run some of their dissidents though a plastic shredder!
...

Segnosaur,

do you worry that you already became a parody of yourself? :rolleyes:

Tell me:

how many Iraqis, did Hussein execute since 1992?

After you tell me this, let me compare it with 7,000 civilians and 20,000 army killed by Bush and many thousands maimed in order for Bush to loot Iraq's oil, in the time of three months.

Now, go and find out for this discussion:

how many Iraqis, did Hussein execute since 1992?

[ShowMe]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
Let's not forget the role the US played in unnecessarily killing thousands of Iraqis.


No, let's not.

Let's go ahead and remove the dictator that is causing the deaths, bring it to a stop even if we are 12 years too late.

Oh, wait...we already did that.

To assume that Sadamm did all the mass killings in 1992 then suddenly stopped is illogical; brutal killers don't just stop for no reason.

Personlly, I think President Bush would have been far better off by going with that tactic ("The United States has a moral responsibility to finish what it started in 1991, to end the suffering of the Iraqi people under the brutla regime ...etc. etc.) than with the WMD issue.

I have seen reports that there is evidence of a WMD program, gleened from long interviews with Iraqi scientists. British and US papers both carry the story that we should hear something by mid September; time will tell if it's real or not.

As for the sanctions and "just letting the UN monitor the chlorine"...rrriiighhhht. The Iraqi's we *so* incredibly cooperative witht he UN in the past, I'm certain they would have opened the door wide for them.

Was the war justified? Hard to say, but it seems to have put the world on notice. Since 9/11 we haven't had any terrorist attacks on US soil, and back then most pundits were prediction several attacks "within the next year".

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
So, Saddam has funded Palestinian terrorists -or freedom fighters, depending on whose side you're on- an organisation that stopped using terrorist tactics in 1999 (the PKK- one (http://www.terrorismanswers.com/groups/kurdistan2.html) link of many), and a terrorist who may have been in hospital in Iraq with or without Saddam's knowledge- we can't be sure.


Keep in mind that:
- Many of the palestinian terrorist groups that Saddam was supporting had as their goal the complete elimination of Israel. Even if you have the belief that Israel is wrong over the settlement issue and the occupation of the west bank, all but te most extreme here will say Isreael has a right to exist. The groups Saddam was funding fought against that. Add to that the fact that Abu Nidal actually carried out terrorist attacks in countries other than Israel.
- Even though the PKK had a call to set down their arms in 1999, it wasn't until several years later that they ceased all activities
- The terrorist that was found in Iraq... pretty much everyone in the west knew where he was, so its doubtful that Saddam wouldn't know about him being in Iraq. (He was there for a decade)
- Say what you want about the list; obviously the UN (according to 1441) felt that Iraq was still supporting terrorism

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Compare this with the United States who have supported the Khmer Rogue (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/Support_PolPot_RS.html), among plenty of others. Let us not forget, too, that the US sold out Nelson Mandella to the South African apartheid regime, putting him in jail for decades. The US have not denied this, but have fallen back on the ol' "It wasn't my administration, don't blame me" argument.


Lets see:
- Why is the "it wasn't my administration" argument valid? Do we still blame Japan for bombing pearl harbour? Or the Germans for the holocaust?
- The US has done bad things. However, why should one bad mean that a country can never do anything 'good' again?


Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
The Iraqis didn't let the inspectors have a free run of Iraq because the US were trying to illegally use the inspectors to spy on Iraq. The US has the right to refuse (http://www.oneworld.org/ips2/feb98/us_weapons.html) weapons inspectors for reasons of national security. Why doesn't Iraq have this right?


Iraq does not have the right to reject inspections because Resolution 1441 does not give them the right. End of story.

From 1441:
UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available.
Sorry, nothing in there about Iraq having the right of refusal for inspectors.

If Iraq REALLY wanted to reject any of the resolutions outright, then they do have that right; however the terms of the ceasefire that ended the first gulf war require that Iraq follow all resolutions. If they reject the resolutions, they reject the cease fire, and a state of war exists.

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
When it comes to defining what constitutes a weapon of mass destruction, it's interesting to note that bombs don't count

It not interesting in the least.

I already explained why some weapons are clasified as Weapons of Mass Destruction and others are not: Its because a WMD will cause more dammage that a "conventional" weapon with an equal payload mass. I explained that. Too bad you didn't bother to read it.

[Ion]

Originally posted by ShowMe

...
To assume that Sadamm did all the mass killings in 1992 then suddenly stopped is illogical; brutal killers don't just stop for no reason.
...

1.) How many Iraqis did Hussein execute since 1992?

Show me.

2.) Bush lied about:

2.a) WMDs in Iraq he knew about;

2.b) September 11 link with Hussein;

2.c) al-Qaeda link with Hussein;

2.d) Niger link with Hussein;

2.e) 'liberating' Iraq, which the guerilla war disputes it now;

2.f) hiding the benefit of the war, which in fact is for a few
American companies like Exxon, Bechtel, Halliburton and
the U.S. branch of B.P..

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Then I suggest you spend some time defining the term for yourself. If it is "what I like is legitimate and what I don't is not," then that is very arrogant. Then ask yourself how such a definition (whatever one you settle on) would affect foreign policy and where that would lead. More war? More hatred directed toward the U.S.?

Get real. Do you honestly believe that the majority of Iraqis wanted to keep Saddam in power? That the majority preferrred having Saddam in power? It is unrealistic to expect some people to be able to stand up to a brutal dictator. Hey, that poor battered woman could not stand up to her husband so that means that she sees her marriage as legitimate. I do not define the term as what I like, it is what is best for the people involved. It all depends on the situation. But to claim that Iraq was better off with Saddam is ridiculous. Without U.S. intervention Saddam probably would have stayed in power until he died, most likely of natural causes not some sort of rebellion by the people. Then his sons would likely have taken control, that would not have been a pretty sight. As for how my definition would affect foreign policy, I have already stated that I do not advocate invading every country with a despot to fix it. We have our own priorities to take care of first but should the situation arise where we can remove one we should take advantage.

What if others decided to apply the same standard toward us? (I really wish there were a country that could come along and do to the Bush administration what the US military did to Iraq. So I guess the fact that someone in the US wishes this makes (in your eyes) the government of the US illegitimate and any attempt by a foreign state or other entity to overthrow the government legitimate. Wow! Isn't it nice how that works? Then they can install me as the head of a puppet government! I'm liking this!)

Do you really wish that a country would attack the U.S. simply to remove the "Bush regime?" That is stupid. Others cannot apply the same standard to the U.S. because we have frequent elections and our leaders are constantly changing (and determined by the people). Others know that Bush will be out of office in at least 1 year or at the most 5 years. Thus, there is no need to invade the country. The same applies for our Congress. You see, we are not a brutal dictatorship, the people here can vote who they do not like out of power rather than needing a revolution or some other nation to invade and do it for us.

[Ion]

Originally posted by ssibal

Get real. Do you honestly believe that the majority of Iraqis wanted to keep Saddam in power?
...

To Iraqis, Hussein and Bush are bad, with Bush being worse than Hussein.

The best solution to Iraq, was U.N..

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Ion
The best solution to Iraq, was U.N..

We had the UN solution (sanctions) for nearly 12 years and did nothing but slowly kill the Iraqi population.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

The article that you linked to was not about people being imprisoned, or American bombing efforts, or any of the stuff you mentioned. It was specifically about US soldiers being charged in the deaths if Iraqi POWs. So, I say again: How does a case where American soldiers kill POWS (and actually get charged) show any equivalancy with Iraqi actions under Saddam (when the deaths of prisioners was a matter of state policy.)

Or are you going to dodge the question by throwing out all sorts of garbage again?
Your favorite tactic is dodging issues and criticisms by creating strawmen and then asking the other party to defend your strawman. No wonder you admire a bunch of liars like those in the Bush administration.

I provided more than one link. Go back through my posts. One was on how Iraqis were being imprisoned without access to family and lawyers.

Second, I did not use the word "equivalancy." YOU did. That is your strawman for avoiding the issue of US conduct that is "much the same" (what I said) as the behavior of Saddam's regime. And that article about the soldiers torturing Iraqis was one incident, but not an isolated one. I don't put our soldiers on the same level as the Iraqis. I'm pointing out how all the talk about "liberating Iraq" and bringing democracy is being betrayed by our actions. I'll withdraw that article from the discussion since it was never meant to be more than a minor point, but it is a major obsession with you in your quest to avoid the central issues. Here is a bigger point: Rumsfeld declaring that we would not allow an Islamic republic to come to power in Iraq under any circumstances. So much for allowing Iraq their choice of self-rule.

Originally posted by Segnosaur
- You complain that they fired on a hotel containing journalists. However, any foreign correspondants should know that Iraq is a war zone, and as such their lives are at risk. Pro-Saddam forces have been known to use human shields in their attacks; if American troops are fired on from the hotel by pro-Saddam forces, then they have every right to protect themselves
- You claim that reporters from al Jazeera were assasninated. Now, assasination implies a direct targeting. Unless you actually have some evidence that this was the case (which I doubt), I suggest you withdraw your slander against the American military
It was widely reported that the hotel was well known to house foreign journalists and that there were NO incidences of American troops being fired upon from the hotel. It was a deliberate act of intimidation and pettiness.

There have been too many incidences of al Jazeera's offices being bombed and their reporters being shot for it to be accidental. This list of events (http://www.independent-media.tv/censorship.cfm) is from the British newspaper The Independent. Here are a few excerpts. The full list presents a compelling case that the Bush administration has a policy of deliberate targeting of journalists and censorship and control through intimidation. Was it a coincidence that each time al Jazeera was bombed it was very soon after it did something to provoke public complaints from th Bush administration?

November 19th, 2001 – The Guardian reported about the bomb that destroyed Al-Jazeera’s offices in Kabul, Afghanistan._ The reports states, “Al-Jazeera certainly believes it was a target. Speaking on the telephone to News World from Qatar, its chief editor, Ibrahim Hilal, said he believed that its Kabul office had been on the Pentagon's list of targets since the beginning of the conflict…”._

The same report quotes spokesman, US Col. Brian Hoey as saying, "The US military does not and will not target media. We would not, as a policy, target news media organisations - it would not even begin to make sense."

March 28th , 2003 – The Guardian report, “Al-Jazeera tells the truth about war”, stated, “Last Tuesday, while western channels were celebrating a Basra ‘uprising’ which none of them could have witnessed since they don't have reporters in the city, our correspondent in the Sheraton there returned a rather flat verdict of ‘uneventful’ - a view confirmed shortly afterwards by a spokesman for the opposition Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. By reporting propaganda as fact, the mainstream media had simply mirrored the Blair/Bush fantasy that the people who have been starved by UN sanctions and deformed by depleted uranium since 1991 will greet them as saviours.”

April 2nd, 2003 – The Guardian reports, “A hotel in Basra being used as a base by al-Jazeera's team of correspondents in the city was shelled this morning, the Arabic TV news channel has claimed. The Basra Sheraton, whose only guests are al-Jazeera journalists, received four direct hits this morning during a heavy artillery bombardment, according to the Qatar-based broadcaster.”

The same article later states, “Al-Jazeera had officially advised the Pentagon of all relevant details pertaining to its reporters covering the war on Iraq, as stipulated by relevant international practice and conventions governing reporting wars. The details included official HQs of all its reporters in Basra, Mosul and Baghdad."

And further, “The shelling of the Basra Sheraton mirrors a similar incident during the Afghan war, when al-Jazeera accused the US military of deliberately targeting its Kabul office, despite having told the Americans where its reporters were based.”

April 8th, 2003 – Al Jazeera reports, "Al-Jazeera office is located in a residential area and there is no way that the attack was a mistake." said Yasser Abu Hilalah, Al-Jazeera correspondent.

They were both standing on the roof getting ready for a live broadcast amid intensifying bombardment of the city when the building was hit by two missiles.__Shortly afterwards, US warplanes returned to hit the neighbouring Abu Dhabi TV offices.

April 8th, 2003 – Reuters reports, "A U.S. tank fired on a Baghdad hotel packed with foreign journalists on Tuesday, killing two cameramen, one from Reuters, the other from Spanish television."

And don't give me that "slander against the American military" bullsh*t! You couldn't give a crap less about the lives of American soldiers.

Originally posted by Segnosaur
- I have seen other supporting opinion polls (which I don't always keep links for). In fact, once such opinion poll was actually published in December of last year (before the war), in a British Newpaper, based on a survey conducted by a European company. They did covert interviews in 3 main cities in Iraq, and they found that, even before the invasion, the majority of Iraqis wanted American intervention. (Unfortunetly, the link to the article has expired.)
You have your facts wrong. An unscientific "poll" (interviews with middle-class Iraqis) was conducted by a British humanitarian group. It revealed that most would favor a US intervention if it was quick, relatively painless and would end the sanctions.

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Will you ever get tired of throwing out red herrings? The existance of 'terrorist' groups in the US does not make it OK for Iraq to harbour terrorists.
It should also be noted that this particular organization (the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq) also has supporters in places like Europe and Canada, so it is not just the US that is guilty. It should also be noted that it is fighting against a brutal dictatorship, and it has changed its tactics and focus since it was formed. Still, I find it ironic that you would complain about how this group is free in the US, in the same paragraph you say it was classified as a terrorist organization. Does the fact that it was actually classified as a terrorist organization actually mean anything to you?
What a statement from the king of red herring throwers! It obviously means nothing to you or to the Bush administration that the State Department classified the group a terrorist organization

Then you use the illogic that the US was justified in attacking Iraq because Saddam harbored a terrorist group that is allowed to operate openly and freely in the United States (they even lobby Congress) and that is being courted by some members of the Bush Administration! You hypocritically argue that support for terrorism cannot be tolerated and then defend tolerating terrorism by groups whose end aims you favor! You are a HUGE hypocrite!

