Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Weapons, Lies, and the United States

By randinah in Op-Ed
Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 03:40:45 PM EST
Tags: Politics (all tags)
Politics

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

- US President George W. Bush in his March 20 ultimatum telling Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq within 48 hours or face the consequences.

Four weeks, three false alarms, and one nearly successful military campaign later, the US has found no conclusive evidence of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Was America right? Was Saddam Hussein breaking sanctions and harboring dangerous chemicals and nuclear warheads? Was he willing to sell these weapons to terrorist groups like Al Quada for the right price? Maybe. Was the Bush administration and US intelligence wrong about the whole thing, using the possible existence of illegal weapons as a curtain to shield the real reason for war - (oil, revenge, keeping the American public's worries and fear safely away from the shambles that America's economy, freedom, and environmental policy has become)? Who knows. But the world can be quite sure that under no circumstances would the Bush administration ever admit their "absolute proof" of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is faulty. It is inevitable that the US will eventually come up with these hidden WMD's the war in Iraq was supposedly fought over. But can we trust that the Bush administration is above planting, or fabricating WMD's in Iraq?


The world is getting antsy. The Bush Administration promised everyone from Jaques Chirac to Mrs. Suburban On-the-Fence Housewife of Illinois that weapons of mass destruction would be found and destroyed as a direct result of this war. Let's look at what has been done to fulfill that promise so far: Four weeks of American and British scouring of Iraq have turned up nothing. A possible underground nuclear warehouse turned out to be fully known about by the U.N., and kosher. In fact, the U.N. ended up scolding the marine unit that found the warehouse for breaking U.N. seals. Two possible chemical weapons storage houses ended up being fertilizer. Some of us fretted: When the military gets to Baghdad, all hell will break loose. Alas, Baghdad was captured without incident. As a result, people are starting to whisper doubts to each other, and countries are starting to increase pressure on the U.S. to come up with these 'phantom' weapons. When it comes right down to it, the US will have to provide some sort of evidence of WMD's in Iraq. When that happens, how can the public be sure the evidence wasn't fabricated? Can we trust the integrity of the United States alone to come up with WMD's in Iraq?

Going back a couple of months, we find that the United states has lied before. In March the Bush administration released documents proving that Iraq had been looking to buy uranium in Africa two years ago. The U.N. and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had a careful look at these documents and deemed them "not authentic". In another instance, Iraq had been discovered trying to purchase high strength aluminum tubes. Certain types of these tubes can be used to make centrifuges and are needed to enrich dangerous radioactive elements. The IAEA followed up with an extensive investigation of these tubes and decided that they are "not directly suitable" for centrifuges, therefore not suitable for the production of nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, in his State of the Union Address to America on January 28, Bush ignored the IAEA's investigation and claimed that Iraq had "attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production". Taking this information into account, the world can safely say that it is not below the Bush Administrations' morals to fib a little bit in order to put circumstances in its favor.

To satisfy the need for independent verification, the US will need either the U.N., or the IAEA (preferably both) in Iraq with the United States to ensure that any evidence they find is of the highest integrity. Unfortunately, the United States isn't too keen on that scenario. Although Britian is happy to keep the door open to the U.N. for independent verification, the U.S. is saying that they see "no immediate role" for Hans Blix and his team in Iraq. The International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly stressed since the beginning of this war that it and not the United States is responsible for finding nuclear weapons in Iraq. It fully expects to return to Iraq after hostilities cease. Dick Cheney has said that he "disagrees" with the IAEA's self perceived role in the search for WMD's.

Right now the United States has an Iraqi scientist in custody who is claiming that Iraq kept illicit arms until the "eve of war". He is claiming that Iraq secretly sent weapons to Syria, and led the U.S. to a site that is said to house the "building blocks" of chemical weapons. The U.S. is currently declining to identify this man and refusing to even give the branch of the Iraqi government that he previously worked for. The military claims that they could jeapordize this man's life by giving out any incriminating information including what chemicals were found at the site he led them to. The U.S. also won't let anybody interview this man. This sort of vague fractional information gives semblance to the Bush Administration's behavior three months ago, offering "irrefutable proof" of the existance of WMD's in grainy photos of unidentifiable buildings and badly translated random phone calls in Arabic between two unknown people.

The lack of integrity that the United States has exhibited since building up a case for a war in Iraq has shown that it can't be trusted to come up with proof on its own. When the United States government finally succeeds in offering up some evidence of the existence of WMD's in Iraq, we can only hope that it will be using more than second hand hearsay and forged documents as proof. Also, the world needs to put enormous pressure on the United States to allow Hans Blix, his U.N. inspection team, and the IAEA back inside Iraq to verify any findings. Until then the Bush Administration doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Would you trust the United States discovery of WMD's without independent verification?
o Yes - I wouldn't doubt the United States 7%
o No - I won't trust the U.S. alone in this situation 75%
o Maybe - Depends on the discovery 17%

Votes: 263
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o three
o false
o alarms
o successful
o economy
o freedom
o environmen tal policy
o world
o antsy
o doubts
o pressure
o lied
o keen
o stressed
o United States
o Also by randinah


Display: Sort:
Weapons, Lies, and the United States | 763 comments (729 topical, 34 editorial, 0 hidden)
Hmm. (2.69 / 13) (#1)
by Soviet Russian on Mon Apr 21, 2003 at 11:29:08 PM EST

#

There are no WMD in Iraq (4.23 / 13) (#2)
by limpdawg on Mon Apr 21, 2003 at 11:30:42 PM EST

Because as we all know Iraqis love sanctions and will lie in order to keep them, rather than provide the records of the destruction of weapons as required by the UN.

I'll bite (4.50 / 4) (#100)
by dasunt on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 11:43:31 AM EST

Iraq has fought several wars (Iran-Iraq War, the internal Kurdish war, the Kuwait-Iraq war, etc) and has lost ground in several of those wars. In addition, it has paid its military members pretty poorly, and there are always money to be made by selling weapons under the table if you are a military officer. Now, even if Iraq didn't have the problems of "Well, Scud Launcher #524 was lost in the Ian war, and I think Bob over in Tikrit sold a few of our missiles for quick cash", the Iraqi military is a complex structure, and I could easily believe that documentation about weapons could have been easily lost.

Lets put this another way: At this moment, can you give me an exact list of all your possessions with a value of over $25 for the past 7 years, and show me what happened to each and every one of them that you no longer possess?



[ Parent ]
There is a simpler explanation (4.33 / 3) (#108)
by nusuth on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 12:29:56 PM EST

The idea that Iraq do have WMDs but neither UN nor USA can find them isn't very probable, neither is Iraq not providing documentation of WMDs it has destroyed. The simplest explanation is that Iraq never had that many WMDs, hence lack of both documentation and WMDs. The grandparent post is not pro-war, even though its poster probably is.

[ Parent ]
almost missed your chance! (4.33 / 3) (#116)
by hmspgh on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 12:58:01 PM EST

The WMDs are not there. They're not in Baghdad. There are no WMDs there. Never. They're not at all.

They're not even [within] 100 miles. They are not in any place. They hold no place in Iraq. This is an illusion ... they are trying to sell to the others an illusion.
---
"Aldous Huxley's 1983 has arrived." - Arthur Spada, CT Public Safety Commis.
[ Parent ]
Mary mother of Jesus... (3.12 / 16) (#3)
by tokugawa on Mon Apr 21, 2003 at 11:32:09 PM EST

Can we start talking about some other country? It's a big planet and interesting things are happening all over the place. I can understand why the mainstream press would find it in their interest to cover one country/issue to death, but why need this be so here on kuro5hin? Let's talk about: The maoist insurgency in Nepal. WHY NOT?

One country (3.80 / 5) (#6)
by marx on Mon Apr 21, 2003 at 11:44:35 PM EST

Yes, but the Iraq issue is going to shape the future strongly, whereas the maoist insurgency in Nepal or whatever is not.

Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.
[ Parent ]

Shapes (2.66 / 3) (#8)
by tokugawa on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 12:03:27 AM EST

None of these things will profoundly affect the life of the average American citizen. Heck, it won't even have a marginal effect.

My mind is slowly getting numbed by all this talk of Iraq. What ever happened to Afghanistan? It's amazing what a short attention span the mainstream media has. No, it's not amazing; it's sad. What about East Timor? Argentina? Zimbabwe? Say it with me: I am sick of mind numbing press focus on Iraq at the expense of other international issues.

[ Parent ]

Really? (2.50 / 6) (#83)
by Filthy Socialist Hippy on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 10:40:16 AM EST

Is there much oil in Nepal?  Because that shapes my daily life pretty heavily, I can tell you.

--
leftist, you don't love America, you love what America with all its wealth and power can be if you turn it into a socialist state. - thelizman
[ Parent ]
No, (1.50 / 2) (#123)
by tokugawa on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 01:34:46 PM EST

But there is: the tallest oversea mountain in the world!!

[ Parent ]
So write an article (5.00 / 4) (#143)
by Domino on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 03:17:33 PM EST

tokugawa, if you're interested in other places write an article about it. Your being sick of hearing about Iraq is of no interest to those of us responding to this article.

But to make it simple for you, here are only two of the ways Iraq is not just another country at the moment:

  1. -It was the subject of a preemptive attack by the US, a radical departure from decades of international law and precedent. The consequences of  that drastic move will affect every part of the world for a long time to come -- and not for the better.
  2. - The attack was based on administration insistence that the Iraqi regime held illegal nulear, biological, and chemical weapons that it was ready to use in the very near future. Now the question has arisen: if that was true, when were they planning to use them, if not in the midst of  a military attack that was telegraphed months before it began? At the moment, it appears that the justification for the attack was an outright lie. This appearance is of enormous consequence for Americans and for nations around the world that will have to consider how to deal with a Lone Superpower that behaves as a rouge state.


[ Parent ]
really (4.75 / 4) (#160)
by jayhawk88 on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 04:18:09 PM EST

So it is your opinion that the US successfully invading an oil-rich nation on the potentially trumped-up charges of said country possessing weapons of mass destruction and assisting terrorists, while simultaneously ignoring any and all international outcry against the invasion and effectively castrating the UN, will have no affect on the life of an average American citizen?

Interesting.

Why, then, should we grant government the Orwellian capability to listen at will and in real time to our communications across the Web? -- John Ashcroft
[ Parent ]
Nope. (4.00 / 1) (#287)
by mold on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 11:52:01 PM EST

As seen on Futurama:

Fry> What is DOOP?
Professor> It's like the United Nations from your time.
Fry> Wha?
Hermes> Or like the Federation from your Star Trek program.
Fry> Oh!

That may not be an exact quote, since I pulled it from my memory, but the average American doesn't care one whit about the UN, or about where their oil comes from, as long as it doesn't cost too much.

---
Beware of peanuts! There's a 0.00001% peanut fatality rate in the USA alone! You could be next!
[ Parent ]

Essentially. (4.00 / 1) (#434)
by Happy Monkey on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 03:53:25 PM EST

The US is set up in such a way that almost no foreign policy decisions made by the government will affect the average citizen. If some aspect of foreign policy does end up affecting people, the connection is almost never made by the citizenry.
___
Length 17, Width 3
[ Parent ]
Can we stop hearing this infantile complaint? (4.66 / 15) (#12)
by elenchos on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 12:11:04 AM EST

Good God, is it true that thirty years of Sesame Street has given us a generation of kids with a one minute attention span? Are you aware that your grandfather spent over five years seeing Germany and Japan in the headlines every day? These were not men of iron, you know. Mere mortals were able, in living memory, to digest developing information about an ongoing crisis from beginning to end, and could even go a day or two without whining "Are we there yet?"

Buck up, lad. No one is asking you to stay current through the Hundred Years War, beginning to end. Perhaps even someday your grandkids will ask you what it was like to live through the Bush Wars. Do you really want to tell them you got bored after a couple months and your attention wandered?

If history judges Bush harshly--and it probably will--it won't be for screwing up as a young smart aleck, but for getting us into this damn fool war.
[ Parent ]

Quality of information (3.16 / 6) (#15)
by tokugawa on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 12:22:23 AM EST

Do you believe that the information currently being release by the press (pentagon or not) is significant or important in any way? How much space and air time was given to that poor little armless boy? The little bits and pieces that are being released or discovered by reporters on the ground are almost completely meaningless in the grander scheme of things. News is a business, so if there is no news of note then you manufacture it.

If you want to really understand this war, then you're going to have to wait 15 to 20 years before serious historians take a look at it.

[ Parent ]

I have no idea what you just said. (3.44 / 9) (#21)
by elenchos on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 12:39:27 AM EST

But I'm going to place your comment in a time capsule and in 15 or 20 years I'm sure it will make all kinds of sense, and boy will I feel silly then. I guess you will be all kinds of smug about it, too, you bastard.

In the meantime, I'm going to make a vow to spend at least as much time trying to find out what happened in my world today as I do folding my socks and doing the dishes. Call me a dupe, but that's my lifestyle and I'm too old to change it now.

If history judges Bush harshly--and it probably will--it won't be for screwing up as a young smart aleck, but for getting us into this damn fool war.
[ Parent ]

Earth to elenchos (2.60 / 5) (#173)
by Silent Chris on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 05:01:07 PM EST

It isn't the 1940s anymore.  "Current news" becomes "old news" in the spanse of a few days.  When Pearl Harbor was bombed, people found out about it in radio broadcasts and newsreels days later.  When the WTC was attacked, people watched the second plane hit live.

To be honest, you sound like an old fogey; or worse, my 25 year old high school history teacher who kept claiming "those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it" (which, actually, made her sound like an old fogey).  

It's the 21st century.  I want my news quickly and in my face.  I want opinions by the boatload (why do you think I read and post on K5?)  I want political strategies to run their gamut in days, not weeks, so the latest mudslinging can be put aside faster.  I want information overload so I choose what's important to retain, not media conglomerates.  Above all, I want to deal with more than one issue in a given day, and have my emotions pulled in more than one direction, so I can pull them all back correctly.  Your attitude is just ancient.

[ Parent ]

Robocop (4.50 / 2) (#224)
by coljac on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 07:09:33 PM EST

What you need is the news from Robocop. "MediaBreak - you give us three minutes and we'll give you the world!"