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Oh, that's right... only you, with your massive huge brain power, could ever figure out that the invasion of Iraq will negatively affect Israel. Nobody on earth would ever have thought of such a thing. :rolleyes:
Only me? Another strawman! There are many critics of this war on record making the same point. The difference is that the evidence is in our favor and not in favor of the delusional neo-conservatives, such as yourself, who have been proven wrong on how the Iraqis and the rest of the region would react.

Look! More proof of Iraqi liberation! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2986962.stm)

Some radical clerics demand that all women wear the veil

UN officials in Baghdad say they are very concerned that religious extremists are intimidating women and girls into wearing the veil.

In particular, some radical clerics have demanded that women - even Christians - wear the veil.

The UN officials have also expressed alarm at a reported rise in rape.

Since the end of the conflict in Iraq, radical factions in Iraq's Sunni and Shia Muslim communities have been asserting themselves in the ensuing period of instability.

One Iraqi UN staff member recently received a handwritten letter at home saying she would be killed unless she started covering her hair.

The spokesman for the UN Children's Fund, Geoffrey Keele, said that in some areas there had also been pressure on schoolgirls to start putting on the veil.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Just out of curiosity, just where exactly did he suggest that the US should go and remove all despots? Or are you just creating another straw man?

No, stupid, you are creating a strawman by suggesting that I suggested something I didn't. I was asking a rhetorical question to make a point, you imbecile!

Originally posted by Segnosaur
And I don't have time to write an essay explaining how people deserve human rights.
You forgot to add, "unless they're Palestinians."

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Sorry, but the idea that people will always be able to 'rise up' and overthrow their oppressors is a rediculous notion. It sounds idealistic, but in the real world, we realize that:
- Many dictatorships are too strong to be overthrown without outside interference
- Even if it could, it could cause more deaths and sufferning than is required.

Remember, even the American revolution had a little help from France.
You are wrong on every point. Many dictators have been overthrown in just the last century. I have made the point many times on this board, and I believe on this thread, that assisting a revolution once a government has lost legitimacy is desireable. I also pointed out France's help during the American Revolution. According to my philosophy, out allies should always be the people of the country, not their dictators. However, if the people are our allies, then we need to respect their rights to self-determination and not decide for them what regimes they should have. The majority of South Vietnamese, for example, wanted to unify under Ho Chi Minh. We should have respected their desires, but we didn't. It was a stupid policy and it cost us. The US shows no more willingness to respect the desires of Iraqis.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Do you worry that you may ever become a parody of yourself? :rolleyes:

The Reign of John Ashcroft. (http://www.counterpunch.org/cassel08082003.html)

Americans pay price for speaking out. (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1060380618360)

As usual, you filter out what you don't want to hear.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by ShowMe

Personlly, I think President Bush would have been far better off by going with that tactic ("The United States has a moral responsibility to finish what it started in 1991, to end the suffering of the Iraqi people under the brutla regime ...etc. etc.) than with the WMD issue.

I have seen reports that there is evidence of a WMD program, gleened from long interviews with Iraqi scientists. British and US papers both carry the story that we should hear something by mid September; time will tell if it's real or not.

When are you going to wake up to the fact that the war had absolutely nothing to do with WMD? That was just a scare tactic settled on for "beaurocratic reasons."

As I have explained already on this thread, the aim of the war was to restructure the Middle East to make it more amenable to the US and Israel. It was a thesis founded on ignorance and self-delusion. It is a misguided aim stll being pursued, as these recent ignorant comments by Condoleeza Rice (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/08/09/wirq109.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/08/09/ixnewstop.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=52784) demonstrate.

_In an unusually personal speech, Miss Rice, the national security adviser to President George W Bush, said the push to bring democracy and free markets to the Middle East was "the moral mission of our time", to be compared with the civil rights movement that ended racial segregation in America.

How is that mission to be accomplished? By waging wars. :rolleyes:

The ignoramous then tries to compare her warmongering to the struggle for civil rights by blacks in this country. What she overlooks is that blacks in this country were demanding their civil rights and fighting for them. There is no such movement in the Middle East. When there is, then we can help that by withdrawing diplomatic recognition of any government that loses its legitimacy and we can pressure such an illegitimate government to fold.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by ssibal

Get real. Do you honestly believe that the majority of Iraqis wanted to keep Saddam in power? That the majority preferrred having Saddam in power? It is unrealistic to expect some people to be able to stand up to a brutal dictator.
Here is an article on four revolutions that took place in 1989 alone. (http://users.wpi.edu/~hqiu/revolution.html) Iran overthrew the Shah--twice. Ever hear of Marcos, Somoza, Batista, Amin, Chiang Kai Chek, Suharto, Duvalier? They are a few of the brutal dictators overthrown by popular revolt in the 20th Century.

Originally posted by ssibal
Do you really wish that a country would attack the U.S. simply to remove the "Bush regime?" That is stupid.
You completely missed the point of my argument. Are you able to empathize with someone else's point of view? That would require a conscience. You have one, right? Can't you see how some people would take offense at the many interventions of the US government over the last 110 years? No?

[Ion]

Originally posted by ssibal

We had the UN solution (sanctions) for nearly 12 years and did nothing but slowly kill the Iraqi population.
Then improve on it, under the U.N. Chart.

I repeat:

.) to Iarqis, Bush is the worst;

.) Saddam is bad, but better;

.) U.N. is best, with improvements to make.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


Keep in mind that:
- Many of the palestinian terrorist groups that Saddam was supporting had as their goal the complete elimination of Israel. Even if you have the belief that Israel is wrong over the settlement issue and the occupation of the west bank, all but te most extreme here will say Isreael has a right to exist. The groups Saddam was funding fought against that. Add to that the fact that Abu Nidal actually carried out terrorist attacks in countries other than Israel.
- Even though the PKK had a call to set down their arms in 1999, it wasn't until several years later that they ceased all activities
- The terrorist that was found in Iraq... pretty much everyone in the west knew where he was, so its doubtful that Saddam wouldn't know about him being in Iraq. (He was there for a decade)
- Say what you want about the list; obviously the UN (according to 1441) felt that Iraq was still supporting terrorism

What's funny, though, is that the US is allowed to harbour all the terrorists it wants, as long as the terrorists in question follow -even remotely- America's ideological aims.

Never mind the fact that this is against international law- this is against America's own laws (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/113b/sections/section_2339.html).

A partial -and I do mean partial- list of terrorists America has harbored or continues to harbor include Hector Gramajo Morales, Jose Guillermo Garcia, Carlos Eugenio Vides Casanova, Luckner Cambronne, Paul Samuel Jeremie, Prosper Avril, Carl Dorelien, Michael Townley, Jorge Enrico... Oh dear, the list goes on and on. I haven't even mentioned the Cuban Exiles.

Never mind whatever international laws or UN Resolutions exist against the harboring of terrorists. I say again: This is against Americas own laws. America cannot play by her own rules.


Lets see:
- Why is the "it wasn't my administration" argument valid? Do we still blame Japan for bombing pearl harbour? Or the Germans for the holocaust?
- The US has done bad things. However, why should one bad mean that a country can never do anything 'good' again?

The 'it wasn't my administration' argument is getting old. It was used for the atrocities in Vietnam and Korea, including the deployment of chemical weapons (napalm and Agent Orange). It was used for America's role in rigging or subverting elections in countries like The Phillipines in the 1950's, Italy, Lebanon in the 1950's, Indonesia in 1955... Gawd, this list goes on and on and on. I haven't even gotten to South America (Brazil, Guataemala, Chile, Dominican Republic, Bolivia).

I might also add that, while it would be colouring it a bit brown to say George Bush snr directly sent Mandela to jail, he was in charge of the CIA during a time when the CIA was helping out the South African Intelligence service as much as it could against Mandela's ANC. It makes the 'not my administration' argument look a little weak, don't you think?

As to your contention that America can do good again- you can say that about anyone. Even Saddam, or Hitler. The fact is, though, that America has done evil in the past, does evil right now, and will do evil in the future unless someone says enough is enough.


Iraq does not have the right to reject inspections because Resolution 1441 does not give them the right. End of story.

From 1441:
UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available.
Sorry, nothing in there about Iraq having the right of refusal for inspectors.

If Iraq REALLY wanted to reject any of the resolutions outright, then they do have that right; however the terms of the ceasefire that ended the first gulf war require that Iraq follow all resolutions. If they reject the resolutions, they reject the cease fire, and a state of war exists.

There's nothing in the resolution that says, "America shall be allowed to use UN inspectors to spy on Iraq and feed data back to the US for her own purposes". If you want to see if Iraq has illegal weapons, use the proper procedures. Police can get a warrant to search your house: they aren't allowed to leave bugs in your telephone afterwards so they can find out about your company's pending merger.


It not interesting in the least.

I already explained why some weapons are clasified as Weapons of Mass Destruction and others are not: Its because a WMD will cause more dammage that a "conventional" weapon with an equal payload mass. I explained that. Too bad you didn't bother to read it.

If there's anything more tiring than the 'it wasn't my administration' argument, it's America's habit of shifting the goal-posts. Chemical weapons are forbidden, oh except napalm and Agent Orange, and maybe sarin if we're using it (BTW- you can kill a lot more people with a MOAB or a daisy cutter than a sarin weapon of comparable mass). Bombs aren't weapons of mass destruction- it's all in the payload mass. The fact that it takes two months instead of one day to kill the same number of people seems to make a difference. As if the people indiscriminantly killed are somehow less dead.

And lest you think that I'm creating a strawman, I'm not talking about soldiers. If you're a soldier, you take your chances. This is about civilians, the thousands of civilians in countless theatres of war killed by American bombs. There are tallys everywhere you look on the number of people Saddam killed. How many have been killed by Ronald Reagan, George Bush snr, Bill Clinton and George Bush Jnr? Who is the bigger monster- the easily contained nation killing its own and its neighbours, or the one that kills all around the world all the while shouting that it's in the name of freedom and democracy?

The crux of this argument is hypocrisy. America is one of the most savage global terrorists of our time. It is a country that has not hesitated to commit countless crimes against humanity in the name of something called democracy (and not the time-honoured definition of democracy, but the American definition of democracy). For too long, the well-meaning American people, who should be living in one of the noblest countries in the world, have instead blindly supported the evil elite who run the country and make all the money. 9/11 could have been a means for America's citizens to be cured of their tunnel blindness. Instead, it's tied the blinkers on tighter than ever.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

The crux of this argument is hypocrisy. America is one of the most savage global terrorists of our time.
Speaking of which, it strikes me as odd that the same people who so stubbornly support the war in Iraq for "humanitarian" reasons deride as bleeding hearts those who want to spend government revenue helping the less fortunate in America. However, no price is too high to pay "helping" people in some far off Third World country out of whatever jam they've gotten themselves into, so long as Americans are able to plop their fat asses on the couches of their air conditioned living rooms and watch a sanitized version of a war on Fox News and feel good about themselves. "Look, dude! We're kicking ass!"

I mentioned in my last post that America has a long history of interventionist foreign policy. I'd like to add to that observation that she is an equal opportunity regime changer that has overthrown democratic governments as well as dictators who threatened the interests of United Fruit Company or Standard Oil. You'd think that some people on this board never heard the expression, "Yankee go home!" What sort of ingrate would say such a thing?

I really don't have the time to continue this discussion further. I'm glad you could contribute, Mr. Manifesto.

Before I go, I want to reinforce some points I made earlier in the thread about the neo-conservative religion. The critique in this article (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/25/iraq/main560449.shtml?cmp=EM8707) is by the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee. In bold, I've put comments by Bush that echo the "religious" objective.

Flawed assumptions by President Bush's advisers about postwar Iraq are contributing to Iraqis' resentment of the U.S. occupation and undermining its legitimacy, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said Sunday.

(snip)

Friday was the 100th day since Bush declared an end to major combat. In his radio address Saturday, he said the administration was “keeping our word to the Iraqi people by helping them to make their country an example of democracy and prosperity throughout the region.”

But Lugar and former Democratic Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia, once chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, looked back at the Iraq war in less rosy terms.

(snip)

Lugar recently wrote a newspaper opinion piece that said the administration's postwar planning was so poor that Americans are contending in Iraq “with ethnic and religious rivalries; a long-repressed people; a war-damaged infrastructure already decayed from years of neglect and corruption; a lack of Iraqi democratic experience; and a host of extreme clerics, looters, gangsters and warlords-in-waiting.”

Asked Sunday how the planning was lacking, Lugar replied:

“I think a thorough misunderstanding of how complex the politics of Iraq are and continue to be; an inability to understand the decapitation theory — that is, getting rid of the top types while the workers continue — wasn't going to work,” he said.

“In other words, the basic assumptions, whoever was making them, at State, at NSC, at Defense, simply were inadequate to begin with.” NSC is the National Security Council.

He said the facts in Iraq show “that if we are theorists before the fact, we better all talk about it a great deal more.”

EDITED TO ADD: We ought to cherish what we have accomplished in America: a prosperous country without violent political turmoil. We should be glad that our children are spared the misery and strife that is life in other places. Yet some people are always eager to send them (someone else's children, no doubt) into every Third World sh*t hole there is.

You want to support our troops? Then
listen to them! (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1015684,00.html) The headline is below.

'Bring us home': GIs flood US with war-weary emails

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

No, stupid, you are creating a strawman by suggesting that I suggested something I didn't. I was asking a rhetorical question to make a point, you imbecile!


Well, lets see, in response to a comment by another poster where he said he wouldn't mind if the US got rid of despots, you responded with: And if we could magically remove all the despots today, what do you think would happen then?.

Now, arguing about how that will create more despots is a straw man, because nowhere did anyone on the pro-war side suggest overthrowing every dictatorship in the world.

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

You are wrong on every point. Many dictators have been overthrown in just the last century.


You missed the point where I mentioned without outside interference. Rebel groups typically receive money, weapons, and training from other countries. (Hey, just look at the people on the anti-war side who are quick to blame the US for failing to support the uprising in the early 1990s. But if it were really so easy to replace a dictatorship, why would US support be necessary?)