---
Whether or not life is discovered there I think Jupiter should be declared an enemy planet. - Jack Handey
[ Parent ]

Fine, go ahead and post about it (2.40 / 5) (#81)
by Filthy Socialist Hippy on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 10:39:07 AM EST

Or keep on with the whiny liberal act.  Sorry about the redundancy there.

--
leftist, you don't love America, you love what America with all its wealth and power can be if you turn it into a socialist state. - thelizman
[ Parent ]
I will (5.00 / 1) (#122)
by tokugawa on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 01:33:50 PM EST

some time in July when I have nothing else pressing to do.

YOU WANTED AN ARTICLE ABOUT THE MAOIST INSURGENCY IN NEPAL, WELL YOU'LL GET ONE. Can I count on your support?

[ Parent ]

Hypocritical (5.00 / 1) (#222)
by coljac on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 07:02:03 PM EST

July? Come on man. Here you are contributing to the discussion on an Iraq article. If you posted an equally well written piece about Nepal it'd get posted FP so fast your head would spin.



---
Whether or not life is discovered there I think Jupiter should be declared an enemy planet. - Jack Handey
[ Parent ]

Nepal is old news (none / 0) (#306)
by dago on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 04:03:27 AM EST

Apparently, you haven't followed belgian politics last year (2nd half). Nepal was then a hot topic due to weapons delivery to the government. This eventually lead a minister to retract. Unfortunately, I can ony find french or dutch speaking links.

[ Parent ]
The Voice is Mightier than the Sword (none / 0) (#742)
by Fell on Wed Apr 30, 2003 at 12:06:44 AM EST

One of the lessons learned from Goebbels was the value of taking to the airwaves, having something to say twice or three times a day that in turn puts a positive spin on the war effort.  It is not so much that the media is dictating the story, but it is rather the troops and their families that need to believe the cause is just and that their efforts will bring about a victory.  And  for the opposition that they should give up to the superior force.  Should it happen that the administration abandon them, for example, when the shuttle blows up on re-entry, or perhaps for a flu epidemic, it had better be for a good reason.   The mid-east road map story seems rather hollow to many, though it was helpful at the time to win the support of the British.  Interestingly, Bush has now decided that the economy is something he can focus on.  I wonder if this will come back to haunt him, as it did for his father.

Fell

[ Parent ]

You're being way too cynical about this. (2.41 / 31) (#7)
by Keeteel on Mon Apr 21, 2003 at 11:53:22 PM EST

First of all I think you're being a bit of an alarmist and even a conspiracy theorist here. The government never made the claims it had found weapons of mass destruction or the smoking guns - from direct demand of Donald Rumsfeld and presumably George Bush the government made it clear each time that they had not confirmed the rumors. Each and everytime the rumors were started and spread by an eager media who has put being number 1 in the rankings as higher than integrity. I still do fully trust my government, as do most Americans. I've yet to see any compelling evidence to prove they have lied to us. We're barely a month in to this, and most of that time was spent in combat. We now have a 1,000 man team fully competent and capable of finding where the weapons are now that we're in a police and enforce operation.

If the Bush Administration says the weapons were moved to Syria, I see no reason to disbelieve them. You cannot reasonably expect me or any American to take the word of Syria, the U.N., or you and anyone on K5 over the people we elected for both their politics and judgement. President Bush was not elected just on his politics, he was elected to use his judgement and trust of the American people.

While your arguments are accountable to perhaps several hundred people - President Bush is accountable to nearly 300 million citizens, along with billions world wide. His arguments stand the better test of scrutiny. Had his arguments been based on lies or misinformation they truly would have been disputed by now with the sheer amount of people eager to crack down on his politics. Most of the criticisms of Bush's policies have come from over-eager people who are saturated with the desire to prove him wrong, prove Bush to be a fake. Till President Bush admits he was wrong, I see no reason to take these people's word. Like I said, we're barely a month in - this is going to take years, not days.

We will find those weapons, American intelligence services are bar-none the highest quality on this planet. They would not put themselves on the line before the world if they didn't have justifiable evidence backing their claims. Sure, we're not privy to all their information, nor should we be. But when President Bush states he wakes up every night with nightmares that Saddam Hussein was going to use his weapons against Americans, and that he prays to God to protect us Americans, I believe he has a legitimate concern and fear driving him based off more than just "lies and speculation" to "sell a war to the public."

I mean this in the most sincere way - show some faith and don't be so cynical all the time. We've just liberated these people, we're giving them a new life and a new hope. We've rid the world of an evil dictator and made it safer for everyone. We can only do so much, but even a small step forward is a step of progress.

President Bush was not elected (2.43 / 16) (#14)
by basic reality on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 12:21:49 AM EST

He lost the popular vote and stole Florida to win the electoral college.
The supreme court made him president when they voted 5-4 to put a stop to the recount in Florida.
Check out the documentary, "Unprecedented: the 2000 Election" for details.
I haven't learned how to create links, yet, but the website for the documentary is:
www.unprecedented.org

---
In the end we are all children, walking through this strange land between birth and death. None of us knows much. The best we can do is stay close and hold ha
[ Parent ]

Conspiracy... (2.78 / 19) (#17)
by Keeteel on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 12:28:19 AM EST

You can't honestly expect me or any American to believe this. Look, our government may not be perfect, I admit that. But it is the best government on this planet. It's definately not corrupt enough to do this.

[ Parent ]
a short comment.. (2.45 / 11) (#40)
by henrik on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 02:27:04 AM EST

..But it is the best government on this planet.


Heh..

Akademiska Intresseklubben antecknar!
[ Parent ]
+5 for the laughs alone (2.90 / 11) (#48)
by Hatamoto on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 03:51:17 AM EST

... best government on this planet...

bahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaha

Oh man, I needed that little bit of comic relief.

--
"Innocence is no defense." - Federal District Judge William H. Yohn (People v. Mumia Abu-Jamal)
[ Parent ]

Best Government on the Planet (3.16 / 6) (#119)
by Maclir on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 01:22:51 PM EST

Ok, I will assume you are on some form of mind altering drug, or have never travelled outside lower bumfuck, or just so fucking patriotic to Bush that you are blind and stupid.

Now had you said "The US has the best goverment money can buy". . .

[ Parent ]

Citing famous words... (4.00 / 1) (#562)
by niom on Thu Apr 24, 2003 at 02:03:27 PM EST

But it is the best government on this planet.

I NOW INFORM YOU THAT YOU ARE TOO FAR FROM REALITY.

[ Parent ]

You're absolutely right (2.00 / 7) (#84)
by Filthy Socialist Hippy on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 10:41:53 AM EST

So, when is he going to get removed?

Oh, wait, he's not.  Sour grapes from the whiny loser liberal.  How unuuuuuusual.

--
leftist, you don't love America, you love what America with all its wealth and power can be if you turn it into a socialist state. - thelizman
[ Parent ]

I would normally applaud... (4.00 / 3) (#23)
by Sze on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 12:41:08 AM EST

such an over-the-top wad of sarcasm. However, you laid it on so thick I can barely make out your true thoughts. Ok, so you may counter-argue that the bit about having the best intelligence force is a dead give away, but I'm not so sure that the less intelligent folks here will catch on as quickly as you or I.

[ Parent ]
Translation (4.40 / 5) (#187)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 05:30:22 PM EST

"I implicitly and absolutely trust the government. Surely they are much smarter than me, or else they wouldn't be politicians. I will chalk up all of the past failures of foreign policy to inexperience; I'm sure they have figured it out by now."

Forgive me, it's just hard to "show some faith" after Vietnam, the Bay of Pigs, Watergate, Iran-Contra, Lewinsky, PATRIOT, and the drug war.

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]

Different leadership (2.16 / 6) (#288)
by Keeteel on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 12:30:56 AM EST

These incidents, though overblown may have happened. But they're irrelevant - they have nothing to do with President Bush. You can try to discredit him and his administration through these historic events, but the fact is President Bush is the leader of this country now. He's the one calling the shots and making decisions - and nothing has proved him to be anything but the best President in modern history. He is our generation's George Washington. Future leaders will aspire to be President Bush.

[ Parent ]
That is just silly (1.66 / 3) (#293)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 01:02:01 AM EST

He can barely form sentences. Ad hominem it may be, but I expect my president to talk without sounding like a rambling idiot. Now he's the best president in modern history? Why? Because he may have freed Iraq? Great. When Iraq turns into a crappy Taliban-like thocracy does our own personal Washington 'free' them again right away, or does he wait until they fly a plane into the Sears tower?

Lincoln kept the US from being torn apart, but I guess that was nothing next to Bush's brilliant invasion of a weakened, inconsequential, dictatorship. BTW president is not capitalized if you're not using it in his title.

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]

I think he meant (4.00 / 2) (#550)
by Trencher on Thu Apr 24, 2003 at 12:52:54 PM EST

best US president of the century.


"Arguing online is like the Special Olympics. It doesn't matter if you win or lose, you're still a retard." RWR
[ Parent ]
Reagan - Bush - Rumsfeld (4.50 / 2) (#301)
by drquick on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 02:55:01 AM EST

This present administration is essentially the same as the Reagan administration and the Bush Sr. administration. Rumsfeld was active in both administrations among others. (btw, Albright is a connecting link between Bush and Clinton - foreign policy not so different)

We have death squads in El Salvador extermination of whole "communist sympatizing" [sic] neighbourhoods. Contras mercenaries in Nicaragua, payed with cocaine - poisoning Nicaraguan coffee plantations and killing farmers. Numerous assasinations. Among those assasinations on FARC politicians (!), laying ground for the civil war that lead to the war against drugs. Yes, the war against drugs was really started before Clinton with these assassinations. Assassinaition of opposition leader Benigno Aquino in the Philipppines. Torture specialists sent to advise dictators like Saddam, General Marcos and such. Assassination attempt on Gadaffi which kills his infant daughter. Etc, etc,...

Here Rumsfels shakes hands

[ Parent ]

I just love how you (4.00 / 1) (#549)
by Trencher on Thu Apr 24, 2003 at 12:52:22 PM EST

counter a well-made, very well-documented argument with no references and the same heap of sputum that your TV fed you last night for dinner.

Please show me where Bush and co. tried to quell rumors of their proof of WMD. I'd especially love to see it in the context of Rumsfeld's congressional presentation showing the (supposed) satellite pictures of WMD processing plants.

If you didn't notice that this started at least a year and a half ago, not just a month ago, then you probably can't come up with backing for your argument.

I guess anyone that tells you they won't lie to you must tell you the truth every moment. Yeah, if Bush had based those arguments on lies, then the author of this story would probably have a double handful of links to disprove those arguments.

Bush saying that he wakes up every night with nightmares of Saddam attacking the US makes me think he did a bit too much coke in his youth.

Finally, if the Iraqis have so much new life and hope, why the hell have they insisted that the coalition forces get out of their nation and let them govern themselves? Guess they've seen too much "nation building" to think we'll back out of our own accord.


"Arguing online is like the Special Olympics. It doesn't matter if you win or lose, you're still a retard." RWR
[ Parent ]
WMD irrelevant to most Americans (3.86 / 37) (#10)
by jjayson on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 12:05:59 AM EST

First, polls that came out two weeks ago said that most Americans (over 70%) didn't feel that WMD needed to be found. Most Americans think that liberating the Iraqi people was a good enough reason for the war.

Second, the Bush administration didn't "lie." Even those who don't agree with the administration said that it is very unlikely that they knew the documents were faked, because they were such poor forgeries. Colin Powell said that they only had the documents for two days and passed them on "in good faith." Basically, it wasn't the US's job to verify the evidence. They received it and pass it onto the correct authorities. Yes, Bush was overzealous in how he presented it during his address, but that is hardly lying.

Third, don't count the fals alarms against the US military. They have been very upfront on what they find. You can place the blame for that on a media that sensationalizes everything. Embedded reporters' greatest weakness during this war was getting the story too fast, before official announcements were made, and sending it out across the world. Neither the Bush administration or the coalition forces ever said they found evidence of WMD. They always said that they had possible leads, and they always told exactly what they found when that was determined.

Forth, the Coalition forces have not been looking for WMD evidence for four weeks now. To say that is a little disingenuous. They have barely started. When they were marching on Baghdad they were not actively looking and just happened to run across a few sites which they then called in a fox team and/or sent samples elsewhere for analysis. Also, remember, Iraq is a very large country and evidence could be well buried. How long do you think it would take to search California for a coule of trailers. When the Bush administration says that they have evidence that probably means they have information on precursors being shipped into the country or other similiar documentation. That doesn't necessarily mean they know where it is.
_______
Smile =)
* bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
<bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

Hey! I happen to have four points too. Gee. (4.50 / 22) (#19)
by elenchos on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 12:33:24 AM EST

First, I thought the Bush Administration only cared about doing what is "right", and doesn't govern by polls. As a loyal American, I for one shall stand behind my President, and condsider only the facts and the logical conclusions they lead me to, and care nothing for the whim of the masses. Plus, this tack would inevitably lead to the bizzare conclusion that if mass American opinion matters so much, then so does world opinion. Someone will start throwing around factoids about what 70% of Europeans think, as if that mattered. Bleh.

Second, the closest thing to a legal justification for this invasion was the shaky claim that Iraq was violating Resolution 1441, and that it was a threat to the security of the US. Both depend critically on the existence of these scary, scary weapons. No scary weapons, no legality. I'll make no comment as to what this record of keystone kop "evidence" gathering says about the competence of the Administration, as I am a patriot.

Third, who is giving our soldiers orders? I find it very hard to believe that an experienced Vietnam-era Reservist like GWB, or his crack team of gifted military leaders would let discipline fall apart so far that they would let common privates run their mouths in such a disgraceful fashion, and upon such a sticky topic. And some of these claims, I observe, have fallen from the lips of commissioned officers, merely being relayed to us by embedded journalists. No, these officers know all about loose lips, and they report this "evidence" because the leadership wants it reported. If you were only talking about reporters running around loose telling us that every bag of white powder they found was anthrax, well, you'd have a point. But you're not and you don't.