You also missed the point where even if such rebellions are possible, the human cost (in leaving the dictator in power) is often great. Allowing hundreds of thousands to die

Lastely, a point that I should have made earlier, is that removing one dictatorship (without proper support) typically results in another dictatorship.

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

According to my philosophy, out allies should always be the people of the country, not their dictators. However, if the people are our allies, then we need to respect their rights to self-determination and not decide for them what regimes they should have.


There is a conflict here which you seem unable or unwilling to recognize.... You want the allies to be the people of the country, but then you think that we should not decide what regimes they should have.

The only true way to determine the desires of the people of the country is if the country is a democracy. But if the country is a dictatorship, you will never get the true measure of the people's desires.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

You missed the point where I mentioned without outside interference. Rebel groups typically receive money, weapons, and training from other countries. (Hey, just look at the people on the anti-war side who are quick to blame the US for failing to support the uprising in the early 1990s. But if it were really so easy to replace a dictatorship, why would US support be necessary?)
The Shah was overthrown by popular revolt with no outside interference. The cost in lives was not especially high. Marcos was overthrown in the Phillipines by popular revolt without "outside interference." They established a DEMOCRACY. The US did NOTHING to assist the revolution other than telling Marcos (when it was already obvious) that it was time to go. All this did was tell Marcos that the US was not going to come to his aid to thwart the revolution. Marcos knew he couldn't resist on his own. (Nor would he have been with US help. That would have just killed people and delayed the inevitible.)

I am sure there are other cases, but your point about outside "interference" is not important. If you would READ what I've ALREADY SAID, you'd understand that--if you had any capacity for nuance. There is no problem with assisting a POPULAR revolution. I find it telling of your arrogant attitude that you use the word "interference" rather than "assistance." It's because what you favor is uninvited, unwanted intervention.

Originally posted by Segnosaur
There is a conflict here which you seem unable or unwilling to recognize.... You want the allies to be the people of the country, but then you think that we should not decide what regimes they should have.

The only true way to determine the desires of the people of the country is if the country is a democracy. But if the country is a dictatorship, you will never get the true measure of the people's desires.
There is NO conflict. Take Vietnam, for example. We should have respected the wishes of the Vietnamese people instead of waging war on them to force a corrupt "democratic" government on them. Millions of lives could have been spared.

You've missed the entire point I made about legitimacy. You missed the entire point about the people expressing their will THROUGH THEIR ACTIONS.

In Nicaragua, we resisted the Sandanistas, but they had the support of the people, came to power, and after several years, they created PEACEFULLY their own democracy. However, people continued to be killed in Nicaragua after the Sandanistas first came to power because of the right-wing thugs the Reagan administration was backing.

If we leave Iran alone, they will create thier own democracy (probably not peacefully) within the next 20 years--perhaps before the end of this decade. However, they do NOT want US help.

Sometimes what the people desire is not a democracy. It is the Ayatollah, the Sandanistas or Uncle Ho. We should respect their wishes and continue to be their allies when THEY want to make the next change, which may be to democracy.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


What's funny, though, is that the US is allowed to harbour all the terrorists it wants, as long as the terrorists in question follow -even remotely- America's ideological aims.


If you want to criticize the US for some of its past actions, I have no problem with that. However, I like to put things into context. Yes, they've done 'bad' things, but they had this thing called the 'cold war' going for decades... It was often a case of supporting the lesser of 2 evils.

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

There's nothing in the resolution that says, "America shall be allowed to use UN inspectors to spy on Iraq and feed data back to the US for her own purposes". If you want to see if Iraq has illegal weapons, use the proper procedures. Police can get a warrant to search your house: they aren't allowed to leave bugs in your telephone afterwards so they can find out about your company's pending merger.


What part of UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams do you not understand? Do you want me to explain the words to you in simpler terms?

Iraq had no right (under 1441) to refuse to comply with the inspections. Get used to it.

And it should also be noted that Iraq had also failed to comply with 1441 by failing to completely document their weapons program in their initial submission to the UN. (And this was before any single inspector set foot in Iraq.)

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

If there's anything more tiring than the 'it wasn't my administration' argument, it's America's habit of shifting the goal-posts. Chemical weapons are forbidden, oh except napalm and Agent Orange, and maybe sarin if we're using it (BTW- you can kill a lot more people with a MOAB or a daisy cutter than a sarin weapon of comparable mass).


Napalm isn't clasified as a chemical weapon. It burns, but for all the horrors of its use, its effects are limited. (By the way, other people have posted some information on napalm in other threads.... while its use against civilian targets is not allowed by convention, there is nothing in the convention about its use against military targets.)

Agent orange is a defoliant... its not designed to kill people.

Now, you claim that more people will die from a daisy cutter than a sarin weapon of similar mass... do you have any references for that?

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Bombs aren't weapons of mass destruction- it's all in the payload mass. The fact that it takes two months instead of one day to kill the same number of people seems to make a difference. As if the people indiscriminantly killed are somehow less dead.


Your statment makes no sense. Are you claiming all wmd take 2 months to kill? Or that somehow conventional bombs are less discriminate?

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

And lest you think that I'm creating a strawman, I'm not talking about soldiers. If you're a soldier, you take your chances. This is about civilians, the thousands of civilians in countless theatres of war killed by American bombs. There are tallys everywhere you look on the number of people Saddam killed. How many have been killed by Ronald Reagan, George Bush snr, Bill Clinton and George Bush Jnr? Who is the bigger monster- the easily contained nation killing its own and its neighbours, or the one that kills all around the world all the while shouting that it's in the name of freedom and democracy?


If you want to 'extend' the definition of WMD to include bombs, why not include it further to include things like starvation? How many people died in places like North Korea or China, not from bombs or bullets, but from not having enough food to eat because the leaders stopped food production?

As for whether the people are killed locally or around the world, why should their location matter?

You keep pointing out that the US is killing all around the world... Yet many of those conflicts actually had justification.

[Wayne Grabert]

I want to add the note that I think the type of assistance to a popular revolt that should be given should NOT involve US troops. What took place in the Phillipines is what I have in mind, though at the time I thought the Reagan administration was too slow in withdrawing support from Marcos. I still believe that.

If a government loses legitimacy, it is going down. We should be quick to recognize it and should withdraw diplomatic recognition from the illigitimate government. Diplomatic pressure, including sanctions, should be used to pressure the illigitimate government to fold more quickly. All other forms of assistance to the revolution--especially any use of troops in whatever unusual circumstance would justify that (hard to think of any)--should be coordinated with the international community, which is why I believe there is a place for the UN. UN membership is not an "entangling alliance." It is a forum.

EDITED TO ADD: When I mentioned "sanctions," I meant withholding support from the government, not measures against the nation that would hurt the people.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

The Reign of John Ashcroft. (http://www.counterpunch.org/cassel08082003.html)

Americans pay price for speaking out. (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1060380618360)

As usual, you filter out what you don't want to hear.

First of all, the 2 articles you posted are from extremely left-biased articles. Not exactly the type of data that really gives a balanced view to things.

On the John Ashcroft article:

- Lets see, the Bush administration wants to appoint judges that reflect its views. Clinton had 8 years to do the same thing.

- Part of the article complains about the removal of 'freedom' for judges; yet why is that bad? Make the judges follow the letter/rules of the law. We elect politicians to let laws. We don't expect judges to make their own

On the 'speaking out' article:

- Mention is made of police arrests. However, just because a person is at a protest rally, it does not mean they are immune from other charges. In many protests I've seen, certain elements have performed vandilsm and/or assaulted people. Those people should be charged, just as if they weren't at a protest rally. Could it be that many of those 'arrests' at protests are actually warranted?

- The 1st amendment says "congress shall make no law...". People have every right to protest (peacefully) and state their opinions. However, there is nothing in the constitution that says others have to agree with them, or even listen. And there is certainly nothing that says that I can't speak out against the people speaking out. Freedom works both ways; people like Glover and the Dixie Chicks can speak out, but other people (and companies) are well within their rights to deal with them as they want.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


First of all, the 2 articles you posted are from extremely left-biased articles.
Bullsh*t! Anything that does not reflect your bias is called left-biased. I found both articles linked from a LIBERTARIAN site. That's hardly left-biased!

There have been many criticisms of Ashcroft's assaults on the Bill of Rights, on due process, and on the Freedom of Information act. A government report criticized his handling of detainees. I've seen other articles critical of his attempts to infringe on the independence of the judiciary. Even a left-winger like William Rehnquist criticized him for that!

As far as speaking out goes, anti-war activists have been targeted for harassment at airports (http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/08/75586.php) by the government. (That link is to an article from the UK newspaper The Independent.)

After more than a year of complaints by some US anti-war activists that they were being unfairly targeted by airport security, Washington has admitted the existence of a list, possibly hundreds or even thousands of names long, of people it deems worthy of special scrutiny at airports.

The list had been kept secret until its disclosure last week by the new US agency in charge of aviation safety, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). And it is entirely separate from the relatively well-publicised "no-fly" list, which covers about 1,000 people believed to have criminal or terrorist ties that could endanger the safety of their fellow passengers.

The strong suspicion of such groups as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which is suing the government to try to learn more, is that the second list has been used to target political activists who challenge the government in entirely legal ways. The TSA acknowledged the existence of the list in response to a Freedom of Information Act request concerning two anti-war activists from San Francisco who were stopped and briefly detained at the airport last autumn and told they were on an FBI no-fly list.

(snip)

The complaints by the ACLU form part of a pattern of protest since the 11 September attacks, with the Bush administration repeatedly under fire for detaining people on the flimsiest of grounds in the name of the "war on terror". Many Muslims have had a hard time, especially if they have a surname such as Hussein.


EDITED TO ADD: Here is an article originally from the Washington Post on
Ashcroft's assault on the judiciary. (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0807-04.htm) Since you are not an American, you may not be aware that our system of government involves checks and balances and three co-equal branches, the judiciary being one.

For a judge to be deprived of the ability to consider all of the factors that go into formulating a just sentence is completely at odds with the sentencing philosophy that has been the hallmark of the American system of justice.

U.S. District Judge John S. Martin Jr. who resigned from a federal court in Manhattan in June and accused Congress of attempting "to intimidate judges."

(snip)

The Ashcroft memo amended a section of the United States Attorneys' Manual that previously said federal prosecutors had to report to the department only those sentences that prosecutors had objected to and wanted to appeal. In the new directive, U.S. attorneys were told to report all "downward departure" sentencing decisions that meet certain criteria in nine categories.

(snip)

Ashcroft's critics reacted angrily to the memo, which was first reported by the Wall Street Journal. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) accused Ashcroft of engaging in an "ongoing attack on judicial independence" and of requiring federal prosecutors "to participate in the establishment of a blacklist of judges who impose lesser sentences than those recommended by the sentencing guidelines."

(snip)

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the American Bar Association and others strongly objected to the amendment. In a letter to Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), Rehnquist said that the measure "would seriously impair the ability of courts to impose just and reasonable sentences."

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Your favorite tactic is dodging issues and criticisms by creating strawmen and then asking the other party to defend your strawman. No wonder you admire a bunch of liars like those in the Bush administration.

I provided more than one link. Go back through my posts. One was on how Iraqis were being imprisoned without access to family and lawyers.


I never created a strawman. You indicated that the US was behaving like Saddam. Yes, you posted many articles, but one such article was the article about how US soldiers were involved in the deaths of Iraqi POWs. Are you going on record as saying that posting this article was a mistake?

And who said I admire the Bush administration? I supported the war (often in spite of what Bush did, rather than because of it). But I am also willing to criticize the Bush administration when I feel they deserve it.

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Rumsfeld declaring that we would not allow an Islamic republic to come to power in Iraq under any circumstances. So much for allowing Iraq their choice of self-rule.


How horrible! You mean he doesn't want to see one dictatorship replaced with another? The bast*rd!

Self-rule should mean democracy... One person, one vote. Self-rule should not mean "we'll let everyone in Iraq fight it out, and let whomever comes out on top rule, even if they don't have the support of the majority."

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

It was widely reported that the hotel was well known to house foreign journalists and that there were NO incidences of American troops being fired upon from the hotel. It was a deliberate act of intimidation and pettiness.


That is a very serious allegation. I hope you have more proof than some reporters that think "they must be targeting us".

You claim that there were no incidences of American's being fired on from the hotel. How do you know? Were you there?

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

There have been too many incidences of al Jazeera's offices being bombed and their reporters being shot for it to be accidental. This list of events (http://www.independent-media.tv/censorship.cfm) is from the British newspaper The Independent. Here are a few excerpts. The full list presents a compelling case that the Bush administration has a policy of deliberate targeting of journalists and censorship and control through intimidation.

Did you ever think that maybe these incidences are actually accidents? Or perhaps many of the comments are made by people who were biased against the US?


Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Was it a coincidence that each time al Jazeera was bombed it was very soon after it did something to provoke public complaints from th Bush administration?


Yes it was probably coincidence.

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

And don't give me that "slander against the American military" bullsh*t! You couldn't give a crap less about the lives of American soldiers.


Thank you for telling me what I think. So in addition to all your amazing mental powers, you can actually read minds!!!!! Why haven't you applied for the million yet?

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

You have your facts wrong. An unscientific "poll" (interviews with middle-class Iraqis) was conducted by a British humanitarian group. It revealed that most would favor a US intervention if it was quick, relatively painless and would end the sanctions.


If you are referring to the pre-war poll, the one I am thinking about was run by an organization in Belgium.

Lets see... the war was over in a few months), 7000 people died (unfortunate, but certainly not excessive, and far less than than had been killed in many of Saddam's purges), and Iraq has begun to ship oil and receive supplies. So it was quick, relatively painless, and sanctions were ended.

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Then you use the illogic that the US was justified in attacking Iraq because Saddam harbored a terrorist group that is allowed to operate openly and freely in the United States (they even lobby Congress) and that is being courted by some members of the Bush Administration!

Actually, Iraq harboured (and supported in other ways) many terrorist groups, most of which do not run free in the US.

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Only me? Another strawman! There are many critics of this war on record making the same point.

Or, perhaps we recognize that the war wasn't actually fought simply to help Israel, and most of the pros or cons for Israel are side issues.

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

The difference is that the evidence is in our favor and not in favor of the delusional neo-conservatives, such as yourself, who have been proven wrong on how the Iraqis and the rest of the region would react.


You still haven't shown how pro-war supporters have been proven wrong. (Perhaps in your mind, but the evidence suggests otherwise.)

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Look! More proof of Iraqi liberation! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2986962.stm)

Some radical clerics demand that all women wear the veil

UN officials in Baghdad say they are very concerned that religious extremists are intimidating women and girls into wearing the veil.
...
The UN officials have also expressed alarm at a reported rise in rape.
...
Since the end of the conflict in Iraq, radical factions in Iraq's Sunni and Shia Muslim communities have been asserting themselves in the ensuing period of instability.



On the people suggesting women wear the veil...
- Guess what? Clerics making demands is part of freedom. Here in the west, we have groups who try to impose their views on the majority, but nobody is suggesting that there are problems because of it. Now, in a few years, if the clerics have their way, then I will be concerned. At this point, the clerics don't have the authority, and hopefully when Iraq sets up their constitution, they will have protections to prevent that sort of thing

On reported rise in rape:
- Very unfortunate, but right now Iraq doesn't have a functioning police and court system. (I do have to wonder though how much of that increase is simply from people willing to come forward. In the past, there was govenment sanctioned rape in Iraq, which would never show up in specific stats.)

[fishbob]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/10/opinion/10SUN2.html?th (http://)

I am not sure how left leaning the New York Times is, but Rehnquist is not a left leaner at all.

By trying to make federal judges yield to political pressure from Washington, the Bush administration is engaging in a radical attack on our constitutional system. Even Chief Justice William Rehnquist, whose conservative credentials are unassailable, has warned that collecting data on judges' sentencing practices "could amount to an unwarranted and ill-considered effort to intimidate individual judges."

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Bullsh*t! Anything that does not reflect your bias is called left-biased. I found both articles linked from a LIBERTARIAN site. That's hardly left-biased!


You, ah, do realize that on the web, any web site can link to virtually any page, regardless of its topic? (The Libertarian party is neither right wing nor left wing; however, I believe their policy is that they were opposed to the war; that's probably why they linked to the sites.) The Star and Counterpunch are left-biased, regardless of who links to them.

And, of course my analysis on the star article (people having troubles because they spoke out against the war) still stands.

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

As far as speaking out goes, anti-war activists have been targeted for harassment at airports (http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/08/75586.php) by the government. (That link is to an article from the UK newspaper The Independent.)


There may very well be cases where people were unfairly prevented from flying. In those cases, the government is wrong, and the case should be handled appropriately.

However, I am also familiar with other cases, where anti-war people have complained that they were restricted from flying by the government, but when the case was investigated further, it was found that the person was actually uncooperative with airport security personel (refused to open bags, etc.)

I would have to know the specifics about each individual case to make an opinion. (I'm not going to get all upset about someone loosing their liberties just because they preferred to swear at airport security rather than cooperate.)

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

There have been many criticisms of Ashcroft's assaults on the Bill of Rights, on due process, and on the Freedom of Information act. A government report criticized his handling of detainees. I've seen other articles critical of his attempts to infringe on the independence of the judiciary. Even a left-winger like William Rehnquist criticized him for that!

EDITED TO ADD: Here is an article originally from the Washington Post on
Ashcroft's assault on the judiciary. (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0807-04.htm) Since you are not an American, you may not be aware that our system of government involves checks and balances and three co-equal branches, the judiciary being one.


Probably ever democracy has the same sort of checks and balances.

Here in Canada, there has been a lot of problems with judges 'making their own law'. In one well-publicised case, a judge reduced or eliminated a rape charge just because the defendant was from a foreign country and the judge thought that type of activity was part of their culture.

As I said, the politicians make the laws, the judges help enforce and interpret it. I really don't like the idea of someone getting too small (or even too high) of a sentence simply because of the judge they happen to get.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Here is an article on four revolutions that took place in 1989 alone. (http://users.wpi.edu/~hqiu/revolution.html) Iran overthrew the Shah--twice. Ever hear of Marcos, Somoza, Batista, Amin, Chiang Kai Chek, Suharto, Duvalier? They are a few of the brutal dictators overthrown by popular revolt in the 20th Century.

I do not deny that dictators can be overthrown without outside intervention but it is unrealistic to expect that every dictator can be overthrown just by the people. Regardless, this did not answer my questions. Do you honestly believe that the majority of Iraqis wanted to keep Saddam in power?

You completely missed the point of my argument. Are you able to empathize with someone else's point of view? That would require a conscience. You have one, right? Can't you see how some people would take offense at the many interventions of the US government over the last 110 years? No?

Sure, they can take offense to things that the U.S. has done, but the problem is that our government leaders are always changing. I can see why people today would hold our invasion of Iraq against us. But if some nut comes and blows up a building 10 years from now because we invaded Iraq in 2003, that is irrational and stupid.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by ssibal

Do you honestly believe that the majority of Iraqis wanted to keep Saddam in power?
My sense of it is that the majority are relieved to have him out of power. They now want the US to leave their country soon. This is all besides the point. The invasion and occupation were not in any way justified. It was a violation of international law and contrary to US interests.

Originally posted by ssibal
Sure, they can take offense to things that the U.S. has done, but the problem is that our government leaders are always changing.
The problem is that the policy of intervention does not change. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have had interventionist foreign policies for over a century. That is the problem that must be addressed and fixed. The United States has naively been shooting itself in the foot. Past interventions were done out of corruption to serve special interests. Later ones were ignorantly "justified" by the Cold War. The latest ones are part of a policy of neo-imperialism. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38891-2003Aug9.html)

At forums sponsored by policy think tanks, on radio talk shows and around Cleveland Park dinner tables, one topic has been hotter than the weather in Washington this summer: Has the United States become the very "empire" that the republic's founders heartily rejected?

Liberal scholars have been raising the question but, more strikingly, so have some Republicans with impeccable conservative credentials.

For example, C. Boyden Gray, former counsel to President George H.W. Bush, has joined a small group that is considering ways to "educate Americans about the dangers of empire and the need to return to our founding traditions and values," according to an early draft of a proposed mission statement.

"Rogue Nation," a new book by former Reagan administration official Clyde Prestowitz, president of the Washington-based Economic Strategy Institute, contains a chapter that dubs the United States "The Unacknowledged Empire." And at the Nixon Center in Washington, established in 1994 by former president Richard M. Nixon, President Dimitri K. Simes is preparing a magazine-length essay that will examine the "American imperial predicament."

(snip)

Between the end of the Cold War and the start of the current presidency, the U.S. military intervened in Panama, Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo. In Panama and Haiti, the United States ousted dictators and installed its handpicked successors. In Somalia, a humanitarian mission to protect relief supplies for famine victims became a hunt for a warlord that led to U.S. deaths and withdrawal. In the former Yugoslavia, the United States intervened on humanitarian grounds but has remained to keep order and provide civic stability.

(snip)

For ideological conservatives, the United States' vast global commitments should pose a difficult philosophical dilemma, Preble said. "You cannot be for a system of limited government at home and for maintaining military garrisons all over the world," he said.

Not so, say many "neoconservatives," members of an amorphous political group that has its origins in the defection of left-wing Democrats to the GOP during the Cold War. Neoconservatives tend to favor the use of U.S. power to spread American political values, preempt hostile nations' ability to threaten the United States with weapons of mass destruction, and rebuild nations in America's image.

Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, has put forward the idea of a U.S. "empire of liberty" to spread democracy around the world. On National Public Radio's "Diane Rehm Show" last month, Boot called for a doubling of U.S. military spending to carry out America's global commitments.

The label of empire does not bother William Kristol, a neoconservative leader and editor of the Weekly Standard magazine. "If people want to say we're an imperial power, fine," he has stated.

(snip)

Oxford University historian Niall Ferguson, author of "Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power," says the United States should stop denying its imperial role and study the good the British Empire did in spreading prosperity and progressive thought in the 19th and 20th centuries. Ferguson recently took the pro-empire case before a packed auditorium at the American Enterprise Institute, where he debated scholar Robert Kagan on the proposition, "The United States is and should be an empire." At the conclusion, the audience was polled and rejected the proposition.

(snip)

Henry said the group may set up a nonprofit organization and could sponsor seminars examining how imperial behavior weakened earlier republics, such as the Roman Empire. "We want to have a great national debate about what our role in the world is," Henry said.

James M. Lindsay, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, says the United States veered away from the founders' notion of avoiding foreign entanglements more than a century ago, when it went to war with Spain in 1898. "America Unbound: The Bush Revolution in Foreign Policy," a book by Lindsay and Daalder, finds parallels with the past in the foreign policy disputes taking place inside the Bush administration.

The United States is currently spending as much on military as all other nations in the world combined! How can that be justified from a position of self-defense? It's really about feeding the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned against. We are running deficits of a half-trillion dollars a year. Max Boot would have us adding about a half-trillion to the size of those deficits. We'd bankrupt ourselves in a futile, violent quest to "spread liberty."

That moronic historian Niall Ferguson fails to point out that empire eventually reduced the UK to a second-rate power that was in deep sh*t twenty years ago. Not a history I would want to emulate.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

My sense of it is that the majority are relieved to have him out of power.

But wait! If they did not overthrow Saddam, that must mean they wanted him in power!!! Doesn't it?

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
The invasion and occupation were not in any way justified. It was a violation of international law and contrary to US interests.


Where is this 'international law' that the anti-war side keeps pointing at?

There is nothing in 'international law' to prevent military conflict. There does not even have to be an 'immediate' threat.

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
The United States is currently spending as much on military as all other nations in the world combined!

Where exactly did you get this 'fact' from?

http://usembassy.state.gov/islamabad/wwwh03021105.html

North America accounted for the largest regional portion, or 34%, of 1999 world military spending with the U.S. alone accounting for 33%.

So, its 33%... A significant number, but far less than the value you quoted. And, it should be noted that the US economic production is one of the strongest in the world, so their military spending compared to their GDP is not really that far out of line.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

But wait! If they did not overthrow Saddam, that must mean they wanted him in power!!! Doesn't it?
...

It looks like, to Iraqis:

.) Bush is the worst;

.) Hussein is bad, but better than Bush;

.) U.N. could be the best, by addressing the well being of Iraq in an international forum.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

But wait! If they did not overthrow Saddam, that must mean they wanted him in power!!! Doesn't it?
It means they were accepting his rule. The fact is, the sanctions are believed to have helped him strengthen his hold on power.

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Where is this 'international law' that the anti-war side keeps pointing at?
Where are the UN resolutions that the pro-war keeps pointing to? There are conventions of international law in the UN Charter.

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Where exactly did you get this 'fact' from?

I've seen it more than once in articles with data that isn't four-five years old. Bush has increased the "defense" budget enormously since he's been in office. I won't do your homework for you; I haven't the time. Try making an honest search for information and you will find it. Two budgets ago, we were spending as much as the next 15 nations combined. One budget ago, it was the next 22 or 23 nations. Now it is the rest of the world.

I'm getting a few things out of the way before starting an assignment tomorrow that will require very long days. Don't bother pestering me any further with questions that miss the point. If you have anymore questions, I'll let others answer them.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

...
Don't bother pestering me any further with questions that miss the point. If you have anymore questions, I'll let others answer them.
Wayne,

beware of Segnosaur.

Diluting the topic into tangent big essays contemplating other issues, that's Segno's game.

To focus again:

Wolfowitz, a side kick to Bush -the fabricator of the war for oil in Iraq-, recognizes now that reasons given for the war in Iraq, namely September 11 link to Hussein and al-Qaeda link to Hussein, are wrong.

Therefore, the war in Iraq was falsely advertised by Bush.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


If you want to criticize the US for some of its past actions, I have no problem with that. However, I like to put things into context. Yes, they've done 'bad' things, but they had this thing called the 'cold war' going for decades... It was often a case of supporting the lesser of 2 evils.



Is that what you call it.

What part of UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams do you not understand? Do you want me to explain the words to you in simpler terms?

Iraq had no right (under 1441) to refuse to comply with the inspections. Get used to it.

And it should also be noted that Iraq had also failed to comply with 1441 by failing to completely document their weapons program in their initial submission to the UN. (And this was before any single inspector set foot in Iraq.)

Don't want to redress my actual arguement. Fine. I guess you can't redress the unredressable. Take a look at my analogy again, address the argument, then we'll talk.


Napalm isn't clasified as a chemical weapon. It burns, but for all the horrors of its use, its effects are limited. (By the way, other people have posted some information on napalm in other threads.... while its use against civilian targets is not allowed by convention, there is nothing in the convention about its use against military targets.)

Agent orange is a defoliant... its not designed to kill people.

Now, you claim that more people will die from a daisy cutter than a sarin weapon of similar mass... do you have any references for that?


I don't have an immediate reference for sarin, but I'll point out that the cult of Aum used it in a crowded subway and only killed 100 people- despite the fact that the subway and its ventilation system was the perfect medium for it. They also used it previously using a device to aerate it. They only killed, IIRC, about two dozen people. Bombs are more effective, especially the kind the Yanks use.

As to your comments on napalm and agent orange- the hillarity never stops. "Napalms effects are limited". Yeah, they just burn people to death. Not like other chemical weapons. Agent Orange is a defoliant. The fact that it also happens to kill people and leave millions in Vietnam mutilated or with birth defects... Well, that doesn't matter. Look over there!


Your statment makes no sense. Are you claiming all wmd take 2 months to kill? Or that somehow conventional bombs are less discriminate?

If you want to 'extend' the definition of WMD to include bombs, why not include it further to include things like starvation? How many people died in places like North Korea or China, not from bombs or bullets, but from not having enough food to eat because the leaders stopped food production?

As for whether the people are killed locally or around the world, why should their location matter?

You keep pointing out that the US is killing all around the world... Yet many of those conflicts actually had justification.