Fourth, you are fucking smoking cheap crack. Everyone from the President to the Secretary of Defense all the way down has told us explicitly from before the shooting started to now that the troops would indeed be actively hunting these scary weapons. Why? BECAUSE THEY ARE (if the exist) SCARY WEAPONS! One of the things you do in a war is to keep the enemy from nuking you, gassing you, or laying you low with the shits. Letting these supposed weapons slip away would have been a collosal blunder if there was any chance they could have captured them before they were used against us, or carried away to some safe haven to be turned on us in the future. Holy crap, even I don't think Rummy is that fucking crazy and stupid. Get a grip, for God's sake.

Good day to you, sir.


If history judges Bush harshly--and it probably will--it won't be for screwing up as a young smart aleck, but for getting us into this damn fool war.
[ Parent ]

I'm reluctant to respond to somebody... (2.33 / 9) (#32)
by jjayson on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 01:01:22 AM EST

with an Adequecy link in their user information, especially when their posts is in that traditional passive-agressive Adequacy manner, but here it goes...

First, I thought the Bush Administration only cared about doing what is "right", and doesn't govern by polls.
I didn't say the Bush administration was governed by polls. I think that it is very clear that they are not. The adminstration has repeatedly gone out on limbs that tends to sway away from the public. My point was what the people of America believed and had nothing to do with the administration's position. The author of the story is clearly in the minority that believes that WMD discoveries are this critically important. That doesn't make him wrong, just that he should know the heart of the American people before using pronouns such as "we."

Second, the closest thing to a legal justification for this invasion was the shaky claim that Iraq was violating Resolution 1441, and that it was a threat to the security of the US. Both depend critically on the existence of these scary, scary weapons. No scary weapons, no legality.
I don't buy these arguments that try to distill the war down to a single reason. I see many reasons why the war might have been attempted and I see some good and some poor ones. I, along with more Americans, seem to concentrate on the liberation of the Iraqi people.

Also, I don't really understand this concept of legality that you throw around. The legality of a war under international law seems to be very misrepresented. The relationship between the United States and the UN isn't like the relationship between me and the government. Also, legality doesn't imply morality. If France and Russia want to stand in the way of liberating people, then I see no reason to abide by their wishes. You can see whatever you want about the "real reasons" for war, but that doesn't change why I reluctantly now support this war.

I observe, have fallen from the lips of commissioned officers, merely being relayed to us by embedded journalists. No, these officers know all about loose lips, and they report this "evidence" because the leadership wants it reported.
This is a tinfoil-free zone. Please don't try to create some massive conspiracy. It is unproveable by you, not disprovable by me, and merely a belief on faith.

Everyone from the President to the Secretary of Defense all the way down has told us explicitly from before the shooting started to now that the troops would indeed be actively hunting these scary weapons.
No, they didn't. Brigadier General Brooks was very clear when repeatedly asked this question by reporters. He said that if anything questionable was run across, they would send in a team for further examination. He said that they forces were by no means looking for WMD and were isntead focused on the primary military objective of taking Baghdad. I don't know where you got this belief from.

If you have anything besides more conspiracy theories on how everybody is lying, I will try to respond, but if your only comments are going to be (as I suspect) how people are lying and there is some media-military conspiracy, then this is the last I will say.
_______
Smile =)
* bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
<bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

[ Parent ]

justifications for war... (4.38 / 13) (#33)
by pb on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 01:44:14 AM EST

If the US wanted this war to be about human rights, then they picked the wrong UN resolution for it; perhaps 688 would have been a better choice. Or they could have passed a resolution about human rights violations, instead of vetoing them, like they did in 1989; that would have lent more credence to your argument as well.
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
[ Parent ]
The Past (3.50 / 8) (#47)
by jjayson on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 03:50:58 AM EST

So, because a different administration didn't support a resolution on human rights, the current administration is not allowed to pursue it? There is a funny thing about contries that democratically elect new leaders every few years, they often have discontinuous policy concerns.

The arguement that there was past problems doesn't change the morality of the current decision; it does say that we should have done something different in the past. If this were an admissible argument then no country or even person could ever act morally because everybody is hypocritical all the time.

Besides, I don't have to agree with the President. Even if you could prove that President Bush was just trying to brutally murder Saddam for revenge and didn't care about the Iraqi or other Middle Eastern people, it doesn't matter. I can still support the removal of Saddam. The President may be immoral in supporting the war because he it doing it for poor reasons, however, others (including the Coalition troops) can still support it for all the right reasons.

_______
Smile =)
* bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
<bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

[ Parent ]

the not-so-distant past... (3.50 / 6) (#51)
by pb on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 04:21:25 AM EST

The administration in 1989 doesn't look that different from the present day administration; in fact, it might be the most similar to that administration since then; a lot of the same people are in positions of power, the current president is the son of the former president, etc., etc.

So should the US be held accountable for previously selling arms to Iraq? Or should Iraq be forgiven for possibly possessing those same arms? Please pick only one, or explain your choice.

Naturally you don't have to agree with the President; I don't agree with him either, along with much of the rest of the world. And he's the guy in charge of this war. If it all works out in the long run, so be it, but it won't be thanks to Bush, and it won't make Bush any less guilty.

'night, jjayson
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
[ Parent ]

It could have been last administation... (3.60 / 5) (#55)
by jjayson on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 04:59:29 AM EST

The administration in 1989 doesn't look that different from the present day administration; in fact, it might be the most similar to that administration since then
There has only been one interveing administration, so that isn't saying much. However, it is irrelevant. Do you put me in jail for something my father does? No. I am judged on my own merit, as the current President Bush should be. I still don't understand why you hem the current administration's policy in because of something a previous one has done. This really doesn't make any sense to me. Regardless of how similiar they are, it doesn't matter, they are still different people that deserve to not have to carry baggage that isn't theirs around.

So should the US be held accountable for previously selling arms to Iraq? Or should Iraq be forgiven for possibly possessing those same arms? Please pick only one, or explain your choice.
I didn't say that a nation shouldn't be held responsible to previous actions. I said that each administration should be looked at for what they do and not for something a previous administration did or did not do.

Naturally you don't have to agree with the President; I don't agree with him either, along with much of the rest of the world. And he's the guy in charge of this war. If it all works out in the long run, so be it, but it won't be thanks to Bush, and it won't make Bush any less guilty.
Of course it wouldn't make Bush any less guilty, but you appear to be reading the President's mind and saying you know what the real reasons are his actions. Considering your evidence for knowing this is something somebody else did, I really don't put much trust in your interpretation. Time will tell if you are correct, but right now it is still too early unless you know information about that secret pipeline from Iraq to Israel that has been talked about on the Arab Street lately.
_______
Smile =)
* bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
<bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

[ Parent ]
administrations, guilt, and secret evidence... (3.90 / 10) (#102)
by pb on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 11:55:28 AM EST

I agree with you that the present administration should not necessarily be held accountable for those actions of a previous one, but that doesn't matter that much when you're just talking about the US and their policies. The track record of a country does matter, as do its reasons for doing the things that it does. So far all I've seen out of the US is brutal self-interest, in 1989 with the Iran-Iraq war, and now with the US-Iraq war.

However, the same people are playing the game now, and their goals appear to be the same--the same goals as PNAC--to create "a stronger America" at the expense of the world, if necessary. So I can hold them accountable. These people will stop at nothing; they'll prop up dictators like Hussein, and then depose them if they can't control them, all the while shirking the responsibility for their actions.

I mean, honestly; who can listen to their garbage and keep a straight face?

"IRAQ HAS WMD (that we sold them)!"
"HUSSEIN COMMITTED ATROCITIES (that we already conveniently ignored)!"
"HE'S A DICTATOR (that we put in power)!"...

Come on. If you're wondering why the rest of the world doesn't take US "altruism" seriously, that's why.

I'm not reading the President's mind, at all, although sometimes I wish I could. However, I'm not the one claiming I have "secret evidence" for anything, and I'm not claiming that I have any knowledge of future events that proves anything either--that would be Bush, in both cases.
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
[ Parent ]

We didn't sell them WMD, for the last time (none / 0) (#625)
by RyoCokey on Fri Apr 25, 2003 at 02:36:10 AM EST

We sold them some common dual-use precusors and some vaccines. If I agree to stop referring to the inspectors being "kicked out" in 1998 you think you can manage to stop saying the US "sold them WMDs?"



"Seems to me the whole world has lost a basic virute, that of patients." - travlight
[ Parent ]
The interesting part... (5.00 / 15) (#34)
by elenchos on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 01:45:51 AM EST

...is your concept of legality. Are the parts of the UN's Charter that specify when one country may invade another so hard to understand? Is Article VI of the US Constitution vague in saying that that treaties are the "supreme law of the land"? Is there some question as to whether or not the US Congress has ratified the UN Charter?

Forget about what the reason for the war was -- that changed every day while they were talking it up and has changed every day since. But the law hasn't changed, and I've been hard put to figure out how anyone can be so muddled as to what the law says. Is it really that unclear?

We were either enforcing a loose interpretation of Resolution 1441, because Iraq had violated the provisions regarding the scary bad kind of weapons, or we were defending ourselves against an imminent threat, namely, scary bad weapons.

But you say that no one should care whether these weapons ever existed? Interesting.

Are you really saying that law just doesn't matter at all? So many freaky things would follow from that. Like our defense of the sovereignty of the Emir of Kuwait against Saddam Hussein. At the time law seemed important, didn't it? It wasn't like "liberty" had anything to do with it, any more than "liberty" has anything to do with our alliance with Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. Or our former support of Saddam Hussein. Will other countries get to disregard the law when they feel like it too? What if they decide to violate a treaty they have made with us?

I suppose maybe your idea is that if your moral compass is perfectly sound then you need no law to guide you, you Ubermensch, you. But wouldn't you want others to respect the law, as their morality might not be a infallible as yours? Or maybe you're so powerful that even that doesn't matter.

That's it! George Bush is a perfectly moral being and the power of the US is infinite. I guess it was my own hubris that made me doubt our leader and our fine nation. Forgive me.

If history judges Bush harshly--and it probably will--it won't be for screwing up as a young smart aleck, but for getting us into this damn fool war.
[ Parent ]

legality and morality (1.62 / 8) (#45)
by jjayson on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 03:42:40 AM EST

I don't even have to bother arguing legality, and I will not fall into that trap. Morality trumps legality every time. So, if it is illegal to liberate a people from a dictator that routinely murders, rapes, and kidnaps his people, then I would rather be in violation of the law than be in compliance of it.

People keep treating the UN as if it makes moral decisions. France and Russia are not making deciions based on morality, but their own pocketbooks. So, when Securiyy Council policy is determined to amorally, why would it be good to follow it.

In the end you are left with two decisions. You can not invade Iraq and allow another half a million people die, be raped and gassed, but you will be in compliance of the Secuity Coucil decision on what should be legal. Or you can invade Iraq, remove a brutal regime and be in violate of what France and Russian deem to be legal. Sorry, but the decision is clear since legality means nothing without a moral basis.
_______
Smile =)
* bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
<bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

[ Parent ]

Well, good luck with that. (4.75 / 8) (#91)
by elenchos on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 11:06:04 AM EST

I wouldn't dump all this on France and Russia, or on any other wacky country like Canada -- they are doing no more than I am: standing aside and pointing out that this is illegal. Not because of some nebulous wishful thinking about the rule of "international law", but because it violates our own law, based on our own Constitution. It bears repeating because we ought to at least be honest about it.

I have no other dispute with you, and appreciate your admission that you consider obedience to our laws to be optional. I hope that more of the supporters of these wars would be willing to say so up front, so we can go directly to the basis of the thinking behind it.

Now that Saddam is gone and the Bush sensibility can take hold in the new Iraq, I'm sure we can look forward to many more examples of individuals placing their own morality ahdead of any law, and the results will no doubt be just as glorious.

If history judges Bush harshly--and it probably will--it won't be for screwing up as a young smart aleck, but for getting us into this damn fool war.
[ Parent ]

Even if we accept your terms, you're still wrong (4.50 / 4) (#240)
by driptray on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 08:46:03 PM EST

Even if we were to accept for one crazy moment that a unilateral version of "morality" is sufficient to justify the illegal invasion and occupation of a sovereign country, with all the death and destruction that that entails, the facts in Iraq just don't support you.

Do you think the Iraqis wanted a US invasion? Do you think they want a US occupation? It seems clear that they don't, that they preferred things the way they were, despite living in a repressive dictatorship. They were better off then than now, and they don't see things getting better as a result of the occupation. And this isn't much of a surprise to anybody who thought about things while the war was being sold to people.

The "morality" and "liberation" argument is bullshit even in its own terms.
--
We brought the disasters. The alcohol. We committed the murders. - Paul Keating
[ Parent ]

Hateing America (4.50 / 2) (#320)
by drquick on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 06:08:21 AM EST

There is somethng about your tone that disturbs me. I 99% agree with you, but something ticks me when you write:
Do you think the Iraqis wanted a US invasion? Do you think they want a US occupation? It seems clear that they don't, that they preferred things the way they were, despite living in a repressive dictatorship. They were better off then than now, and they don't see things getting better as a result of the occupation. And this isn't much of a surprise to anybody who thought about things while the war was being sold to people.
It's not that the Iraqis preferred "things the way they were" in my opinion. They hated Saddam (some loved him, of course). The sad situation for the Iraqis is and was: They hate the USA (and Israel) more than they hated Saddam. USA is top evil. The key to understand the political psychology is not to analyse their opinions about Saddam, just analyse their opinions about America.

[ Parent ]
The way things were (3.00 / 1) (#335)
by Rasman on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 07:50:12 AM EST

WHAT?? The Iraqis "preferred things the way they were"?

What makes you say that?

---
Brave. Daring. Fearless. Clippy - The Clothes Pin Stuntman
[ Parent ]
Generally it is immoral to kill someone (4.00 / 2) (#247)
by michaelp on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 09:09:35 PM EST

in the process of liberating them, even from a rapist.

If we could have accomplished the liberation without killing hundreds (thousands once all the loose bomblet have gone off), the argument would be easy morally: if you can save someone from a rapist without killing anyone (besides the rapist) in the process that is always a moral choice.

If you need to kill & injure mass numbers of people to 'save' them, your moral high ground gets pretty hard to defend.


"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

[ Parent ]
Generally it is immoral to kill someone (4.00 / 2) (#248)
by michaelp on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 09:09:56 PM EST

in the process of liberating them, even from a rapist.

If we could have accomplished the liberation without killing hundreds (thousands once all the loose bomblet have gone off), the argument would be easy morally: if you can save someone from a rapist without killing anyone (besides the rapist) in the process that is always a moral choice.

If you need to kill & injure mass numbers of people to 'save' them, your moral high ground gets pretty hard to defend.


"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

[ Parent ]
cost vs. benefit (3.33 / 3) (#256)
by ZorbaTHut on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 09:20:23 PM EST

Yeah, but is it moral to accidentally scrape them, or give them a cut on the leg?

Because we haven't killed everyone in Iraq. We haven't even come close. If you consider Iraq to be the person we've liberated from Saddam-the-rapist, we haven't done more than bruise them accidentally, in terms of numbers.

No argument that we've killed people - I might debate whether it was necessary or not, but I'll never say it was a *good* thing. It just might be a *better* thing than not having gone in there. There are no absolutes :P

[ Parent ]

Accidentally? (2.00 / 1) (#322)
by drquick on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 06:14:42 AM EST

Yes it is immoral to do anything - even scratching someones leg - to liberate them, if it happens against his/her will. Who asked the Irakis? Who is asking them now? Do they really want 4 US miitary bases in Iraq?

Just how clever isn't it to wage war and insinuate that unevitable calualitises are accidental. Phew, you could have said statistical, acceptable, claculated or cost-effective. It would still just be an attempt to beautify the loss of human life and property.

[ Parent ]

If you want it that way... (2.00 / 1) (#307)
by Zero Sum on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 04:04:54 AM EST

I don't even have to bother arguing legality, and I will not fall into that trap. Morality trumps legality every time. So, if it is illegal to liberate a people from a dictator that routinely murders, rapes, and kidnaps his people, then I would rather be in violation of the law than be in compliance of it.

Then expect me to react violently if you try that in my back yard. The correct way is to change the law, not take it into your own hands. I reserve the right to pre-emtively protect myself from any vigilanty.

The wild, wild West is long dead. Bush, Blair and Howard's attempt to ressurect it will fail. However there may not be much of a world left afterwards.


Zero Sum - Vescere bracis meis
[ Parent ]

Morality (4.66 / 3) (#368)
by Dephex Twin on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 10:46:33 AM EST

I don't even have to bother arguing legality, and I will not fall into that trap. Morality trumps legality every time. So, if it is illegal to liberate a people from a dictator that routinely murders, rapes, and kidnaps his people, then I would rather be in violation of the law than be in compliance of it.
I'm sure you believe that-- when the barometer for morality is your own. You can say that what Bush is doing is morality over legality, but then when someone does something to us, you can just take a cynical viewpoint with everyone else and define it as immoral.

I know you probably are unable to consider this idea... but I am almost certain that Osama bin Laden and the members of al Quaeda considered their attack on 9/11 to be morality trumping legality. They knew that this would be considered terrorism, and that you aren't supposed to kill civilians. But they felt that with all the things going on in the Muslim world that what they did was justified morally. When people in the Muslim world chant "death to America", do you just write it off as being deceived by evil or do you go with the "jealous of us" line?

How is it that you can say that France and Russia are in it for themselves but we are obviously not? Don't you think the truth lies somewhere in between?

If every country, or even just several countries, start ignoring international law and doing what they honestly perceive to be morally right, the world is going to be a very scary place in the coming years. Do you really think the Palestinians and Israelis don't each honestly believe that they have the moral high ground? This is why you bother to have laws in the first place, instead of one law that says "do what is right".


Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
[ Parent ]

Your 2nd point is obviously invalid (2.00 / 5) (#297)
by RyoCokey on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 02:06:01 AM EST

The US had an ironclad legal basis for this war with the violation of the ceasefire ending the first Gulf War. To break it and resume hostilities, all Iraq had to do was:

1) Attack the US military

2) Harbor and Aid Terrorists

3) Manufacture and fail to dispose of WMDs

As listed in the resolution closing the war. Since Iraq publically broke 1 & 2, either of which were grounds for war, what does 3 matter?



"Some things do not change. The best way to shock and awe an enemy is still to kill him." - Ralph Peters
[ Parent ]
Errmm... ALL your points belong to US (4.00 / 1) (#300)
by Zero Sum on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 02:49:39 AM EST

1) Attack the US military

The only attacks that I know of were defensive against the illegal attempts to enforce no-fly zones. If you are running armed in my backyard, expect the same.

2) Harbor and Aid Terrorists

Exactly what are you talking about here? If you are talking about the camp in the North run by his opposition and connected with Al Quaida, Hussein would have been more than happy to see that carpet bombed.

If you are talking about retired terrorists who have been tried and released for lack of evidence, well, Ollie North is in a worse position...

3) Manufacture and fail to dispose of WMDs

Oh, expect to find some. You need to have some to research defense from them. But don't expect to find significant quantaties of usable material. They are simply not there.

You are just using the normal lies that rogue nations spout.


Zero Sum - Vescere bracis meis
[ Parent ]

I'll bite, troll boy (4.50 / 2) (#353)
by RyoCokey on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 09:52:49 AM EST

The No-Fly zones are under a resolution to protect the minorities of Iraq that didn't have an enforcement clause. However, the original resolution that enabled force at the beginning of the Gulf War also contained language specifying it applied to All following applicable resolutions. Thus, the no fly zones.

That being accepted, a ceasefire is a absolute document. You must refrain from firing on US aircraft regardless of the situation to avoid breaking the ceasefire.

As to the second point Iraq openly offered a $25,000 bounty to Palestinian suicide bombers, violating his part of the ceasefire in that manner. Additionally, Abu Nidal was found in Iraq before the attack, and more recently, we found Abu Abbas there.



"Some things do not change. The best way to shock and awe an enemy is still to kill him." - Ralph Peters
[ Parent ]
Correction: no Saddam link to 9/11 [n/t] (1.00 / 1) (#440)
by Dephex Twin on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 04:18:51 PM EST




Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
[ Parent ]
Another violent apologist... (none / 0) (#761)
by Zero Sum on Fri May 09, 2003 at 01:53:14 AM EST

The No-Fly zones are under a resolution to protect the minorities of Iraq that didn't have an enforcement clause. However, the original resolution that enabled force at the beginning of the Gulf War also contained language specifying it applied to All following applicable resolutions. Thus, the no fly zones.

That's been the apologist position for a long time. It has not yet been proven correct and seems to be a suspect argument. It is pulling a long bow to draw that interpretations.

That being accepted, a ceasefire is a absolute document. You must refrain from firing on US aircraft regardless of the situation to avoid breaking the ceasefire.

It was almost universal that the No-Fly pilots fired first. They were also pretty casual about it. So ecachtly WHO broke the cease fire, Iraq or the USA?

As to the second point Iraq openly offered a $25,000 bounty to Palestinian suicide bombers, violating his part of the ceasefire in that manner. Additionally, Abu Nidal was found in Iraq before the attack, and more recently, we found Abu Abbas there.

It wasn't that much and it was not a bounty but paid to a killer but compensation to the falimies of dead sucides. You can colour it as encouragement or you can colour it as mercy. The worst you can really say about it was that he chose his causes. So do you. As to the value of captured terorists mentioned, we shall see. They were beyond doing more damage.


Zero Sum - Vescere bracis meis
[ Parent ]

who the fuck cares about most (70%) americans? (4.43 / 16) (#20)
by martingale on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 12:35:21 AM EST

The article makes a simple point, which is that on past history and behaviour, everything coming out the the higher levels of the US administration is untrustworthy. While this is already known to the masses around the world (don't know about the US "voters"), pointing out the obvious is still a good starting point for a discussion.

Second, the Bush administration didn't "lie." Even those who don't agree with the administration said that it is very unlikely that they knew the documents were faked, because they were such poor forgeries. Colin Powell said that they only had the documents for two days and passed them on "in good faith." Basically, it wasn't the US's job to verify the evidence. They received it and pass it onto the correct authorities. Yes, Bush was overzealous in how he presented it during his address, but that is hardly lying.
Completely untrue. Bush and his junta have lied repeatedly, as has Blair. I'm not going to fish out old news reports from Google, you can do that yourself (or anyone else reading this comment). When the US president repeatedly tells the world that he *knows* Iraq has WMDs, that counts as a lie unless he can back it up. He can't.

Powell's transparent attempt at backtracking with the "good faith" quip doesn't fix that particular lie, or transmute it into something else. Basically, that's because Powell didn't act in "good faith" by that point. He can say he did, but "good faith" requires making an effort to give the other side a chance. By the date when the faked documents appeared, it had been clear for months that the administration wasn't giving the other side a chance. Things like constantly undermining the inspectors credibility made this plain as day. So without "good faith" behaviour on the US's part, there's no "good faith" defense against the faked documents.

Third, don't count the fals alarms against the US military. They have been very upfront on what they find. You can place the blame for that on a media that sensationalizes everything.
The US military has a conflict of interest in this, which makes their "upfront" behaviour way suspect. I trust them as much as Bush, and you should too.

Neither the Bush administration or the coalition forces ever said they found evidence of WMD. They always said
Completely untrue. For a start, the Powell presentation labeled the photographs of trucks as positive evidence of a WMD program, and therefore WMD. Also, anonymous sources were claimed as giving proof of WMDs, proof which Bush constantly alluded to.

Forth, the Coalition forces have not been looking for WMD evidence for four weeks now. To say that is a little disingenuous. They have barely started.
Well blimey, what the hell have they been up to in sunny Iraq? Besides blowing holes in mosques, that is?

[ Parent ]
I would responsd, (1.62 / 8) (#26)
by jjayson on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 12:44:33 AM EST

but I cannot find a single coherent argument in your post.

_______
Smile =)
* bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
<bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

[ Parent ]
try reading it, then [n/t] (4.50 / 6) (#28)
by martingale on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 12:48:04 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Your statement was incorrect (2.33 / 3) (#44)
by RyoCokey on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 03:27:47 AM EST

That's about the nicest thing I can say about it.

Completely untrue. Bush and his junta have lied repeatedly, as has Blair. I'm not going to fish out old news reports from Google, you can do that yourself (or anyone else reading this comment).

Not if you can't even cite the examples in which he supposedly lied.

When the US president repeatedly tells the world that he *knows* Iraq has WMDs, that counts as a lie unless he can back it up. He can't.

No, if you stated that you know Iraq doesn't have WMDs, you would be lying. The UN knows they do, have evidence they possessed such weapons and did not destroy them, and that such weapons are unaccounted for. Mr. Blix admitted to such when interviewed. This is hardly a shocking revelation. They still had weapons when they kicked the inspectors out in 1998, and never produced proof they were destroyed.

Well blimey, what the hell have they been up to in sunny Iraq? Besides blowing holes in mosques, that is?

That's just inane.



"Some things do not change. The best way to shock and awe an enemy is still to kill him." - Ralph Peters
[ Parent ]
my sources say otherwise (2.33 / 6) (#56)
by martingale on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 05:06:03 AM EST

Completely untrue. Bush and his junta have lied repeatedly, as has Blair. I'm not going to fish out old news reports from Google, you can do that yourself (or anyone else reading this comment).
Not if you can't even cite the examples in which he supposedly lied.
Do your own research. It's not my job to play detective. You've got Google, use it.

No, if you stated that you know Iraq doesn't have WMDs, you would be lying.
I know for a fact that Iraq doesn't have WMDs. Unlike you, I'm pretty well connected and my sources are never wrong. And no, I won't discuss my sources. Forget the UN they do things by the book.

[ Parent ]
Please stop spreading this myth. (5.00 / 3) (#161)
by Kwil on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 04:18:32 PM EST

They still had weapons when they kicked the inspectors out in 1998, and never produced proof they were destroyed.

Iraq has not once kicked weapon inspectors out. On each and every occasion, the weapons inspectors left of their own choice.

In 1998, the reason behind them leaving was that Iraq had stopped fully co-operating. Rather than attempt to encourage cooperation, the inspectors left.  Further investigation showed that why Iraq had become uncooperative was because the inspectors had become a front for a CIA intelligence gathering operation.

Also, they have evidence that they possessed such weapons, and they are lacking evidence that Iraq destroyed them - they do not have evidence showing that Iraq did not destroy them. Well, actually, they do.. the same defector who tipped off the US to the possession of the WMD in the first place also told the US that the weapons had been destroyed prior to the inspectors coming in.

You can find all your backing information at this site, and specific links from my earlier comment.

That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze


[ Parent ]
Sorry, you are correct (none / 0) (#180)
by RyoCokey on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 05:11:09 PM EST

Slip of the tongue, as it was. I'm aware of the situation around 1998, although "kicked out" is not entirely inappropriate as they were refused admittance afterwards, but it is still misleading.



"Some things do not change. The best way to shock and awe an enemy is still to kill him." - Ralph Peters
[ Parent ]
Here do some reading (none / 0) (#527)
by stoothman on Thu Apr 24, 2003 at 10:38:07 AM EST

A while back I commented up a speech by George Bush. Here is the link.
Review of Mr. Bush Speech

Trolling, trolling at Kuro5hin
For many a blustery remark
Is made for me to grin
[ Parent ]
who the fuck cares about most (70%) americans? (1.25 / 4) (#76)
by Filthy Socialist Hippy on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 10:29:00 AM EST

Well, most (70%) of Americans, for starters.  Which, in case you haven't been keeping up with world events, is the only demographic that matters.

More to the point, who the fuck among people that matter cares what anyone outside America thinks?

Did you see France actually stepping the fuck up to defend Iraq?  No, you did not.  Everyone outside the USA is irrelevant, except in as much as they provide us cheap labor, shirts, electronic toys, or real estate for military bases.

Argue against that all you will, but try looking at what people have been doing, not what they've been saying.  Liberal Eurotrash are big on talking, but short on action.  Who cares?

--
leftist, you don't love America, you love what America with all its wealth and power can be if you turn it into a socialist state. - thelizman
[ Parent ]

Sad news. (5.00 / 1) (#369)
by it certainly is on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 10:49:54 AM EST

I just heard some sad news on talk radio. Diplomacy was found dead today in its suburban home...

Well, most (70%) of Americans, for starters. Which, in case you haven't been keeping up with world events, is the only demographic that matters.