North Korea stopped food production? Who told you that? And which conflicts had justification for the US to kill civilians with bombs? Can't think of any off the top of my head.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

It means they were accepting his rule. The fact is, the sanctions are believed to have helped him strengthen his hold on power.


That's right.... And Saddam was surely going to loose power if the sanctions were not implied. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Where are the UN resolutions that the pro-war keeps pointing to? There are conventions of international law in the UN Charter.


You keep suggesting that the war was against 'international law'... I was asking you to point out where it suggests that.

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

I've seen it more than once in articles with data that isn't four-five years old. Bush has increased the "defense" budget enormously since he's been in office. I won't do your homework for you; I haven't the time. Try making an honest search for information and you will find it. Two budgets ago, we were spending as much as the next 15 nations combined. One budget ago, it was the next 22 or 23 nations. Now it is the rest of the world.


Oh, I get it... The anti-war side is allowed to post any "facts" they want, and if someone actually challenges them, its their fault for not doing the "research".

Sorry, it doesn't fly. Those making wild claims about spending should be able to back them up.

(By the way, I am aware that American military spending has increased, but nowhere near enough to put them over 'half' the world's expenditures.)

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

I'm getting a few things out of the way before starting an assignment tomorrow that will require very long days. Don't bother pestering me any further with questions that miss the point. If you have anymore questions, I'll let others answer them.

In that case, don't bother making wild claims and accusations that you can't back up until you have the time.

[Wayne Grabert]

Look, dickhead. (http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/pubaffairs/we/2002/berkowitz_0402.html)

The first number is $750 billion. That's what all the world's nations combined spend on defense, according to the CIA World Factbook. It has been declining most years—but slowly—since the end of the cold war.

The second number is 3.2 percent. That's the part of the U.S. gross national product that our country spends on defense. It has been slowly declining, too, for the past decade. The percentage is small by historic standards. During the cold war it ranged from two to four times greater. It means we can maintain our current defense budgets with little or no effect on the U.S. economy. We're running at a comfortable pace.

The third number is $379 billion—the defense budget requested by the Bush administration for fiscal year 2003. It includes a $10 billion contingency fund to fight terrorism. What's interesting about this number is that the United States now spends as much on defense as everyone else in the world combined.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Don't want to redress my actual arguement. Fine. I guess you can't redress the unredressable. Take a look at my analogy again, address the argument, then we'll talk.


Your initial 'argument' seemed to be that Iraq had the right to impede the UN weapons inspectors because they felt they were 'spies' for the US, and that right came from the fact that other countries such as the US had the right to exclude people from being inspectors based on security concerns.

I was pointing out that Iraq had no such rights under the terms of the UN resolutions. Are you having troubles understanding that concept?

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

I don't have an immediate reference for sarin, but I'll point out that the cult of Aum used it in a crowded subway and only killed 100 people- despite the fact that the subway and its ventilation system was the perfect medium for it. They also used it previously using a device to aerate it. They only killed, IIRC, about two dozen people. Bombs are more effective, especially the kind the Yanks use.


First of all, sarin isn't necessarily the most deadly agent out there anymore. Secondly, 'only' 100 people, to me sounds fairly serious. Given the fact that conventional bombs (like the ones that Palestinian terrorists use) only kill maybe a dozen people at a time (even when they explode them in busy market places, buses, etc.), and I'd say Sarin is a fairly nasty item.

"bombs" may be more effective, but that's mostly because they tend to have a very large payload.

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

As to your comments on napalm and agent orange- the hillarity never stops. "Napalms effects are limited". Yeah, they just burn people to death. Not like other chemical weapons.

I never said Napalm was a nice way to die.

But, ounce for ounce, I'd rather be exposed to napalm than Vx gas, or Ricine.

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Agent Orange is a defoliant. The fact that it also happens to kill people and leave millions in Vietnam mutilated or with birth defects... Well, that doesn't matter. Look over there!


Yes.... Agent orange caused birth defects. Or did it?

http://www.fumento.com/reasonagent.html
Never mind that studies in both the United States (by the Centers for Disease Control) and Australia found that the children of Vietnam vets had as few or fewer birth defects than the general population.

Now, that's for American personel... things may be different for the Vietnamese themselves. But, if Agent Orange were such a problem, you would expect at least some problem with the American vets.

Of course, some substances like Thalidomide actually did cause birth defects too, but I doubt anyone is going to suggest that the medical community was engaged in chemical warfare with pregnant women.

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

North Korea stopped food production? Who told you that?

North Korea may not have stopped food production, but they have no problems letting their people starve. (And, if a country can't feed its own people, but has the resources to field one of the biggest miltaries in the world and engage in nuclear weapons construction, the blame should go to the people who run North Korea.)

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

And which conflicts had justification for the US to kill civilians with bombs? Can't think of any off the top of my head.

How's this for a guide? If the number of civilians that would be killed by the action's of a countries leaders is substantially greater than the number of people that would be killed by military action, then military action should at least be considered.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

My sense of it is that the majority are relieved to have him out of power. They now want the US to leave their country soon. This is all besides the point. .

How is it besides the point? The point is that they did not want Saddam. How do you think they felt while Saddam was in power? I would say they wanted him out.

The invasion and occupation were not in any way justified. .

Those are both a matter of opinion. I respectfully disagree.

It was a violation of international law and contrary to US interests.

Violation of international law? Exactly what international law were we violating? Why is it that the UN has not issued an official condemnation if we broke some sort of international law? As for it being contrary to U.S. interests, it depends on what you think the U.S. interests are.

The problem is that the policy of intervention does not change. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have had interventionist foreign policies for over a century. That is the problem that must be addressed and fixed. The United States has naively been shooting itself in the foot. Past interventions were done out of corruption to serve special interests. Later ones were ignorantly "justified" by the Cold War. The latest ones are part of a policy of neo-imperialism. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38891-2003Aug9.html)

So what foreign policy do you propose? Do not do anything until someone asks for help? Still, it does not matter that different administrations have had interventionist policies. They are still different administrations, the next one could easily choose to not intervine in any world affairs. The problem is that we are so intertwined with the rest of the world that some sort of intervention is practically unavoidable.



The United States is currently spending as much on military as all other nations in the world combined! How can that be justified from a position of self-defense? .

It can be justified because we are the most prosperous nation in the world. We have the most to lose, therefore it is not surprising that we would spend the most to protect ourselves. It is for the same reason that someone making millions a year spends more on security than someone who makes $30,000 a year.

That moronic historian Niall Ferguson fails to point out that empire eventually reduced the UK to a second-rate power that was in deep sh*t twenty years ago. Not a history I would want to emulate.

You can hardly consider the U.S. to be an empire.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

...
You keep suggesting that the war was against 'international law'... I was asking you to point out where it suggests that.
...

and
Originally posted by ssibal

...
Violation of international law? Exactly what international law were we violating?
...

Here:

Article 51 of the U.N. Chart allows individual states to act on their own without Security Council approval in case of self-defense only, which was not met by U.S. in Iraq:

"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."

U.S., a signatory of the U.N. Chart, has not exercised "...this right of self-defense..." when it attacked Iraq based on lies (WMDs, September 11, al-Qaeda, and Niger links, 'liberation'), but U.S., a signatory of the U.N. Chart, sure it broke its signature of the U.N. Chart instead.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Ion

and

Here:

Article 51 of the U.N. Chart allows individual states to act on their own without Security Council approval in case of self-defense only, which was not met by U.S. in Iraq:
U.S., a signatory of the U.N. Chart, has not exercised "...this right of self-defense..." when it attacked Iraq based on lies (WMDs, September 11, al-Qaeda, and Niger links, 'liberation'), but U.S., a signatory of the U.N. Chart, sure it broke its signature of the U.N. Chart instead.


You forgot to consider the relevant UN resolutions on Iraq (i.e. Security Council approval) which legally allow us. And the abscence of any sort of official condemnation suggests that that is the case.

[Ion]

No, I didn't forgot.

1441 and 6xx -I think, but I can dig them- are the U.N. Resolutions.

They call for Iraq's compliance with U.N. inspections.

In case of breach by Iraq, they don't call for war, they call for assessment by U.N..

When the U.N. Security Council met, it didn't asses war, but it did assess that the inspections make progress.

Remember the U.N. Security Council opposition to Bush?
It's about this assessment.

This is elementary.

You play dumb again, but I remember that Wayne told you this already in this thread.

As for official condemnation, Russia is pushing for it, and it grows as we speak.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Ion

...
U.S., a signatory of the U.N. Chart, has not exercised "...this right of self-defense..." when it attacked Iraq based on lies (WMDs, September 11, al-Qaeda, and Niger links, 'liberation'), but U.S., a signatory of the U.N. Chart, sure it broke its signature of the U.N. Chart instead.
Here is how Powell in February 2003 tried to pull a fast one in U.N. with extraordinary claims against Iraq, how U.N. didn't accept them then, followed by Bush and Powell warring against Iraq by breaking the U.N. Chart Article 51, and how the extraordinary claims made by Powell against Iraq turn out for the world to see today as being all bogus:

here is the article (http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/nation/6497528.htm)

I think that the fool Bush expected to find WMDs in Iraq -against the experience to the contrary by U.N.-, expected the world to 'Oooooooh and Aaaaaah' about these WMDs, while Bush sneaking in some secret Iraq's oil looting.

Not finding WMDs in Iraq, made Bush improvise 'liberation' of Iraq, and actually pretend to deliver it -since the mishap of WMDs is in plain view-.

So, Bush asked recently the U.S. Congress for unplanned extra-funding.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by ssibal


How is it besides the point? The point is that they did not want Saddam. How do you think they felt while Saddam was in power? I would say they wanted him out.

It is not our responsibility! Who let Saddam and the Ba'ath Party come to power in the first place? The Iraqi people. If you're such a do-gooder, go to Iraq and feel the love!

I've articulated my idea of a non-interventionist foreign policy already. I've provided materials that show that a growing body of thinkers consider the US a type of military empire. (We have bases in dozens of countries.)

The defense budget is not justified because it is excessive. We are feeding the pork barrel of the military-industrial complex and headed for eventual fiscal disaster.

Do you support any fool politician who calls him/herself a Republican, or just any fool politician? Maybe you should wear a target on the seat of your pants.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Ion



I just wanted to congratulate you for posting this. This is the type of posting I can respect; you did research, and gave content relevant to the previous posts. I do look forward to seeing more like that from you (hopefully you'll be able to stay on topic in later posts.)

So, lets take a look at the information you posted:

Originally posted by Ion

Article 51 of the U.N. Chart allows individual states to act on their own without Security Council approval in case of self-defense only, which was not met by U.S. in Iraq:

"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

Ok, this says that a country has the right to engage in warfare if they are (or an allie is) attacked. However, it says nothing of the rights of countries to engage in warfare for other reasons. (This particular article never says that they can act in self-defence only. Saying that it does is reading too much into it.

Originally posted by Ion

Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."


Ok, this indicates that warfare for self-defence should be reported to the security council for action. Fair enough.

Now, if you want to use this as proof that the war was somehow illegal, it fails on at least 3 points:

- As I mentioned before, the particular article refers to the rights of countries to defend themselves if attacked. It says nothing about the legality of launching preemptive strikes.

- Even if you assume that this article does rule out pre-emptive strikes, it says nothing about how the original attacks must be carried out, nor does it say what an appropriate response is. It could be argued that Iraq's support of terrorism is a war "by proxy". (i.e. you can't hire mercinaries to attack other countries and then say "but they weren't our soldiers so you can't blame us".) You could also argue that there are many issues surrounding Gulf War 1 that were never resolved to Kuwait's satisfaction (e.g. property confiscated by Iraq but not returned, mentioned in 1441). Furthermore, there were attempts by Iraq to target American planes patrolling the no-fly zones. Either way, the article allows 'collective' defence, and the US (as an allie to the 'victims', as well as a 'victim' itself) has the right to defend itself against attackers.

- Even if you assume that both of the above points don't apply, the 'effect' of the resolution is that it gets reported to the Security council for action. However, the security council has not reacted to the invasion. Now, the anti-war side is quick to point out that 1441 required any breaches to be handled by the security council (which did nothing about them). So, if you are going to claim that only the security council can judge the seriousness of such matters, then the fact that they didn't react to the invasion means that they did not consider the invasion to be a serious breach of law.

There may be some law against the invasion, but this definitely isn't it.

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


Ok, this says that a country has the right to engage in warfare if they are (or an allie is) attacked. However, it says nothing of the rights of countries to engage in warfare for other reasons. (This particular article never says that they can act in self-defence only. Saying that it does is reading too much into it.



Ok, this indicates that warfare for self-defence should be reported to the security council for action. Fair enough.

Now, if you want to use this as proof that the war was somehow illegal, it fails on at least 3 points:

- As I mentioned before, the particular article refers to the rights of countries to defend themselves if attacked. It says nothing about the legality of launching preemptive strikes.



While you are busy with hair splitting, how about UN charta, chapter one, article 2?

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Zee

[Ion]

This paragraph from the U.N. Chart Article 51:
Originally posted by Ion

...
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.
...

by writing "...if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures...", it limits all the wars between countries that U.N. Security Council didn't authorize, to this scenario:

1.) an attack by a country;

2.) self-defense by the country attacked;

3.) U.N. Security Council intervenes to pacify.

Regarding:
Originally posted by Segnosaur

...
There may be some law against the invasion,...
...

and

"...the rights of countries to engage in warfare for other reasons.",

outside of the U.N. Security Council Resolutions, "...other reasons..." don't exist in the U.N. Chart, according to this U.N. law from Chapter 1, Article 2:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

In Iraq, U.S. fits 1.) -attacker that uses "...force against the territorail integrity and political independence..." of Iraq-, but not 2.) -self defense-.

[ithinksoiam]

Wayne Grabert,

You have made a fan out of me. I am really impressed with your sensible and logical arguments.

You go, Wayne!

[E.J.Armstrong]

Over on this side of the Gulf Stream we have to be under imminent threat of attack to justify starting a war. Blair therefore tried to tell us that Iraqi WOMD could be launched in 45 minutes. This particular nugget of mendacity is currently receiving very close scrutiny and is looking as reliable as promises of a proper tendering process in Iraq.