If you have any national institutions or symbols of America's greatness that you've always wanted to visit, I suggest you stop trolling for 5 minutes and go see them ASAP.

Everyone outside the USA is irrelevant, except in as much as they provide us cheap labor, shirts, electronic toys, or real estate for military bases.

That's a great way of spinning a fucking gaping maw of a trade deficit. I hope you like paying ten times what you currently do for household products, because that's what'd happen if you had to start making everything that illiterate peasants in China do.

You'd like another 800 trillion to prop up your ailing economy? Yeah, right, you spent the last 800 trillion we gave you on bombs and planes. Your credit's no good any more. Tell you what, I'll be nice. I'll give you 5. 5 euros.

You'll roll the tanks in, you say? A ha ha ha! Look, buster, do you want all your cities nuked? There's another 9 members in the Nukular Klub and you've already pissed off 7 of them. Don't push your luck or you'll join Macedonia, Rome, Scandanavia, France, Britain, the Netherlands, Germany, Turkey, etc.

Seriously, dude, enjoy beating your chest and dancing about as much as you can -- it saves you from having to think about depressing things like the ruling elite in your country completely ignoring anything that 70% of Americans think and giving all your hi-tech jobs to people who don't matter.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

An interesting assumption here ... (4.66 / 6) (#149)
by pyramid termite on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 03:45:07 PM EST

... is that only Americans' opinions count.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Typo (1.00 / 2) (#199)
by Filthy Socialist Hippy on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 06:14:43 PM EST

"Interesting" == "correct".

--
leftist, you don't love America, you love what America with all its wealth and power can be if you turn it into a socialist state. - thelizman
[ Parent ]
Liberating the Iraqi people? (1.83 / 6) (#205)
by Filthy Socialist Hippy on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 06:21:04 PM EST

I doubt that.  This was more payback for 9/11.  A crusade we called it while we were still being honest, and a crusade it remains.

More, please.

--
leftist, you don't love America, you love what America with all its wealth and power can be if you turn it into a socialist state. - thelizman
[ Parent ]

a payback to the wrong address, I might add (nt) (none / 0) (#311)
by Kuranes on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 05:37:38 AM EST




Gentlemen, Chicolini here may talk like an idiot, and look like an idiot, but don't let that fool you: he really is an idiot.
[ Parent ]
Sand (1.00 / 3) (#343)
by Filthy Socialist Hippy on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 08:28:48 AM EST

Chanting ragheads that hate the idea of freedom of religion.  What's the difference?  I know that Saddam might not have been involved, and yet I still feel better.  In the final analysis (i.e. in the voting booth), that's all that matters.

--
leftist, you don't love America, you love what America with all its wealth and power can be if you turn it into a socialist state. - thelizman
[ Parent ]
comments (4.20 / 5) (#236)
by gdanjo on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 08:17:56 PM EST

Second, the Bush administration didn't "lie." Even those who don't agree with the administration said that it is very unlikely that they knew the documents were faked, because they were such poor forgeries. Colin Powell said that they only had the documents for two days and passed them on "in good faith." Basically, it wasn't the US's job to verify the evidence. They received it and pass it onto the correct authorities. Yes, Bush was overzealous in how he presented it during his address, but that is hardly lying.
My definition of a lie is "user focused": That is, if I was deceived, someone lied.

Your definition of a lie is "liar focused": That is, if I was deceived, and you didn't lie, and your friend didn't lie, and your brother's uncle's mum didn't lie, then no lie was perpotrated.

Are you by any chance a programmer?

Third, don't count the fals alarms against the US military. They have been very upfront on what they find. You can place the blame for that on a media that sensationalizes everything. [...]
If you use the media to drum up the beats of war, don't cry when the media drums it's own beat when it's bored.

If the US military doesn't know whether any story will be "sensationalized", then they should just shut up.

Forth, the Coalition forces have not been looking for WMD evidence for four weeks now. To say that is a little disingenuous. [...]
You're right. They've been looking since Gulf War 1 and havn't found a thing.

But give them another week. They'll turn up.

Dan ...
"Death - oh! fair and `guiling copesmate Death!
Be not a malais'd beggar; claim this bloody jester!"
-ToT
[ Parent ]

Lies by another name (4.64 / 14) (#239)
by michaelp on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 08:42:00 PM EST

Second, the Bush administration didn't "lie."
They told a limited subset of the truth with intent to decieve.

A President was recently impeached for such an act. Of course that was about something REALLY IMPORTANT...


"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

[ Parent ]
So... (3.46 / 13) (#16)
by tang gnat on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 12:25:26 AM EST

Syria is next then.

No. (4.00 / 3) (#22)
by jjayson on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 12:39:52 AM EST

Amir Taheri:

Now consider the candidates for the position of "the next one."

They all know how far they can go without risking their existence.

Let us begin with Syria, now singled out by part of the U.S. media as " the next one."

Throughout the Cold War Syria maintained close ties with the Soviet Union but refused to sign a military pact with it or grant it bases.

President Hafez al-Assad also made sure that he met all the American presidents, from Nixon to Clinton. Although Syria's Golan has been under Israeli occupation, not a shot was ever fired against the Jewish state from Syrian territory.

Syria organized its occupation of Lebanon as if it were doing a favor to the Lebanese. Unlike Saddam Hussein who just moved into Kuwait, Hafez al-Assad made sure that his troops entered Lebanon as " saviors" with the support of the Arab League, the United Nations and the European powers.

Syria has also shown a remarkable tactical good sense in knowing how and when to unleash the Lebanese armed groups it has organized with the help of Iran, against Israel.

The Syrian leaders have often gone to the edge, but never beyond it as Saddam Hussein did.

Today, there is absolutely no possibility that Syria will allow itself to be pushed into a corner in which the survival of its regime will be at stake. Syria knows how to not to believe its own incendiary slogans, and how to compromise when it has to.


_______
Smile =)
* bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
<bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

[ Parent ]
Hafez al-Assad, and his son's an idiot. (1.66 / 3) (#59)
by Demiurge on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 06:58:58 AM EST

He lacks the diplomatic cautino his father possessed, and has shown so repeatedly, most recently by allowing Iraqi weapons and officials to pass into Syria, and Arab volunteers to pass into Iraq. I think it's unlikely that the US will pursue full-scale military action against him, unless he does something mind-bogglingly stupid(say, Saddam Hussein shows up in a villa in Damascus and Syria refuses to expel him).

[ Parent ]
You're assuming (2.00 / 8) (#69)
by Filthy Socialist Hippy on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 10:04:56 AM EST

That they'll be given a choice.  Why should we give them the benefit of the doubt?  Even if they hand over 10,000 weapons, how do we know they don't have 10,000 more?  All that would prove was that they have weapons.

Syria is next, and it can't be soon enough.

--
leftist, you don't love America, you love what America with all its wealth and power can be if you turn it into a socialist state. - thelizman
[ Parent ]

You think so? (1.11 / 18) (#70)
by Filthy Socialist Hippy on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 10:07:07 AM EST

Good.

It's about time we started policing the world.  The sand monkeys have shown time and again that they can't be trusted.  I'm sick of presuming innocence, and of letting them talk their way out of a corner of their own making.

Utter and instant compliance is the only criteria that will save them.  I don't expect that they'll figure that out in time though.  As we keep hearing, Arabiacs are proud people.  Proud, but apparently not brave or smart.

--
leftist, you don't love America, you love what America with all its wealth and power can be if you turn it into a socialist state. - thelizman
[ Parent ]

2 points (maybe a 3rd) (3.66 / 21) (#18)
by scatbubba on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 12:28:48 AM EST

"Four weeks of American and British scouring of Iraq have turned up nothing."

If by scouring, you mean "primarily fighting a war and not looking for weapons", then i guess you have a point here.

"The Bush Administration promised everyone from Jaques Chirac"

Didn't Jaques say more time was needed by inspectors? Why don't the americans get more time? Jaques wanted months for the inspectors. Why not give america months to find what they are looking for?

"Going back a couple of months, we find that the United states has lied before. In March the Bush administration released documents proving that Iraq had been looking to buy uranium in Africa two years ago."

Wasn't it shown that this intelligence report came from outside the US, from one of it's allies, an ally named France? I've read this, but I can't find a link. Can someone help me out here either way?

because (4.22 / 9) (#25)
by martingale on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 12:42:57 AM EST

Didn't Jaques say more time was needed by inspectors? Why don't the americans get more time? Jaques wanted months for the inspectors. Why not give america months to find what they are looking for?
Because the Americans have claimed that they know for a fact that Iraq ha WMDs and essentially know where to find them. (little things like spy satellite photographs of factories, particular "mobile factory" vehicles, etc.) So by their own claims, the US has enough information to overrule both Chirac and the UN. They now have control of the country, again by their admission. There should be no need for months, unless they need time to plant fake evidence and blow fake dust on it.

More generally, showing Iraq is free of WMDs requires checking everywhere, which takes time. Showing Iraq has WMD requires exhibiting only one site, which can be done quickly.

About your second allegation regarding France, you'd better show a link, or else I would be forced to surmise that you've been interning in the White House...

[ Parent ]

That's why i qualified it (4.00 / 4) (#29)
by scatbubba on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 12:48:14 AM EST

i know i read that france provided it, but i don't have a link, and unless someone provides one, i can't make it my 3rd point.

You say 'particular "mobile factory" vehicles'. Does it not seem obvious that 'mobile factory vehicles' can be moved, hidden, destroyed, etc?

[ Parent ]
mobile factories (3.66 / 3) (#30)
by martingale on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 12:57:56 AM EST

The US knows what they look like (hint, drawings at Powell's presentation). There are also various engineering constraints, which reduce the possible sizes and shapes of the trucks. Then there's the spy satellites which can point to suspicious looking trucks in potential locations. I bet they need to park those things next to a convenient water source. Finally, these things leave chemical traces (waste products in the environment). That's plenty of leads to track down one of these factories, given that the US now has control of the country, and a lot more people on the ground than the UN has during inspections.

[ Parent ]
I don't know whether hypocrite is the right word.. (4.50 / 2) (#95)
by eightball on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 11:19:17 AM EST

You've got Google, use it.

you'd better show a link

All within the same story.

[ Parent ]

I'm sorry, you'll have to enlighten me (none / 0) (#296)
by martingale on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 02:05:19 AM EST

The first comment you link to was a reply to RyoCokey who, rather than put up a coherent argument, simply said "you're wrong, prove it". Well, rather than paraphrase, he actually said
Not if you can't even cite the examples in which he [Bush] supposedly lied.
So I replied in kind, as that sort of blatant rewriting of history doesn't deserve a longwinded response. Copying the republican debating tactics as part of the rest of my reply seemed...subtly fitting.

I'm not sure how you relate that to the second comment you linked to, as it contains mainly general factual statements. Perhaps you thought that this part was hypocritical:

About your second allegation regarding France, you'd better show a link, or else I would be forced to surmise that you've been interning in the White House...
All I'm asking is for a link to those allegations. Unlike the examples in which Bush lied (pick just about any press conference transcript related to Iraq before the war), this seems hard to find on the web. So it's reasonable to ask the author (or anyone else volunteering) for a source. If this allegation about France were a well known fact, then I'd be in RyoCokey's shoes. It isn't, so I'm not.

What do you think?

[ Parent ]

The way I remember it (4.33 / 6) (#41)
by flo on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 02:48:36 AM EST

Wasn't it shown that this intelligence report came from outside the US

I may be wrong, but my recollection of this episode is:
  1. The USA produced "conclusive evidence" that Iraq tried to buy nuclear stuff in Africa.
  2. They showed this to the inspectors.
  3. The inspectors take one look and say "what a childishly obvious fake"
  4. The USA says "Oh, uh, well, um, actually, WE din't find it. We got it from, let's see, some other source. Yes, that's it. But we cannot name this source. Must protect our assets and all that. We didn't know it was fake, sorry."
Yes, I know I'm exaggerating, but, unless I recall incorrectly, that was what happened. Not that the UK fared any better with their own "important intelligence report".
---------
"Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
[ Parent ]
That's about how it happened (2.60 / 5) (#71)
by Filthy Socialist Hippy on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 10:10:11 AM EST

But you missed the part where after the CIA said "Yeah, we're busted", they just sniggered and went on to say "But so what?  What are you going to do about it, liberals?"

This is an irrelevant issue.  It was irrelevant at the time, because nobody believed it anyway, and it's irrelevant now, because nobody who matters cares.

--
leftist, you don't love America, you love what America with all its wealth and power can be if you turn it into a socialist state. - thelizman
[ Parent ]

Searching for weapons (4.80 / 5) (#46)
by nusuth on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 03:43:33 AM EST

The idea of searching for WMDs is really new, a few weeks old at best. It was argued that USA knew the locations of various WMD production and storage facilities before the war but couldn't show them for security reasons to the public at large. We were supposed to trust them that Iraq had WMDs without any evidence whatsoever, since USA had conclusive evidence that they had.

USA never lies. "Man overboard!" is the appropriate response to such silly ideas.

[ Parent ]

Admit it (2.50 / 6) (#50)
by Betcour on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 04:18:27 AM EST

If Saddam had WMD, he would have used them already since his own life and his regime was at stake. The simple fact that not a single WMD was fired by Iraquis is enough to prove Iraq doesn't have any functionnal WMD.

[ Parent ]
Slight flaw (3.00 / 5) (#72)
by Filthy Socialist Hippy on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 10:16:54 AM EST

"Saddam" didn't have any WMD in his personal posession.  He had to travel light when fleeing to Syria (probably disguised as a woman) the moment he realized the game was up.

The commanders in the field might have considered using WMDs, but given the rate at which they were surrendering, how dumb would they have to be to think it would make a difference?

I mean, really, what were they going to use them against?  Chemical weapons are only useful against slow moving or dug in massed infantry formations, and only as a precursor to an attack on them.

Say, did you spot who had the dug in massed infantry formations?  Hint: it wasn't us.  And what's the point in disrupting an attack if your forces are too spineless to mount a counter-attack anyway?

My guess is that if we just start pulling out fingernails, the fearless Iraqi generals will tell us where they buried the sarin shells.

--
leftist, you don't love America, you love what America with all its wealth and power can be if you turn it into a socialist state. - thelizman
[ Parent ]

It's kind of hard to order your troops... (4.33 / 3) (#89)
by br284 on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 10:54:01 AM EST

... to fire a WMD when your lines of communication and command are cut.

I don't have the link handy, but entire divisions of the Iraqi military (regular and Republican Guard alike) were cut off from commanding authorities and many didn't know what was going on during the bulk of the war.

I can find a link to the article (it may be NY Times) if you want, so signal if I should do some rooting about.

-Chris

[ Parent ]

They *said* they knew. (5.00 / 5) (#192)
by baron samedi on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 05:55:56 PM EST

In numerous public appearances, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Powell, all insisted that not only did Iraq have lots of WMD, but that they knew exactly where they were, Secretary Powell gave a power point presentation at the U.N. and claimed that we knew, with our vast intelligence apparatus, all the details about Iraq's programs, but couldn't disclose these details because it would jeopardize Iraqi and U.S. intelligence assets.

Now that the war is over, can we now see the evidence?

The short answer is no, because they aren't there. They never were, at least not since 1998, when UNSCOM estimated that 95-98% of Iraq's capabilities to produce these weapons has been dismantled, and anything they do have is old and not really useable.

Would would convince me that Iraq did have these weapons?

Actual weapons, for starters. Bacterial cultures in a lab are not a weapon. Same goes for chemicals in vials. Fertilizer, yogurt production vats are not good enough. If I'm to believe that Iraq had WMDs, and was capable of using them as of the start of the war, not some indefinite point in the future, I would need to see some warheads, rockets, mortar shells, artillery shells, whatever, in good working order, able to be deployed or transferred to another party. This does not mean dust-caked mortar shells buried in the desert, or in some forgotten bunker from the first gulf war. I want to see shiny, out-of-the-box chemical or biological weapons. Then I might believe that the administration was at least telling the truth about their motivations for Iraq at some point.

Furthermore, if we were so damn sure about the weapons, how come Secretary Rumsfeld no claims that we're hoping the Iraqis will tell us where they are. Huh? I though we definitively knew! I would expect that if we indeed had all the intelligence we were claiming to have, once we gained control of Iraq, we would send in teams right away to get them before they slipped into enemy hands in the ensuing chaos which *always* follows war. The fact that we haven't done this indicates to me that the whole WMD thing was a sham.

This could be a huge problem for Tony Blair, as many of his party supported him on this because of the WMD threat. If no weapons are found, they will have to contend with the fact that they went along with an illegal war. It may be of no consequence to anyone in the U.S., but for Blair and his faction of the Labour party, it could be devastating. Fortunately for Bush, in a country of "Iraq and Roll", the end goal is what matters, and so now that it's done, there's no need to justify it now, and from Bush's point of view, who's going to do anything about it? I paraphrase President Bush from Bob Woodward's book: I don't feel that I have to explain myself to anyone. The President does need to explain himself, but what he knows is that no one is even going to ask him the questions.
"Hands that help are better by far than lips that pray."- Robert G. Ingersoll
[ Parent ]

well (none / 0) (#273)
by gdanjo on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 10:20:01 PM EST

Didn't Jaques say more time was needed by inspectors? Why don't the americans get more time? Jaques wanted months for the inspectors. Why not give america months to find what they are looking for?
If you said no to him, why are you now pleading for understanding? Duh.

Wasn't it shown that this intelligence report came from outside the US, from one of it's allies, an ally named France? I've read this, but I can't find a link. Can someone help me out here either way?
This is what happens when you use marketing techniques to drive a war. You get associated with "sound-bite" sounding fluff pieces that carry no meaning by design and so reporters look no further and "do the math" themselves.

The tactics you use will be collected, massaged, bent, and willed into a form that will bite you back in the arse.

All your "cycles" are belong to us (be it business, product, political, whatever).

Dan ...
"Death - oh! fair and `guiling copesmate Death!
Be not a malais'd beggar; claim this bloody jester!"
-ToT
[ Parent ]

Hans Blix (none / 0) (#313)
by Beltza on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 05:43:59 AM EST

Why won't the US just let Hans Blix in and let him search again?

Be alert!!!
The world needs more lerts...


[ Parent ]
You gotta remember, though... (4.19 / 21) (#24)
by Imperfect on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 12:41:36 AM EST

...they're searching an entire COUNTRY. This isn't like searching your freaking basement. It's not a "there's only so many places my keys could be" situation. Further, it's not impossible that WMDs are moved from location to location after they've been search.

With all that said, I:
  • don't really support the war in it's current format,
  • believe diplomacy could have resolved this better if given more time,
  • would have preferred if someone had dealt directly with the problem of Saddam, instead of morphing it into "Iraq is lacking in bomb craters", however:
  • I saw no elite military strike teams offering to personally take out Saddam, and
  • there was no-one who was willing to go after the government by itself, so we should all just
  • stfu.
Plus, I really enjoy just stirring shit up.


Not perfect, not quite.
all they have to do is find ONE (4.50 / 4) (#27)
by martingale on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 12:47:20 AM EST

How hard can it be? The US has informants, spy satellites, is there on the ground, can go anywhere, even has access to Hussein's palaces (well, what's left of them...). I don't see what's the hold up.

[ Parent ]
I think (4.14 / 7) (#35)
by truth versus death on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 01:55:51 AM EST

They're waiting for sweeps week, or just before the next selection for president. Have to make it seem like the will of the people and all that jive.

"any erection implies consent"-fae
[ Trim your Bush ]
[ Parent ]
It doesn't matter how many they find... (1.00 / 5) (#58)
by Demiurge on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 06:56:20 AM EST

because even the most concrete and convincing evidence will be roundly denounced by the fringe-left/K5-mainstream crowd as American plants. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[ Parent ]
that's life (4.28 / 7) (#62)
by martingale on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 07:28:59 AM EST

Sure fire way to be damned: take the law into your own hands, when it's perfectly adequate out of them.

[ Parent ]
I hate you, and accuse you of having a gun. (5.00 / 9) (#63)
by OmniCognate on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 07:43:53 AM EST

A comittee on which I serve sends an experienced, independent guy in to search your house. When his job is barely even properly underway, I kick him out and blow your house up with a rocket launcher. Then I personally rummage through the ruins, still keeping the independent inspector out, and, lo and behold, I find a gun. Surprisingly enough, noone is quite convinced I didn't plant it there myself.

How is this "damned if you do, damned if you don't"?



[ Parent ]
Barely even properly underway? (1.33 / 3) (#179)
by SPYvSPY on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 05:07:14 PM EST

Get the fuck out of here. You have to be kidding with that. Twelve years wasn't enough time for the UN bloodhounds?! You're living in a bad fucking dream.
------------------------------------------------

By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
[ Parent ]

Sanctions were genocide (none / 0) (#711)
by drquick on Mon Apr 28, 2003 at 03:31:20 AM EST

There was not 12 years of inspections - there was twelve years of sanctions. And probably a milion dead from that! Inspections were implemented a few months only - Hans Blix hardly got started!

[ Parent ]
Another scenario (3.00 / 1) (#182)
by Cro Magnon on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 05:14:35 PM EST

A comittee on which I serve sends a bumbling idiot in to search your house. You make him look like a fool for 7 years, then kick him out, giving you another 5 years with nobody watching you. I blow your house up with a rocket launcher. Then I personally rummage through the ruins, still keeping the idiot inspector out, and, lo and behold, I find a gun. Just because all your good buddies say I must have planted it, doesn't make it true!
Information wants to be beer.
[ Parent ]
No (none / 0) (#251)
by truth versus death on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 09:15:33 PM EST

The forensic evidence found with the gun will make that apparent.

"any erection implies consent"-fae
[ Trim your Bush ]
[ Parent ]
Okay... (none / 0) (#375)
by Dephex Twin on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 11:05:59 AM EST

So we have one guy who had lots of time by himself, made inspectors look like fools, let's even go with poorly fed and beat his family who also lived there.

Then we have a guy that blew up the house with a rocket launcher, with the guy and his family inside (most family members lived though).

So, which guy is the bad guy?  To me, it doesn't seem like either one is doing good here.

Too bad that inspector didn't get more help and support from the guy with the rocket launcher.


Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
[ Parent ]

Wouldn't it matter to Bush? (none / 0) (#253)
by michaelp on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 09:16:46 PM EST

Or was he lying when he said the war was about stopping Saddam's WMD development?

Seems to me that regardless of what ultra left fringed freaks say or think, Bush, Wolfowitz, Powell, et al. would want to find WMDs for their own self respect.

Unless of course they were making up the whole thing all along?


"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

[ Parent ]
Finding just a little isn't enough for me (none / 0) (#620)
by drquick on Fri Apr 25, 2003 at 01:07:28 AM EST

They need to show they weren't lying when they talked about metric tonnes. All that proof they were supposed to have. It's not about finding stuff in Iraq. It's about finding stuff in the oval office. Finding lies!

[ Parent ]
Moving (4.80 / 5) (#38)
by ensignyu on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 02:18:36 AM EST

Eh, who's moving them now? Can't blame Saddam Hussein, because he's vanished. (Maybe he took them with him?)I suspect the U.S. doesn't really have a clue where the weapons are or even were.

[ Parent ]
This is a question I ask people. (4.50 / 2) (#49)
by subversion on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 04:15:16 AM EST

If you don't think war was the correct solution (not necessarily this war, but this general category - massive use of military force, not targeted assassinations or diplomatic solutions) then what do you think would have worked?

If you'd prefer to know why I don't think there was another option, feel free to tell me you want my reasons, otherwise give your ideas and if they're ones I've seen before (and, you know, they probably will be) I'll do my best to convince you you're wrong.

If you disagree, reply, don't moderate.
[ Parent ]

Inspections? (5.00 / 6) (#52)
by pb on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 04:23:37 AM EST

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the inspections during the four weeks before the war was doing a better job of finding and destroying weapons... Plus, it was legal, peaceful, UN-sanctioned, and had real multi-lateral support.

Sounds pretty good to me.
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
[ Parent ]

Sorry (1.50 / 2) (#94)
by subversion on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 11:13:51 AM EST

I'm not viewing the point of the war as getting rid of WMD.  From that viewpoint, there were better ways.

There's way too much evidence that Saddam was a murderer, torturer, and thief for him to have remained in power.  Whether or not that was the actual goal of the coalition in attacking, that is the goal I'm addressing.  Change of regime (regime meaning state structure, not just head of state; if Saddam had been killed, one of his worse-than-the-father sons would have taken over).

If you disagree, reply, don't moderate.
[ Parent ]

so... (4.40 / 5) (#99)
by pb on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 11:38:39 AM EST

If it's going to be about Saddam and his human rights violations, at least make it about that. That would have been honest, and it might have gotten more UN support. Doing it this way just makes Bush look like a murderer and a thief, no matter what his reasons; vigilante justice is still illegal.
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
[ Parent ]
I agree with you (none / 0) (#525)
by subversion on Thu Apr 24, 2003 at 10:32:25 AM EST

But I'm not GWB.

And either way, this doesn't make for a case against war; just a case against this particular set of circumstances.  Even with UN support, could war have been avoided, and how?

If you disagree, reply, don't moderate.
[ Parent ]

Evidence? (5.00 / 4) (#130)
by kaemaril on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 02:24:26 PM EST

There's way too much evidence that Saddam was a murderer, torturer, and thief for him to have remained in power.

Yeah, and that evidence has been there for (well) over a decade. Ten years+ while the USA, UK, UN etc did absolutely ZIP to remove him from power. There's a whole bunch of other guys out there with a TON of evidence that they're murderers, torturers and thieves. Somehow I don't think the US will be moving from country to country helpfully eliminating evil and doing what's right just 'cos goshdarn it it's the right thing to do. George Bush's administration is NOT the lone ranger, no matter how much they've been belatedly trying to claim a "moral authority" to justify their actions in removing a "vicious dictator" that they themselves set in power. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Governments do NOT do things "because it's the right thing to do" or Saddam would have been out of office over a decade ago. Hell, if they only did what was right (and ignored their own self-interests) Saddam would never have been put in power.


Why, yes, I am being sarcastic. Why do you ask?


[ Parent ]
Better late than never, isn't it? (2.00 / 1) (#493)
by subversion on Thu Apr 24, 2003 at 12:35:49 AM EST



If you disagree, reply, don't moderate.
[ Parent ]
Inspection had failed (3.00 / 1) (#198)
by Alan Crowe on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 06:14:32 PM EST

Inspections had been tried for twelve years and had failed. What was being tried, with 1441, was inspections, in combination with troops massing on the border, ready to invade.

But you cannot expect the US to keep a credible invasion force stationed around Iraq while section 5 of 1441 is defied, holding up the inspection process.

[ Parent ]

Why not? (3.00 / 1) (#309)
by Beltza on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 05:19:26 AM EST

The US was able to have a big army in Germany for almost 50 years to put pressure at the USSR. And now it was a problem to stay a few days more at the border of Iraq?

Be alert!!!
The world needs more lerts...


[ Parent ]
Not days (5.00 / 1) (#325)
by Alan Crowe on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 06:27:06 AM EST

A key part of 1441 was section 5. Iraqi scientists and their families were to be taken out of Iraqi and questioned, safe from reprisals. I was desparate to know what they would say. I judged it could go either way.

Either: Now my wife and children are safe I can tell you, the sarin is buried at grid reference

Or: Its great to be out, but you're not going to like what I have to say. Every year we asked for money to build weapons, and every year they decided to build another palace instead. The regime was only interested in having enough of a pretense to bluff the Iranians. We never replaced the stocks used at Halabja.

But months went by and no-one was questioned in a safe house abroad. What was going on? I don't understand this at all.

Iraq is not the USSR, you cannot expect the USA to have its army deployed to contain Iraq, especially when the inspection process was being dragged out for behind that scenes reasons that no-one is owning up to.

[ Parent ]

How about this (4.00 / 1) (#65)
by transport on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 07:52:57 AM EST

Since you asked:
 
We can agree that the sanctions were not workning. However, to me it seems logical that the reason they were not workning was that they were not enforced sufficiently - or possibly they simply weren't strict enough. I mean, while people were starving, Saddam was building submerged bunkers designed by Swedish architects (no link, sorry) and furnishing his umpteenth palace with gold. Further, it seems plausible that the sanctions were not being enforced sufficiently because this didn't have enough priority the eye of the great western (i.e. TV) public. Now, if Bush and Blair could have used the solidarity generated by 11/9 to get some proper sanctioning in place (I'm talking about building a wall here; with a clear message to Iraq: "Remove Saddam") in stead of going to war, I think much the same result could have been induced, and as a bonus the world order would have been better for it.
 