In short there was no immediate threat to the UK from weapons that did not exist, there was no attempt to source uranium from Nigeria and there was no connection between Iraq and Al Quaeda. In other words all the excuses for war apart from Hussein being a bad man (who sold him weapons while he was known to be a bad man again?) were false. Interestingly one that still holds some water is the one many felt was correct before the war started, namely oil and it was noticeable that the oil ministry building with the maps of the true wealth of Iraq was the only building to be protected when the US invaded Baghdad. Who are the interim administration going to be told to award exploration and production licences to, which is where the real money is to be made? I confidently predict that companies closely associated with Dubbya will be major beneficiaries. After all some of them have already been 'awarded' contracts in a frankly dodgy 'tendering' process. Why shouldn't Dubbya continue in the same old dodgy way?

Many over here believe it is now time for Tony to tearfully wave us goodbye from the steps of Airforce One and return to his constituency somewhere in Texas. We will not be surprised to learn he will be awarded medals for defying his own electorate and handed shedfuls of cash from the US rubber chicken circuit for giving short talks entitled 'How I Defeated the British Public Singlehandedly' or 'Make Dollars - Lie to Your Electorate' or 'Never Tell The British The Truth- They Like it That Way - From a Man Who Knows' or 'Power Lying - The Truth Sucks' or 'Over The Top With Tony - You Know It Makes Sense'.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

It is not our responsibility! Who let Saddam and the Ba'ath Party come to power in the first place? The Iraqi people. If you're such a do-gooder, go to Iraq and feel the love!

When did I say it was our responsibility? I have been saying that if we have the opportunity that we should take advantage. I am not saying that we HAVE to. And to say that because the Iraqis let Saddam and the Ba'ath party come into power that they cannot have any help in removing them is like saying that someone who walked to the middle of a frozen lake and fell through the ice cannot have anyone help him get out.

The defense budget is not justified because it is excessive. We are feeding the pork barrel of the military-industrial complex and headed for eventual fiscal disaster.

And how did you determine that it was excessive? Because it is greater than the rest of the world? Even with our 'excessive' defense budget our military is probably spread a little too thin right now.

Do you support any fool politician who calls him/herself a Republican, or just any fool politician? Maybe you should wear a target on the seat of your pants.

For your information, I have never in my life voted for a Republican candidate in any local, state, or national election. I am registered under no political party. Unlike many people, I do not care about silly things like Republican vs Democrat or liberal vs conservative.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Ion
No, I didn't forgot.

1441 and 6xx -I think, but I can dig them- are the U.N. Resolutions.

They call for Iraq's compliance with U.N. inspections.

In case of breach by Iraq, they don't call for war, they call for assessment by U.N..

When the U.N. Security Council met, it didn't asses war, but it did assess that the inspections make progress.

The supposedly illegal war began months ago. Why has the Security Council allowed so many months to pass without even discussing the alleged breach of the UN Charter by the U.S. and U.K., let alone officially condemn it?


You play dumb again, but I remember that Wayne told you this already in this thread.

Better get your memory checked, or at least learn how to read more carefuly. Wayne has not told me that I am playing dumb. In fact, you are the first person to allude to that.

As for official condemnation, Russia is pushing for it, and it grows as we speak.

Do you have a source for this?

[Ion]

Originally posted by ssibal


The supposedly illegal war began months ago. Why has the Security Council allowed so many months to pass without even discussing the alleged breach of the UN Charter by the U.S. and U.K., let alone officially condemn it?
...

The newspapers say it does discuss.

U.S. is the big bully in the world, and U.N. and the U.N. Commission on Human Rights timidly documented the U.S.' breach, but over the years the black and white issue will gather more momentum since Bush-the-idiot made a big gaffe here.
Originally posted by ssibal

...
Do you have a source for this?
Newspapers.

I remember one newspaper stating that Russia joining -under U.N. only- the rebuilding of Iraq doesn't mean that Russia is endorsing the U.S. breach of the U.N. Chart, and that Russia is pushing for an official condemnation of the U.S. breach.

Same for France.

There is no need to bicker about who condemns U.S., ssibal, and I will focus on this from now on:

with your own integrity, you should condemn the U.S. breach of the U.N. law, and yourself you don't need to look over your shoulder to cowardly see who agrees with you.

[ssibal]

Ion, remember on August 2, 1990 when Iraq illegally invaded Kuwait? Do you know what happened later on that day? The UN Security Council met and officially condemned the action by passing resolution 660. Now fast-forward to the supposedly illegal invasion of Iraq by the U.S.. The U.S. invaded, about three months have passed and still no official word. So, what is more likely that the U.S. broke the UN Charter and EVERYONE is too scared to officially condemn the action or the U.S. had legal justification? As more time passes in silence, the latter seems more likely.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by ithinksoiam
Wayne Grabert,

You have made a fan out of me. I am really impressed with your sensible and logical arguments.

You go, Wayne!
Merci, beaucoup!

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Many over here believe it is now time for Tony to tearfully wave us goodbye from the steps of Airforce One and return to his constituency somewhere in Texas.
My theory, E.J., is that Tony Bliar (sic) is Duh-bya's Monica Lewinski.

[Ion]

Originally posted by ssibal

...
So, what is more likely that the U.S. broke the UN Charter and EVERYONE is too scared to officially condemn the action or the U.S. had legal justification?
...

The former.

Why Germany, France and Russia opposed Bush in Security Council?

Why Bush went to war outside U.N., not inside U.N.?

The first Gulf War and the second Gulf War are not a continous U.N. Resolution, like Bush tried to claim and war.

Iraq's war ended with resolution 687, asking Iraq to disarm or else, resolution predicated on a coalition of nations in alliance to defend Kuwait.

There was no Kuwait in the second war, and no coalition of nations defending Kuwait.

So, 687 linking the two wars, is out of the question:

687, doesn't link the wars.

U.N. Resolution 1441, from November 2002, demands disarmement of Iraq and inspections by U.N., but doesn't spell war consequences if the demands are not met.

The answers are that Germany, France and Russia opposed Bush in Security Council, on a fresh new situation:

.) WMDs alleged in Iraq that Bush 'knows' about, links between Hussein and September 11, al-Qaeda and Niger;

.) Powell speech in U.N. in February 2002, has these new Bush claims in it;

.) France, Germany and Russia debunked then these Bush claims.

Bush went anyway to war in Iraq by by-passing U.N., because the fool was hoping to find WMDs in Iraq and secretely loot Iraq's oil.

I urge you to drop Bush's and neo-con's brainwashing, to even drop what France, Germany and Russia are doing for their own political and diplomatic interests, but to consider alone and with responsibility -as in you, ssibal- the U.N. Chart, and hold Bush accountable about breaking the U.N. international law written in the paragraphs that I pointed.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Ion

The former.

Why Germany, France and Russia opposed Bush in Security Council?

So let me get this straight, they are too scared to officially condemn or even bring up the matter of officially condemning the U.S. after the supposedly illegal war yet they had no problem opposing the U.S. before the war? Get real.

[Ion]

Originally posted by ssibal


So let me get this straight, they are too scared to officially condemn or even bring up the matter of officially condemning the U.S. after the supposedly illegal war yet they had no problem opposing the U.S. before the war? Get real.
I am real.

After I showed you the U.N. Chart and teaching you the old news from the newspapers:

what about you?

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Ion

I am real.

After I showed you the U.N. Chart and teaching you the old news from the newspapers:

what about you?

Look, as much as you may believe and repeat that the U.S. broke the UN charter, unfortunately for you the UN does not appear to share that sentiment.

[Ion]

What about you?

I talk to you.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Ion
What about you?

I talk to you.

What about me?

[Ion]

To remind you, since you play dumb:
Originally posted by ssibal

Look, as much as you may believe and repeat that the U.S. broke the UN charter, unfortunately for you the UN does not appear to share that sentiment.
Originally posted by Ion
What about you?

I talk to you.
Originally posted by ssibal

What about me?
Yes:

what about you, regarding "...believe...that the U.S. broke the UN charter...", where do you stand?

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Ion
To remind you, since you play dumb:

Since I play dumb? I honestly do not understand what you are trying to say most of the time, but at least I do not resort to name-calling.

what about you, regarding "...believe...that the U.S. broke the UN charter...", where do you stand?

I think it is pretty obvious from my post that I do not think that the U.S. broke the UN charter.

[Ion]

Originally posted by ssibal

...I honestly do not understand what you are trying to say most of the time,...
...

What I was saying is that by U.N. standards, in Iraq, Bush's U.S. fits the attacker who loots the Iraq's oil, and not the self defense or the liberator.

If Bush was self defending or liberating according to the U.N. law, then he would have abided by the U.N. law, U.N. approval and scrutiny.

Instead, Bush broke the U.N. law, warred outside of the U.N. and now loots Iraq's oil.

The U.N. Chart in Chapter 1, Article 2, states:

"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

which forbids the "...use of force...", except in case of self-defense as shown in Article 51:

"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."

There is no self-defense applicable to the U.S.:

WMDs in Iraq, September 11, al-Qaeda and Niger links to Hussein, are Bush's lies.

Meanwhile no U.N. Resolution made an exception to the self-defense requirement, allowing U.S. the use of force:
Originally posted by Ion

...
Why Germany, France and Russia opposed Bush in Security Council?

Why Bush went to war outside U.N., not inside U.N.?

The first Gulf War and the second Gulf War are not a continous U.N. Resolution, like Bush tried to claim and war.

The first Gulf war ended with resolution 687 asking Iraq to disarm or else, resolution predicated on a coalition of nations in alliance to defend Kuwait.

There was no Kuwait in the second Gulf war, and no coalition of nations defending Kuwait.

So, 687 linking the two wars, is out of the question:

687, doesn't link the wars.

U.N. Resolution 1441, from November 2002, demands disarmement of Iraq and inspections by U.N., but doesn't spell war consequences if the demands are not met.

The answers are that Germany, France and Russia opposed Bush in Security Council, on a fresh new situation:

.) WMDs alleged in Iraq that Bush 'knows' about, links between Hussein and September 11, al-Qaeda and Niger;

.) Powell speech in U.N. in February 2003, has these new Bush claims in it;

.) France, Germany and Russia debunked then these Bush claims.

Bush went anyway to war in Iraq by by-passing U.N., because the fool was hoping to find WMDs in Iraq and secretely loot Iraq's oil.

I urge you to drop Bush's and neo-con's brainwashing, to even drop what France, Germany and Russia are doing for their own political and diplomatic interests, but to consider alone and with responsibility -as in you, ssibal- the U.N. Chart, and hold Bush accountable about breaking the U.N. international law written in the paragraphs that I pointed.
Regarding:
Originally posted by ssibal

...
I think it is pretty obvious from my post that I do not think that the U.S. broke the UN charter.

I don't expect all people who support the war for oil in Iraq which Bush fabricated, to convert to integrity:

.) you for example, you don't convert to integrity;

.) education since birth in a culture free of greed and lies, is helpful.

The role that I undertake where I live, is to change many people around me for the better, and improve myself.

[Wayne Grabert]

This one was too good not to share. It reinforces so much of what I have already said about the improbability of exporting democracy to Iraq and the foolishness of the neo-con religion.

Administration was warned democracy in Iraq might be impossible. (http://www.boston.com:80/news/nation/articles/2003/08/14/democracy_might_be_impossible_us_was_told)

WASHINGTON -- US intelligence officials cautioned the National Security Council before the Iraq war that the American plan to build democracy on the ashes of Saddam Hussein's regime -- as a model for the rest of the region -- was so audacious that, in the words of one CIA report in March, it could ultimately prove "impossible."

(snip)

The intelligence community's doubts were fully aired to top Bush administration officials in the months before the war in multiple classified reports. The National Intelligence Council, which represents the consensus view of American spy agencies, reported to top policy makers at the start of the year that "what the administration was saying was a rosy picture," said a senior intelligence official who read the report and asked not to be named. "The report's conclusions were totally opposite."

The vision the Bush administration has for the Middle East has been honed at least since 1996, with the writing of a paper entitled "A Clean Break." The paper was written by Douglas Feith, now the Pentagon's policy director; Richard Perle, a senior Pentagon adviser; and others for then-incoming Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

It provides an early window into some of the current administration's thinking. For one, it predicted that toppling the Hussein regime could be the beginning of a larger rollback of autocratic, terrorist-supporting states such as Syria and Iran, blamed for supporting Hezbollah guerrillas operating in southern Lebanon and accused of terrorism against Israel and the United States.

(snip)

The intelligence community's cautious view of the administration's broader vision for the region was highlighted in a series of reports and briefings to top policy makers.

The CIA's March report concluded that Iraqi society and history showed little evidence to support the creation of democratic institutions, going so far as to say its prospects for democracy could be "impossible," according to intelligence officials who have seen it. The assessment was based on Iraq's history of repression and war; clan, tribal and religious conflict; and its lack of experience as a viable country prior to its arbitrary creation as a monarchy by British colonialists after World War I.

The State Department came to the same conclusion.

"Liberal democracy would be difficult to achieve in Iraq," said a March State Department report, first reported by the Los Angeles Times. "Electoral democracy, were it to emerge, could well be subject to exploitation by anti-American elements."

A June risk assessment of the situation in Iraq by Kroll and Associates, an international consulting firm, raised anew doubts that representative democracy can take root there. It said a leading possibility would be that "Iraq experiences frequent lurches into serious disorder and instability, with changes of leadership, religious, and regional clashes and interventions by neighboring states. It seeks order in a military-led regime that provides a minimal level of stability in areas crucial to the economy and high levels of disorder elsewhere."

The report, "Iraq Risk Scenarios," described a pro-western, liberal, capitalist democracy as "very unlikely, although it appears to be the general goal of the US."

Critics of the administration's approach have said that pushing too hard for democracy could spark an anti-American backlash, increasing the risk of terrorism against the United States.