But these are just my conjectures.

[ Parent ]
Bah (1.83 / 6) (#75)
by Filthy Socialist Hippy on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 10:24:58 AM EST

The sanctions had plenty of time to work.  Iraq is demonstrably a nation of cowardly sheep.  They were never going to overthrow the big bad wolf.

If we allowed them $10 of food, Saddam would tell the sheeple that it was $1, and they'd lick his toes and pretend to believe him.  Sanctions were never going to work, because we were just making ourselves look like the bad guys.

Note for those paying attention: I'm not anti sanctions.  I'm just saying that they don't achieve anything other than kill Joe Sand Monkey.  But it's OK, I don't care about that.  What did Joe ever do for me?

--
leftist, you don't love America, you love what America with all its wealth and power can be if you turn it into a socialist state. - thelizman
[ Parent ]

Your comment is extremely offensive (none / 0) (#341)
by thenerd on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 08:23:55 AM EST

You appear to be a career troll, but your comment is exceedingly offensive.

Sand Monkeys?  A nation of cowardly sheep?  If Iraq is a nation of cowardly sheep, what is the USA?

[ Parent ]

Please read my comment before responding (1.00 / 1) (#762)
by transport on Sat May 10, 2003 at 02:15:35 PM EST

I didn't say they needed more time.

[ Parent ]
Sanctions kill Iraqi children (none / 0) (#203)
by Alan Crowe on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 06:17:40 PM EST

Concerned persons in the West have been telling me for years that sanctions are killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. Was that all a lie?

[ Parent ]
Coercive Inspections (ala Mathews, et al.) (4.00 / 1) (#472)
by broter on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 07:40:15 PM EST

I always thought that some sort of coercive inspections were the answer. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace proposed the one linked to. Unfortunately, it seems to have come after the Democrats agreed to back the President's plan.

The brief of this plan is that, since Iraq is the second country to be dissarmed against their will (Germany was the first), inspections would have to be carried out under miltilateral military force. Inspectors would be accompanied by enough military force to guarantee the UN team's enterance onto a site along with enough air power on call to eliminate tagets that can't be obtained.

It's really a brilliant plan and would have offered future generations a wonderful tool in handling agressive states (less powerful than the US) that flaunt international law.

[ Parent ]

Don't you think (3.00 / 1) (#494)
by subversion on Thu Apr 24, 2003 at 12:39:10 AM EST

this would have caused a war?

I mean, you're suggesting sending US troops into Iraq.  Accompanying inspectors, sure, but you don't think that would have triggered a response from Saddam?

If you disagree, reply, don't moderate.
[ Parent ]

Please read the link (4.00 / 1) (#589)
by broter on Thu Apr 24, 2003 at 04:27:37 PM EST

I know it's a large proposal, but the whole thing addresses this. The differences in the war that Mathew's proposal would cause verses the one we just fought are that US troops wouldn't be alone in on the ground with the inspectors, obstructions against an armed inspection team would be more overt than the more passive interference that unarmed instpectors faces (not allowing them to leave with documents, barring their access, etc.), and - even if the inspections eventually broke down - Iraq would be disarmed through the process of ongoing air strikes and armored/infantry ground forces.

On major problem that I have to admit is that this path would require a strong diplomatic effort. One that I doubt this administration is capable of. Pres. Bush's inability to keep a short leash on Rumsfeld in the months leading up to the war suggests that this effort would have been easily torpedoed by the so-called hawks.

So, it may have caused an invasion, but it would have been clearly covered by international law, offered a more international face to the arab world, and provided a case study for future generations who need to manage a regional threat. Now we have a raging arab world, strained international alliances, and an uncertain future.

[ Parent ]

Oh, yeah. (1.00 / 1) (#618)
by subversion on Fri Apr 25, 2003 at 12:46:07 AM EST

Because Hans Blix is going to be a big help to the Marines who're taking small arms fire to protect him.

US forces would hit the first facility, the Iraqis would scream murder and invasion and start shooting, the US would have retaliated massively, and we'd be where we are now without the ability for buildup and planning before the war.

It might have saved a small amount of international stress, but most likely at a pretty severe cost in life.  Not worth it.

If you disagree, reply, don't moderate.
[ Parent ]

Well said (2.09 / 11) (#74)
by Filthy Socialist Hippy on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 10:21:20 AM EST

And a sandpit at that.

Picture yourself as General Achmed.  The USMC is heading right for you, and they've got the taste of blood.  What are you going to do, lob your ten sarin shells at their M113s in the hope that they notice for long enough to let you make a break for it?

No, you're going to dig a hole, roll those shells into it, cover it over, and surrender meekly like the spineless traitor that you demonstrably are.  Then you're going to say "Me so solly, me no know about nasty bang bang," until we get sick of paying your board and lodging and turn you loose.

Seems to be working pretty well so far.

--
leftist, you don't love America, you love what America with all its wealth and power can be if you turn it into a socialist state. - thelizman
[ Parent ]

So instead you get in your technical (4.33 / 3) (#258)
by michaelp on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 09:25:33 PM EST

and charge M1As & Bradley's with your AK47 blazing.

For like 1 second.

Seems to me that plenty of Achmed's gave all they had to try and stop the USMC/3rd Infantry.

So they didn't use the Sarin because they didn't have any, or they were too moral to do such a bad thing, or they took the time to hide it really well to preserve Saddam's reputation, before charging to their death ...

Seems to me Occam's razor would leave only #1.


"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

[ Parent ]
They aren't looking for a misplaced sock, though.. (2.66 / 3) (#113)
by McMasters on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 12:41:00 PM EST

.. they are looking for BIG ASS MISSILES.

-_-

[ Parent ]

Or maybe (4.00 / 1) (#177)
by Cro Magnon on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 05:05:44 PM EST

small ass vials of chemical/biologicals.
Information wants to be beer.
[ Parent ]
Not even (3.00 / 2) (#202)
by Filthy Socialist Hippy on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 06:17:35 PM EST

We already knew about the slightly-violating home build missiles.  How could they have got new SCUDs when we were blockading them?

As for the rest, it's warheads and barrels.  The whole country is a huge sandpit.  Two dozen guys with spades could bury their entire program given a week's notice, and we gave them at least a month.

--
leftist, you don't love America, you love what America with all its wealth and power can be if you turn it into a socialist state. - thelizman
[ Parent ]

I am SHOCKED!!! [n/t] (1.40 / 5) (#36)
by BenJackson on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 02:00:37 AM EST



And Awed. [n/t] (4.00 / 3) (#37)
by askey on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 02:14:34 AM EST



[ Parent ]
And Liberated !!!!! /nt (3.00 / 1) (#39)
by Soviet Russian on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 02:24:16 AM EST



[ Parent ]
And fooled! (5.00 / 8) (#42)
by United Fools on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 03:09:01 AM EST


We are united, we are fools, and we are America!
[ Parent ]
So, what does this matter exactly? (3.93 / 15) (#43)
by RyoCokey on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 03:22:04 AM EST

Most of "world opinion" was against the war in the first place. That didn't change a damn thing about how the war was conducted save some extra time spent BSing the UN. The US already had the legal framework for the Iraq War cemented with the ceasefire, long before WMD ever entered the picture.

Since the war ended, those who opposed the war (France and Germany) have spent most of their time saying they didn't "disagree with us that much anyway." So kindly tell me what impact "not proving Iraq had WMDs" will have on anything.

America won, and in the end, Ends trumps Means every time.



"Some things do not change. The best way to shock and awe an enemy is still to kill him." - Ralph Peters
A step backwards, if you ask me (4.20 / 5) (#53)
by transport on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 04:54:29 AM EST

It means that the UN has been sidetracked very effectively. In my opinion, this is a step towards forgetting the lessons learnt during two world wars. However, blame lies as much with the US for being impatient as it does with the "old europeans" for being stubborn, navelgazing and full of double standards. IMHO.
 
The war on Iraq seems to have a fair chance as a method of solving the issue, but FWIW I still think that other methods could have been better.

[ Parent ]
What lessons were those? (2.14 / 7) (#80)
by Filthy Socialist Hippy on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 10:37:56 AM EST

  1. Blitzkrieg works great.
  2. Don't bite off more than you can chew.
  3. After you've beaten someone down, don't help them out to the extent that they become an economic threat to you.
I think we learned those lessons just fine.  Were there some other ones that you had in mind?

--
leftist, you don't love America, you love what America with all its wealth and power can be if you turn it into a socialist state. - thelizman
[ Parent ]
nope (none / 0) (#271)
by gdanjo on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 10:12:27 PM EST

1. Blitzkrieg works great.
No it doesn't. They lost.

2. Don't bite off more than you can chew.
So which is it? Blitzkrieg requires that you bite off more than you can chew, then chew like buggery.

You should change this to "don't bite into what you don't know."

3. After you've beaten someone down, don't help them out to the extent that they become an economic threat to you.
Let them become a military threat to others instead.

I think we learned those lessons just fine. Were there some other ones that you had in mind?
England.

Do you want to be a pathetic imperialist has-been clinging onto the coat-tails of an empire you yourself create? Or do you want to control it?

Perhaps this war is a cunning plan for the UK to become a world "I am" instead of a has-been. I'd watch my back if I were you, America. Keep your friends close ...

Dan ...
"Death - oh! fair and `guiling copesmate Death!
Be not a malais'd beggar; claim this bloody jester!"
-ToT
[ Parent ]

9/11 (3.00 / 1) (#377)
by Dephex Twin on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 11:16:24 AM EST

in the end, Ends trumps Means every time.
I'm sure that Osama bin Laden would agree with you. That is probably exactly how he justifies the terror his groups carries out.


Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
[ Parent ]
Poor sucker didn't get his End (3.00 / 1) (#488)
by RyoCokey on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 11:55:23 PM EST

Availed him little with Afghanistan and Iraq in US hands. His world is even worse than when he began. Although most likely he's unable to appreciate it from underneath a mountainside.



"Some things do not change. The best way to shock and awe an enemy is still to kill him." - Ralph Peters
[ Parent ]
Doesn't matter one bit (4.00 / 1) (#616)
by Dephex Twin on Fri Apr 25, 2003 at 12:34:08 AM EST

It doesn't matter if he successfully got his "end", it only matters if he felt that any means to attempt to reach his goal was justified (which he obviously did).


Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
[ Parent ]
No, you missed the simple concept (1.00 / 1) (#622)
by RyoCokey on Fri Apr 25, 2003 at 02:09:06 AM EST

If the Ends are not achieved, the Means are invalid.



"Some things do not change. The best way to shock and awe an enemy is still to kill him." - Ralph Peters
[ Parent ]
What? (3.00 / 1) (#670)
by Dephex Twin on Fri Apr 25, 2003 at 04:00:38 PM EST

Okay, I'll explain it again. The BELIEF that the end justifies whatever means is the problem, whether the end is reached or not.

Who knows what Osama's end was/is? Perhaps it is the destruction of the USA and Israel, perhaps it is the creation of a Palestinian state. And so on. It's safe to say that whatever goals he has have not been reached, but who says this is over? There is no clear end to any of it, so there is no time where you can look at things and say, this is done. But that is beside the point.

Even if Osama totally and utterly failed at whatever it is he wanted to do, the fact that he BELIEVED that any means to achieve his goal were fair game is what lead to the terror acts that have been/will be carried out.

Do you understand?


Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
[ Parent ]

It's a tautology (none / 0) (#692)
by RyoCokey on Sat Apr 26, 2003 at 04:08:58 PM EST

I.e you can prove that the ends did not justify the means, but the statement itself is always true.

Thus, his belief would be that a certain set of Means would end in a certain result. As such was not the case, his use of the phrase was invalid.

It simply means that a good enough end makes most forms of means simply irrelevant to the discussion. If you didn't get the desired end, it has no meaning whatsoever.



"Seems to me the whole world has lost a basic virute, that of patients." - travlight
[ Parent ]
Ends and Means... (none / 0) (#725)
by baron samedi on Mon Apr 28, 2003 at 06:49:56 PM EST

It's not an issue of ends and means. It never is. It's means and consequences.

We can all get to consensus about the ends of removing Hussein. I'm certainly no apologist for Saddam Hussein, and I don't know anyone who is, no matter what side of the debate about the means they're on.

There will be consequences to the means used to attain that goal. The US will have to live with these consequences for a long time to come. No one can predict exactly what these consequences will be. There are those who are jaw-droppingly optimistic, and there are those who are pitifully pessimistic, but for good or ill, this is the bed we chosen for ourselves (in the US).

My personal opinion is that this process will not yield the desired results. The consequences of the means we chose will prove to be very nasty. Considering that there were other means available, but never entertained, the military option seems like the one method of resolving this issue that guarantees the worst results. I'm not willing to accept imperial domination and unilateral wars of aggression waged by my government. End of story.
"Hands that help are better by far than lips that pray."- Robert G. Ingersoll
[ Parent ]

The Microwave Mentality Wants It's Smoking Gun (3.83 / 73) (#54)
by thelizman on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 04:58:21 AM EST

The world is getting antsy.
The world has already moved on to newer sexier issues like Laci Petersons torso, SARS, and Serb war criminals. This may be a big issue in the circles of hystrionic leftists, but the world in general has ceased to be amused by the media circus of a made for TV war.
The Bush Administration promised everyone from Jaques Chirac to Mrs. Suburban On-the-Fence Housewife of Illinois that weapons of mass destruction would be found and destoyed as a direct result of this war.
Aaaah, no he didn't. In fact, nobody in the Bush administration ever said "hey, lets invade so we can show the world all the bad stuff Iraq has". The case against Iraq is that Saddam Hussein's regime was in "materiel breach" of UN resolutions, and it was the moral imperative of the UN to follow through on enforcing the will of the International community. The CotW basically did the job the UN at-large is supposed to have done.
Let's look at what has been done to fulfill that promise so far: Four weeks of American and British scouring of Iraq have turned up nothing.
I don't know where you've been the last four weeks, but there's a war going on. The primary mission of the CotW has been to fight the war. Consider the following:
A possible underground nuclear warehouse turned out to be fully known about by the U.N., and kosher. In fact, the U.N. ended up scolding the marine unit that found the warehouse for breaking U.N. seals.
Actually, the UN criticized the Marine Corps for not moving quickly enough to secure the Al Tuwaitha site (the site in question). Now, if the US Military were making WMD search a priority, then certainly Al Tuwaitha would have been secured right away. The fact of the matter is that a high speed push against regime strongholds was a higher priority than smash-and-grab searches for smoking guns to satisfy critics of the administration. Imagine that - a President more concerned with getting the job done than covering his own ass.