(snip)

But the Bush administration remains committed to its vision. Last week, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said that "much as a democratic Germany became a linchpin for a new Europe . . . so a transformed Iraq can become a key element of a very different Middle East in which the ideologies of hate will not flourish."

Replace "vision" in that last paragraph with "religion" and you get the point.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Wayne Grabert
My theory, E.J., is that Tony Bliar (sic) is Duh-bya's Monica Lewinski.

That theory implies images which are simply too awful to contemplate however accurate (and some say mighty accurate) it probably is.

Believe it or not I used to be a major league supporter of Bliar. But this is what happens when the British people are used against their wishes as an international fig leaf for the anti-vote Bush, particularly when he chooses to start a pre-planned war for Iraq's black gold on behalf of his party's paymaster Halliburton etc.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Ion

Meanwhile no U.N. Resolution made an exception to the self-defense requirement, allowing U.S. the use of force:

Maybe you should tell that to the UN that because they obviously do not agree with you.

[Ion]

You shouldn't tell this to yourself:
Originally posted by ssibal


Maybe you should tell that to the UN that because they obviously do not agree with you.
because obviously you don't follow the U.N. Chart.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Ion
You shouldn't tell this to yourself:

because obviously you don't follow the U.N. Chart.

Uhm....ok? I will be waiting for that official UN comdemnation........

[Wayne Grabert]

Since the US has a veto on the Security Council, couldn't it veto any UN sanctions? Maybe that's why there has been no action.

Another possibility is that the UN at this time is more interested in playing a role in Iraq, one that the US may eventually ask it to do, and that any attempt at condemnation will come later.

There is a double standard at work. Iraq was condemned and sanctioned after it invaded and occupied Kuwait. The same ought to be applied to the US for its invasion of Iraq.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
Since the US has a veto on the Security Council, couldn't it veto any UN sanctions? Maybe that's why there has been no action.

Another possibility is that the UN at this time is more interested in playing a role in Iraq, one that the US may eventually ask it to do, and that any attempt at condemnation will come later.

There is a double standard at work. Iraq was condemned and sanctioned after it invaded and occupied Kuwait. The same ought to be applied to the US for its invasion of Iraq.

The UN General Assembly could meet and condemn the action without the U.S. or U.K. being able to veto. They could have hardly used the excuse of being more interested in playing a role in Iraq as the bombs were falling.

[Ion]

Originally posted by ssibal

The UN General Assembly could meet and condemn the action without the U.S. or U.K. being able to veto.
...

Do you have a source to back up this?
Originally posted by ssibal

Uhm....ok? I will be waiting for that official UN comdemnation........
Think for yourself, instead of cowardly "...waiting..." for what others do.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Ion

Do you have a source to back up this?

Given that you still have not provided a source (sorry, saying 'newspapers' does not count) for your claim that Russia is pushing for official condemnation why should I give you one?

Think for yourself, instead of cowardly "...waiting..." for what others do.

I have thought for myself and have come to the conclusion that the U.S. did not break the UN Charter. I happen to be in agreement with the UN who has not taken any action in condemning the U.S..

[Ion]

Can you back this up?
Originally posted by ssibal

...
I have thought for myself and have come to the conclusion that the U.S. did not break the UN Charter.
...

Against:

1.) the U.N. paragraphs I did show as being where U.S. broke the international law;

2.) more to come after you pass 1.).

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Ion
Can you back this up?

Against:

1.) the U.N. paragraphs I did show as being where U.S. broke the international law;


As I already stated, the UN resolutions give the U.S. the authority.

Resolution 678 allows the U.S. to use all means necessary (i.e. war) to implement Resolution 660 and ALL SUBSEQUENT RELEVANT RESOLUTIONS.
Resolution 687 created the CEASE-FIRE based on conditions that Iraq was supposed to follow.
Resolution 1441 found Iraq in MATERIAL BREACH of its previous obligations (meaning they were breaking the terms of the cease-fire).

Still waiting for your source.....

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by ssibal


As I already stated, the UN resolutions give the U.S. the authority.


Wait a minute. The UN did not sanction the US invasion. You cannot justify the invasion on the basis of UN resolutions when the US tried unsuccessfully to get the UN to back the invasion on the basis of the UN's resolutions. Shouldn't the UN be the arbitor of how to enforce its own resolutions?

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Wait a minute. The UN did not sanction the US invasion. You cannot justify the invasion on the basis of UN resolutions when the US tried unsuccessfully to get the UN to back the invasion on the basis of the UN's resolutions. Shouldn't the UN be the arbitor of how to enforce its own resolutions?

They tried unsucessfully for an explicit resolution because politicians have elections to worry about and it is easier to say look here in this resolution where it says we can go to war with Iraq rather than referring them to one resolution that refers to another that refers to another.....etc. And other politicians have people to worry about that do not want war. Everyone knew the U.S. was going to war with Iraq, the new resolution was just for decoration.

[Wayne Grabert]

In other words, the UN said no.

EDITED TO ADD: You also can't overlook the fact that the US lied to the UN about its basis for attacking Iraq.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
In other words, the UN said no.

The UN has not said anything. Which we can assume to mean Yes.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
EDITED TO ADD: You also can't overlook the fact that the US lied to the UN about its basis for attacking Iraq.

There is no evidence of this. At worst, the U.S. was wrong about everything.

[Wayne Grabert]

That's a strenuous rationalization if ever there was one. The US asked; the UN refused. That means yes? Also, don't overlook the lies the US told through Bush and Powell to justify the invasion. The basis for the invasion was WMD and an imminent threat, neither of which existed. That means all justification did not exist. It was naked aggression. It was no more justified than the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Less so, because at least Saddam had a feud with the Kuwaitis who were tapping into his oil reserves.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by ssibal


There is no evidence of this. At worst, the U.S. was wrong about everything.
No evidence of this? You haven't been paying attention. I am not going to spend hours educating you on the abundance of evidence of deliberate deception, especially since you'd just ignore it anyway.

Evidence that disproved Bush's case was ignored. Evidence to support it was manufactured from forgeries or by distorting and exaggerating cherry picked evidence. There was a deliberate campaign of deception and terror by the Bush administration. To deny it is to stick your head in the sand.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
That's a strenuous rationalization if ever there was one. The US asked; the UN refused. That means yes?

The UN did not refuse anything. France threatened to veto anything even before looking at a draft. And the UN, 3 months after the war started still have not said a word. That is hardly what I would call a 'no.'

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

No evidence of this? You haven't been paying attention. I am not going to spend hours educating you on the abundance of evidence of deliberate deception, especially since you'd just ignore it anyway.

Evidence that disproved Bush's case was ignored. Evidence to support it was manufactured from forgeries or by distorting and exaggerating cherry picked evidence. There was a deliberate campaign of deception and terror by the Bush administration. To deny it is to stick your head in the sand.

It is one thing to cherry pick evidence, lying is a completely different matter. Lying means that they knew what they were claiming was false yet claimed it anyway. If I write on my resume that I worked for NASA so that I could get a job, I am lying. If I do not write that I was fired from a previous job, that is cherry picking. There is a big difference. I never thought that Iraq was an imminent threat or had ties to al Qaeda anyway but to say the U.S. lied about all that is an exaggeration. As for the forgeries, where is the evidence that the U.S. created them?

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by ssibal


It is one thing to cherry pick evidence, lying is a completely different matter. Lying means that they knew what they were claiming was false yet claimed it anyway.
And that's exactly what they did! They lied about having "bulletproof" evidence of an al-Qaida link. They lied about knowing where the weapons were. They did not equivocate. They said they knew.

Originally posted by ssibal
As for the forgeries, where is the evidence that the U.S. created them?
That isn't necessary. They used the forgeries as evidence after they already knew they were forgeries. That is the same thing as lying. That is a deliberate deception.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

And that's exactly what they did! They lied about having "bulletproof" evidence of an al-Qaida link. They lied about knowing where the weapons were. They did not equivocate. They said they knew.

Being wrong does not equal lying. Having confidence in claims that are wrong also does not equal lying. Unless something comes up showing clearly that everyone involved in the claim were of the opinion that it was wrong or more likely to be wrong but decided to use it anyway, there is no basis to say they were lying.


That isn't necessary. They used the forgeries as evidence after they already knew they were forgeries. That is the same thing as lying. That is a deliberate deception.

No, some people thought the documents were not genuine, others did not, and Iraq's bad record dictated what was more likely.

[Ion]

Originally posted by ssibal


As I already stated, the UN resolutions give the U.S. the authority.

Resolution 678 allows the U.S. to use all means necessary (i.e. war) to implement Resolution 660 and ALL SUBSEQUENT RELEVANT RESOLUTIONS.
Resolution 687 created the CEASE-FIRE based on conditions that Iraq was supposed to follow.
Resolution 1441 found Iraq in MATERIAL BREACH of its previous obligations (meaning they were breaking the terms of the cease-fire).
....
Which U.N. Resolution gives U.S. the authority to attack with the U.N. approval?

1.) 687 is a resolution predicated on a coalition of countries in alliance to defend Kuwait;

in the second Gulf war there is no defending of Kuwait;

therefore, 687 doesn't apply;

in the second Gulf war there are new claims that U.S. made in U.N., which if true would have merit;
like Bush knowing of the existence in 2003 of WMDs in Iraq that are an imminent threat;
this proves to be a bald Bush lie: Bush doesn't know in 2003 of WMDs in Iraq that are an imminent threat.

2.) 1441 doesn't spell war.

So, which?

I don't see any...

Do you?

[Ion]

Classic:
Originally posted by ssibal

Being wrong does not equal lying.
...

Bush in Congress and Powell in U.N., they claimed that they know of WMDs in Iraq that are an imminent threat.

This is a lie.

Bush and Powell don't know anything about WMDs in Iraq that are an imminent threat:

in more than six months, Bush and Powell proved that they know nothing about WMDs in Iraq that are an imminent threat.

Bush and Powell lied when stating that they know of WMDs in Iraq that are an imminent threat.

Like in other fields, someone lying of knowing a software, or somone lying of knowing a medical treatment.

[Ion]

Originally posted by ssibal

...
No, some people thought the documents were not genuine, others did not,...
...

Beyond C.I.A. there is only Bush.

Who in the C.I.A. thought the documents were genuine?

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by ssibal


Being wrong does not equal lying. Having confidence in claims that are wrong also does not equal lying. Unless something comes up showing clearly that everyone involved in the claim were of the opinion that it was wrong or more likely to be wrong but decided to use it anyway, there is no basis to say they were lying.

I'm not going to waste my time digging up what I've already read. A year before the State of the Union, the Bush Administration was advised by Joseph Wilson that the forged documents could not be genuine. It was out of the realm of possibility. That's why the Bushies didn't protest or express any surprise when the IAEA declared the documents to be forgeries within one day after receiving them. The Bushies already knew. That's also why Powell did not use the documents in his speech to the UN just a week after the State of the Union.

What about the fictional proof of an al-Qaida link? Why has this proof never been furnished? And don't give me that "we can't reveal sources" crap. Saddam is out of power. The sources are not under threat. Besides, portions can always be redacted.

What is happening here is that you got suckered by Bush into supporting a war under false pretenses and you don't want to admit it. Not admitting it doesn't make you any less of a sucker. It makes you an even bigger one.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Ion

Which U.N. Resolution gives U.S. the authority to attack with the U.N. approval?

1.) 687 is a resolution predicated on a coalition of countries in alliance to defend Kuwait;

in the second Gulf war there is no defending of Kuwait;

therefore, 687 doesn't apply;

What are you talking about? Resolution 687 has to do with the cease-fire after the first Gulf war. And it does apply because resolution 678 clearly states ...to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions...

Do you not understand what "all subsequent relevant resolutions means? Resolution 687 and 1441 are both subsequent relevant resolutions.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Ion
Classic:

Bush in Congress and Powell in U.N., they claimed that they know of WMDs in Iraq that are an imminent threat.


And they were wrong! That does not prove they lied.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

I'm not going to waste my time digging up what I've already read. A year before the State of the Union, the Bush Administration was advised by Joseph Wilson that the forged documents could not be genuine. It was out of the realm of possibility. That's why the Bushies didn't protest or express any surprise when the IAEA declared the documents to be forgeries within one day after receiving them. The Bushies already knew. That's also why Powell did not use the documents in his speech to the UN just a week after the State of the Union.

Yes he advised them, what is your point? Are you claiming that they knew he was right and went ahead anyway claiming the documents were real? Maybe the administration did not make a big fuss because they did not want to detract attention to what they felt were stronger points in their case?

What about the fictional proof of an al-Qaida link? Why has this proof never been furnished? And don't give me that "we can't reveal sources" crap. Saddam is out of power. The sources are not under threat. Besides, portions can always be redacted.

What about it?

What is happening here is that you got suckered by Bush into supporting a war under false pretenses and you don't want to admit it. Not admitting it doesn't make you any less of a sucker. It makes you an even bigger one.

Wrong! I supported removing Saddam during the first Gulf war, I supported invasion when Clinton decided to attack and I support it now. This has nothing to do with George W. Bush and his reasons because I supported the effort long before I even knew who he was.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by ssibal

Wrong! I supported removing Saddam during the first Gulf war, I supported invasion when Clinton decided to attack and I support it now. This has nothing to do with George W. Bush and his reasons because I supported the effort long before I even knew who he was.

Maybe you support it, 20/20 hindsight fully operational. Do you think the American public would have supported it, not knowing how easily the war would have been one, if the sole objective was to topple Saddam?

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Maybe you support it, 20/20 hindsight fully operational. Do you think the American public would have supported it, not knowing how easily the war would have been one, if the sole objective was to topple Saddam?
The war has been won? I don't think so. It's still going on.

I think you're getting the answer to your question now. As it sinks in that all the given reasons for the war were lies and people see the situation becoming a guerilla war of attrition and that there is little chance of democracy (or enduring gratitude) in Iraq, they are saying the war was not worth it.

Just wait to see what happens by the time the Repugnantcans hold thier explotative convention just before the anniversary of 9/11 next year. People are going to be angry. Bush lied when he said we wouldn't abandon Afghanistan like his father did in 1989. Afghanistan was abandoned so that resources could be used to invade and occupy Iraq. Bush lied this week when he said he thought all along that the power grid should be upgraded. Not only did he not make any effort to do so, in 2001 he lobbied against a Demoncratic effort to provide $350-million in direct long-term loans and loan guarantees to upgrade the grid and three times the Repugnantcans in party-line votes defeated the measure. They had learned a month before the first vote how Enron could make huge profits from an energy crisis in California. The warnings from government scientists about the inadequacy of the grid kept coming and Bush kept ignoring them.

I don't want to spin the thread in another direction. I'm just making the point that Bush always lies. The guy is a habitual liar. I can't think of a time when he's ever told the truth.

[Ion]

Originally posted by ssibal

And they were wrong! That does not prove they lied.
It does prove that Bush and Powell lied:

they said they knew the WMDs were north of Baghdad.

Today, the reality shows they didn't know any WMDs when they claimed that they knew WMDs:

they didn't have any evidence of WMDs in February 2003 in U.N., and today they don't have any evidence of WMDs that would have applied to February 2003 in U.N..

That's lying.

[Ion]

Originally posted by ssibal

...
Do you not understand what "all subsequent relevant resolutions means? Resolution 687 and 1441 are both subsequent relevant resolutions.
687 is relevant to a coalition defending Kuwait.

So, 687 is not relevant in the second Gulf war.

1441 is relevant to Iraq's disarmement without spelling war consequences.

There is no U.N. Resolution giving the green light for the second Gulf war.

France, Germany and Russia opposed a U.N. resolution giving the green light for the second Gulf war.

[Ion]

Originally posted by ssibal

...
This has nothing to do with George W. Bush and his reasons because I supported the effort long before I even knew who he was.
Democracy has lost in the process employed by Bush, more than it has gained:

because of war mayhem, oil looting and lies.

Like I stated earlier, I support the containment of Saddam by a coalition of countries working under U.N..

[Ion]

Originally posted by ssibal

Are you claiming that they knew he was right and went ahead anyway claiming the documents were real?
...

Bush, Cheney and Powell knew Wilson and the C.I.A. disproved Hussein's link to Niger, Bush claimed that Hussein's link to Niger was stated by U.K. without mentioning that the link was disproven by Wilson and by the C.I.A., so when Bush did this, he endorsed the false information.

Therefore Bush lied.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

The war has been won? I don't think so. It's still going on.


My bad. I meant, "cessation of major operations".

Apparently, public opinion for the moment is that the war in Iraq was a good thing because it deposed Saddam. That will probably change as the guerrilla war drags on, as you've said. The question is, would the public have supported a war based solely on the objective of deposing Saddam and nothing else? Keeping in mind that the public would not have known how long major operations would have lasted.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

...
The question is, would the public have supported a war based solely on the objective of deposing Saddam and nothing else?
...

In fact, would the public have supported a war based on the objective of deposing Saddam Hussein and taking Iraq's oil?

Taking Iraq's oil, that's a big objective that goes hand in hand with deposing Hussein.

When thousands of Iraqis die and are maimed, when Halliburton gets its work in place in Iraq, the gory 'oil for blood' is at its peak.

Being asked beforehand to participate in this gory, the public wouldn't have supported the war in Iraq.

That's why, Bush resorts to lies instead:

to appease the minds he confuses, and to mask Halliburton's role to the public.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Maybe you support it, 20/20 hindsight fully operational. Do you think the American public would have supported it, not knowing how easily the war would have been one, if the sole objective was to topple Saddam?

The majority of the U.S. public probably would not have supported it, or maybe they would not have cared like it is the case with Liberia.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Ion

It does prove that Bush and Powell lied:

they said they knew the WMDs were north of Baghdad.

Today, the reality shows they didn't know any WMDs when they claimed that they knew WMDs

The only thing it shows is that their claim was wrong. It does not show that they knew there were no WMDs north of Baghdad yet claimed there were.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Ion

687 is relevant to a coalition defending Kuwait.

So, 687 is not relevant in the second Gulf war.

1441 is relevant to Iraq's disarmement without spelling war consequences.

There is nothing more to discuss on this subject since you fail to see how the terms of the cease fire from the first Gulf war are relevant to that war.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Ion

Bush, Cheney and Powell knew Wilson and the C.I.A. disproved Hussein's link to Niger, Bush claimed that Hussein's link to Niger was stated by U.K. without mentioning that the link was disproven by Wilson and by the C.I.A., so when Bush did this, he endorsed the false information.

Therefore Bush lied.

They knew that Wilson disproved the link? Where did you get that from? They may have known what he advised them on the matter, but that does not mean that they knew or thought that he was correct.

[Ion]

Originally posted by ssibal

The only thing it shows is that their claim was wrong. It does not show that they knew there were no WMDs north of Baghdad yet claimed there were.
Again:

Bush and Powell lied they knew of imminent threat WMDs in Iraq, because they never had and don't have evidence of imminent threat WMDs in Iraq.

It's like somebody lying on a resume, saying the person knows D.S.P. or Java Script.

[Ion]

Originally posted by ssibal

There is nothing more to discuss on this subject since you fail to see how the terms of the cease fire from the first Gulf war are relevant to that war.
The terms of the cease fire from the first Gulf war are predicated on a coalition of countries in alliance to defend Kuwait.

There is no coalition of countries defending Kuwait in the second Gulf war, so 687 is out.

The claims of WMDs in Iraq, links to Niger, September 11 and al-Qaeda, are new and pertain to the second Gulf war, but they are bogus;
so is the claim of liberating Iraq.

Bush is bogus.

[Ion]

Originally posted by ssibal

They knew that Wilson disproved the link? Where did you get that from?
...

Wilson was sent by Cheney, the vice-President of U.S., to investigate the Niger link.

Wilson reported back to Cheney that the link doesn't exist.

Also, C.I.A. informed the Bush administration that the Niger link doesn't exist.

Bogus Bush, made the claim in Congress anyway, on behalf of U.K. so that -the fool thought- he is not a liar himself.

But Bush is a liar nonetheless.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Ion

Again:

Bush and Powell lied they knew of imminent threat WMDs in Iraq, because they never had and don't have evidence of imminent threat WMDs in Iraq.

So you are saying that they knew that there was no imminent threat of WMD in Iraq yet said that there was anyway? Do you have any evidence of this? If not, you are in no position to claim that they lied.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Ion

Wilson was sent by Cheney, the vice-President of U.S., to investigate the Niger link.

Wilson reported back to Cheney that the link doesn't exist.

Also, C.I.A. informed the Bush administration that the Niger link doesn't exist.


You took my statement out of context, read the rest of that post and address what I said.

[Ion]

The rest of that statement says that they might not have thought that Wilson was correct.

There is no proof for this statement.

If the statement was true -and right now it's not true, because the statement is unsupported-, then that would upgrade Bush from liar to incompetent.

An incompetent who kills.

No much of an upgrade...

[Tricky]

Originally posted by ssibal


So you are saying that they knew that there was no imminent threat of WMD in Iraq yet said that there was anyway? Do you have any evidence of this? If not, you are in no position to claim that they lied.
While it is impossible to know exactly what Bush et. al. did or didn't know, the simple fact is that they made the claims. They told us there were WMDs and they told us that Iraq was a threat. They did not precede these claims with "we suspect" or any such qualifier. They quoted amounts of certain WMDs and claimed evidence (which we still have not seen). Of course it is possible to believe that they were not lying but simply mistaken, but good skeptics would have a hard time swallowing that. It appears, though, that they used the Ambrose Bierce (http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/p.html) definition of "positive"
POSITIVE, adj.
Mistaken at the top of one's voice.

[Ion]

Originally posted by ssibal

So you are saying that they knew that there was no imminent threat of WMD in Iraq yet said that there was anyway? Do you have any evidence of this?
...

They went to war without knowing WMDs in Iraq, yet they lied that they knew WMDs in Iraq:

they never had evidence and don't have evidence to claim WMDs in Iraq, so they were lying that they knew;

The grave lie is in stating that they knew WMDs, and to war and kill for this.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Ion
The rest of that statement says that they might not have thought that Wilson was correct.

There is no proof for this statement.



So you think that they thought he was correct? Where is the evidence of that? I only said they might not have thought he was correct because they might not have thought he was correct. I do not know if they did or did not, but I am not going to reject the possiblilty without good reason.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Tricky

While it is impossible to know exactly what Bush et. al. did or didn't know, the simple fact is that they made the claims. They told us there were WMDs and they told us that Iraq was a threat. They did not precede these claims with "we suspect" or any such qualifier. They quoted amounts of certain WMDs and claimed evidence (which we still have not seen). Of course it is possible to believe that they were not lying but simply mistaken, but good skeptics would have a hard time swallowing that. It appears, though, that they used the Ambrose Bierce (http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/p.html) definition of "positive"


They made claims, they were wrong. This does not automatically prove that they were lying. They may not have supported the claims with evidence, but that does not automatically prove that they completly fabricated the claims.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Ion

They went to war without knowing WMDs in Iraq, yet they lied that they knew WMDs in Iraq:

they never had evidence and don't have evidence to claim WMDs in Iraq, so they were lying that they knew;

No, a lie would be if they knew there were no WMD in Iraq and said they knew there were. They came to the conclusion that there were WMD in Iraq somehow. If you are going to claim that they completely made that up then you need to provide evidence. Why is it unreasonable to think that they came to the wrong conclusion?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by ssibal
They made claims, they were wrong. This does not automatically prove that they were lying. They may not have supported the claims with evidence, but that does not automatically prove that they completly fabricated the claims.
As I indicated above, it is not absolute proof that they fabricated their claims, but the fact that so much intelligence was ignored, terrorist links were overstated, and claims were proved unsubstantiated should make alarm bells go off for those who profess to have a skeptical nature.

One telling thing is that no high-ranking Bush official has come out and admitted they were wrong about these things, other than the one forged letter. The WMD and terrorist link claims are just sitting there like a pile of dog poop. No one ever bothered to clean it up, so perhaps the admin. is just hoping it will dry up and stop stinking soon.

If they were simply wrong, let them come out and say they were wrong. And why won't they show us any of that "evidence" that made this war occur?

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Tricky

As I indicated above, it is not absolute proof that they fabricated their claims, but the fact that so much intelligence was ignored, terrorist links were overstated, and claims were proved unsubstantiated should make alarm bells go off for those who profess to have a skeptical nature.

One telling thing is that no high-ranking Bush official has come out and admitted they were wrong about these things, other than the one forged letter. The WMD and terrorist link claims are just sitting there like a pile of dog poop. No one ever bothered to clean it up, so perhaps the admin. is just hoping it will dry up and stop stinking soon.

If they were simply wrong, let them come out and say they were wrong. And why won't they show us any of that "evidence" that made this war occur?

Sometimes, people cannot and will not admit that they were wrong. What do we have, the most stubborn administration in U.S. history or the biggest liars in U.S. history? I would say the former, given their refusal to compromise on many occasions. This does not mean they were honest about everything, but to say that they lied about nearly everything is really stretching it.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by ssibal

Sometimes, people cannot and will not admit that they were wrong. What do we have, the most stubborn administration in U.S. history or the biggest liars in U.S. history? I would say the former, given their refusal to compromise on many occasions. This does not mean they were honest about everything, but to say that they lied about nearly everything is really stretching it.
I agree. Given that every one of us has lied at some tiime in our lives, it is equally silly to suggest that anyone never tells the truth. I feel we must judge a person's trustworthiness based on the importance of their lies. Even if though Bush et. al. didn't lie about everything, they appeared to lie about some incredibly important things.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Tricky

Even if though Bush et. al. didn't lie about everything, they appeared to lie about some incredibly important things.
Yeah, it's not like they were just trying to get laid like Tricky during his college days. ;)

[Ion]

Regarding this:
Originally posted by ssibal

No, a lie would be if they knew there were no WMD in Iraq and said they knew there were.
...

another lie is to claim to know something, but to know of not knowing it.

For example, on a resume, a claim to know -say- D.S.P. when knowing of not knowing D.S.P., that's a lie.

Similarly, Bush's claim of knowing WMDs in Iraq, is a lie.

[Ion]

Originally posted by ssibal

So you think that they thought he was correct?
...

There is no evidence that Bush, Cheney and Powell thought that Wilson was wrong.

Until there is evidence of this, Bush, Cheney and Powell knew that Wilson disproved the Niger link since Wilson reported the denial of the link to Cheney, dismissed Wilson because of proven Bush's oil agenda, and Bush endorsed the Niger lie in Congress.

Here you go: Bush lying in Congress.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Ion

There is no evidence that Bush, Cheney and Powell thought that Wilson was wrong.


But there is evidence that they thought he was right? :rolleyes: You are claiming that they knew or thought he was right yet went ahead and cited the document as genuine when they knew/thought it was not, it is up to you to provide evidence of that.

[Ion]

Originally posted by ssibal

But there is evidence that they thought he was right? :rolleyes:
...

Yes.

Not disputing one's claim with counter evidence, that's evidence that the claim is undisputable.

Wilson's undisputed claim and C.I.A.'s undisputed claim are that the Niger link is unexistent.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Ion

Not disputing one's claim with counter evidence, that's evidence that the claim is undisputable.


That is ridiculous and irrational.

[Ion]

Originally posted by ssibal

That is ridiculous and irrational.
No.

Look at yourself, with this in mind:

Rice didn't have counter-evidence supporting the Niger link, but instead of counter-evidence she retracted the 16 words about Niger that Bush uttered in Congress.

That's how good 'Bush thought Wilson was wrong about the non-existence of a Niger link, Bush thought there was a Niger link' is:

not defensible at all, so not good at all.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Yeah, it's not like they were just trying to get laid like Tricky during his college days. ;)
And you weren't????!!

Actually, I was engaged most of my college career. Still, it is obvious you miss me in "Flame Wars". I'll get back soon, I promise.