Secondly, your information on the broken seals is absolutely incorrect. An "unnamed" UN Official was quoted by Philadelphia Tribune as speculating that US Army "Exploitation" teams may have broken the seals - not the Marines who secured the site (note the difference between a "soldier" and a "marine"). The fact of the matter is that the seals were already broken.

For anyone reading this, and feeling a little bit in the dark, here is the truth about this incident. The site is known as "Al Tuwaitha", or more properly The Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center. This complex spans several miles and includes dozens of buildings, including a few reactors. In fact, the Tammuz reactor (aka Osiraq) that was built for Iraq by France and was bombed by the Israelis in 1982 is located here, as is some 27 kg of Weapons Grade Uranium given to the Iraqi's by the French in the 70s.

Al Tuwaitha is also a storage site for several tons of low-grade unenriched Uranium. Iraq mines Uranium at the Akashat mining facility in central Iraq, and does so under the cover of phosphorous mine and nearby fertilizer production facility. When the Uranium comes out of the ground, it is a dark yellow caky color, and is slightly warm to the touch because its radioactivity. To make a nuclear device, you need about 130 kg of U235/95 (weapons grade), and to get that from yellow cake you need about 15 tons. When Iraq was caught red handed in 91, the UN under the ospices of the IEAE sealed the drums with tape, and Iraq agreed to keep it stored. Why they didn't rebury the shit is beyond me, and represents the pinnacle of bureacratic stupidity that the UN epitomizes.

Nevertheless, Iraq continues to mine the "yellow cake", and maintains the barrels at Al Tuwaitha for IEAE inspectors while using its facilities at Al Fijar to continue research into refining technologies. More on this later.
Two possible chemical weapons storage houses ended up being fertilizer.
Petrochemical based fertilizers will show up the same way as chemical weapons on the M-8 and M-9 field test kits in use by the US military. Those initial readings were grounds to bring in NBC teams to further check the facility. While the Army was checking these leads, the popular media ran with the story that chemical weapons had been found. The US military readily dismissed these reports.

Some of us fretted: When the military gets to Baghdad, all hell will break loose. Alas, Baghdad was captured without incident. As a result, people are starting to whisper doubts to each other, and countries are starting to increase pressure on the U.S. to come up with these 'phantom' weapons.
Which "people" are whispering doubts? What countries are "increasing pressure" (as if any country on this planet can pressure the CotW)? Your rhetoric is dripping with derision, all predicated on the fact that the Iraqi military, unable to act in the throws of shock and awe, could not employ "all hell", or even a decent amount of "heck" for that matter. That doesn't mean they didn't have them, as they were prepared to fire chemical tipped rockets on us, they just never got the order.
When it comes right down to it, the US will have to provide some sort of evidence of WMD's in Iraq. When that happens, how can the public be sure the evidence wasn't fabricated? Can we trust the integrity of the United States alone to come up with WMD's in Iraq?
Some people will never accept any proof of Iraqs WMD programs. They haven't accepted the overwhelming crush of evidence to date, and when the evidence is provided, these same people will dismiss it off handedly as "manufactured". So my question to you is, if the CotW were to manufacture evidence, why haven't they already? It would be a simple task to secure a bucket of nuke-parts, some VX and Sarin, and fly it over there an plant it. It could have been done during the opening hours of the war.

The fact of the matter is Saddam and his cronies aren't stupid. They have maintained for months that they are WMD free, and just like in the first gulf war, the scuttling and transfer of materiels was rampant in the days leading up to the war. An Iraqi scientist has told us forces that Iraq destroyed its WMD research materiels only days before the war. He led them to a cache of materiels that is currently being analyzed.

Going back a couple of months, we find that the United states has lied before. In March the Bush administration released documents proving that Iraq had been looking to buy uranium in Africa two years ago. The U.N. and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had a careful look at these documents and deemed them "not authentic".
How is this a case of the US lying? The US provided this as part of a thick-assed dossier of papers, and the IAEA found 14 documents that were questionable. "Questionable" was the exact word they used. Nevermind that the source of the documents was South African and Nigerian intelligence agents, you are calling the US government a liar. Perhaps you should look the word up, because this entire article of yours is a complete and utter lie.
In another instance, Iraq had been discovered trying to purchase high strength aluminum tubes. Certain types of these tubes can be used to make centrifuges and are needed to enrich dangerous radioactive elements. The IAEA followed up with an extensive investigation of these tubes and decided that they are "not directly suitable" for centrifuges, therefore not suitable for the production of nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, in his State of the Union Address to America on January 28, Bush ignored the IAEA's investigation and claimed that Iraq had "attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production". Taking this information into account, the world can safely say that it is not below the Bush Administrations' morals to fib a little bit in order to put circumstances in its favor.
Now is where we get back to the Yellow Cake issue. Iraq had researched a number of refinement methods. They had done several years of research into Calutron refinement, but this requires massive amounts of electrical power. The second choice is Electromagnetic Isotope Mass Separation (EIMS), but their EIMS facilities were badly destroyed in the 91 gulf war and the EIMS processing plant was not working effectively. This is where we come to the twisted sordid affair of metal tubing.

In centrifuge refinement, the yellow cake is cooked to to a gaseous form, uranium hexaflourane. This gas is then pumped into a set of cylinders that are spun at high RPMs, forcing the heavier isotopes of uranium to the bottoms of the cylinders. The heavier isotopes are then pumped out and pumped through a condensor coil made from - you guessed it - aluminum tubing. The refined gas is then pumped into a second stage of centrifuges that further refine it. This is known as a cascade. Meanwhile, the lighter isotopes are pumped into condensor coils made from - you guessed it - aluminum tubing, where it is turned back into yellow cake that is disposed of.

To refine large amounts of uranium, you need thousands of centrifuges arranged in cascades, and it still takes years to produce practical amounts.

The Washington Post originally reported that Iraq had sought to import Stainless Steel tubing, but it was indeed aluminum tubing. There is no practical use for stainless steel tubing in a centrifuge refinement process because the steel would react violently with the uranium hexaflourane. US monitors noted that the volume and specifications for the aluminum tubing indicated the construction large cascade centrifuges such as above. Iraq maintained that they had imported the tubing for making rockets (still outlawed for them to have under UN resolutions), and they cited dimensions for tubing used in making the rocket motors. Weapons experts agreed that according to those dimensions, the tubing could not be used for a uranium centrifuge refinery. However, these "experts" could not explain the volume.

Meanwhile, the IAEA did not refute this. In fact, in their response to Iraq's "Currently Accurate, Full And Complete Declaration" noted that "[Iraq] in the course of the meeting that took place in Baghdad on 19 November 2002...acknowledged that Iraq had made several unsuccessful attempts since 1991 to import high-strength aluminum tubing, but stated that the tubing had been intended for the manufacture of 81-millimetre rockets and not for the enrichment of uranium." They further noted that "these attempts are not mentioned in the Iraqi declaration covering post-1991 activities". That is the extent of IAEA comments on the aluminum tubing issue.

Were we left with just this as our "evidence", I'd grant you that this was way too thin. However, there is far more. However, we have had a smoking gun for over half a decade now thanks to Dr. Khidir Hamza.

Hamza was the head of a nuclear research program in Iraq, and was asked to submit a proposal for the weaponization of a nuclear warhead based on Iraqs current development. Hamza and his team returned a report that named an $8 billion USD price tag for a single warhead capable of being delivered on a Al Samuud missile. Hamza was removed from this position, and later accused of wrongdoing, but kept on for his work. Later, fearing for himself and his family, he managed to defect while at a nuclear physics conference in India.

Hamza had intimate details about Iraq's nuclear ambitions, and was responsible for the notion last October that Iraq may have had 3 nuclear warheads ready by January of this year. In fact, on January 31st, Hamza gave an interview to talk show host Dr. Larry Bates (RealPlayer) during which he laid out the facts about Iraqs weapons program as he knew them.

One of the biggest names in the Iraqi centrifuge issue is Dr. Karl Heinz Schaab, a gas centrifuge expert who worked for the German Urenco corporation. Urenco's R&D labs are located in Jülich, Germany. It is from there that Schaab sold classified technologies on gas centrifuge to Iraq for millions of dollars. Schaab fled arrest and turned up in Brazil, which refused to extradite him because they believed the charges of treason against him were politically motivated. Schaab was tried in absentia and sentenced to time served, 5 years of probation, and 100,000 DM because the German judge was of the sentiment that while Schaab did in fact commit the crime, he was merely complicit in the transfer of nuclear technologies to Iraq, and not the sole agent of the crime.

Hamza goes on to further state that Iraq is still mining yellow cake from the Akashat mining facility, and is smuggling materials through an Indian front corporation. The IEAE is content to observe the 15 tons of sealed uranium in barrels at Al Tuwaitha.
To satisfy the need for independent verification, the US will need either the U.N., or the IAEA (preferably both) in Iraq with the United States to ensure that any evidence they find is of the highest integrity. Unfortunately, the United States isn't too keen on that scenario.
Hardly odd considering that the UN weapons inspectors did such an abysmal job of locating anything previously, and did their best to downplay significant finds that established patterns of guilt within the Iraqi regime. There is still no word from Blix on the discovery of mobile bioweapons labs discovered last month.
Although Britian is happy to keep the door open to the U.N. for independent verification, the U.S. is saying that they see "no immediate role" for Hans Blix and his team in Iraq. The International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly stressed since the beginning of this war that it and not the United States is responsible for finding nuclear weapons in Iraq.
The UN (of which the IAEA is an agency) has also demonstrated it's willful incapability to act with resolve. The bottom line is this whole Iraq unpleasantness would not have been necessary if the UN at large had lived up to its obligations at any given point in the last 12 years, and enforced the resolutions. How rediculous is it that a petty dictator, dangerous though he is, could not only expel United Nations personnel in violation of prior treaties and UN Resolutions, but in fact got away with it for 5 years. Tell me the UN is not irrelevent.

Besides which, it should be pointed out to Blix that he is already tainted by his public admissions of his own political motivations in the Iraq issue. Further, the UN affirmed the impotence of inspections it unanimously approved UN Resolution 1441, and then abdicated its jurisdiction when it did not act according to it's own resolutions. In proletariat parlence, we would say that the UN is a "punk-ass bitch".
Right now the United States has an Iraqi scientist in custody who is claiming that Iraq kept illicit arms until the "eve of war". He is claiming that Iraq secretly sent weapons to Syria, and led the U.S. to a site that is said to house the "building blocks" of chemical weapons. The U.S. is currently declining to identify this man and refusing to even give the branch of the Iraqi government that he previously worked for. The military claims that they could jeapordize this man's life by giving out any incriminating information including what chemicals were found at the site he led them to. The U.S. also won't let anybody interview this man. This sort of vague fractional information gives semblance to the Bush Administration's behavior three months ago, offering "irrefutable proof" of the existance of WMD's in grainy photos of unidentifiable buildings and badly translated random phone calls in Arabic between two unknown people.
It's not that hard to put two and two together. On April 18th, Emad Husayn Abdullah Ani (the father of Iraqs VX program) turned himself again. On April 21st, a scientist who "claims to have worked in Iraq's chemical weapons program" leads US officials to a site containing scuttled WMD materiels.
The lack of integrity that the United States has exhibited since building up a case for a war in Iraq has shown that it can't be trusted to come up with proof on its own. When the United States government finally succeeds in offering up some evidence of the existence of WMD's in Iraq, we can only hope that it will be using more than second hand hearsay and forged documents as proof. Also, the world needs to put enormous pressure on the United States to allow Hans Blix, his U.N. inspection team, and the IAEA back inside Iraq to verify any findings. Until then the Bush Administration doesn't have a leg to stand on.
I cannot emphasize what an ill informed piece of shit this article is. It stinks, and it is brutally irresponsible in the degree of willful misrepresentation of known facts that it displays. Anyone who reads this ought to feel insulted. You ignore, skew, or misstate facts as you see fit, and appear grossly negligent in your research. Even the latest news is well over 14 hours old, so there's no reason for it to have been so haphazardly included.

Further, this piece-of-shit of an article has another glaring flaw. It fails to address the Bush Administrations terrorism links, which were a key cornerstone in garnering support for this war. Now, if you were genuinely questioning the veracity of the administrations pre-war evidence, then you could be excused for forgetting that terrorist mastermind Abu Nidal had been living in Baghdad as a guest of Hussein until he committed suicide by riddling himself with bullets. You would certainly not be frowned upon for failing to mention that Abu Nidal and Saddam Hussein both belong to the B'ath party. But the living breathing person of Abu Abbas was captured in his Baghdad apartment by US Special Forces ought to send up a red flag. The existence of a terrorist training camp in north-central Iraq, and its links to Al Qaeda (and worse, Canada) should be wakup call that Saddam is supporting terrorism. And finally, the existence of a hijacking training facility at Salman Pak in Baghdad, where Saddam was training foreign nationals in hijacking techniques - something that was known well in advance of the war - out to be a slap in the face to you. Saddam Hussein supported the terrorists that attacked us, and WMDs or no, that simple fact in and of itself is good enough of a reason for me to support rolling on Iraq.


--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
Here we go round and round (4.53 / 26) (#64)
by johnny on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 07:51:19 AM EST

You say that the CotW was enforcing the will of the United Nations; others, including key members of the United Nations, disagree.

You imply that the President of the United States shall be the arbiter of what is meant by security council resolutions; others think that the Security Council should decide that.

You say that it does not matter that the evidence proudly trumpeted by the United States as proof positive of Iraqi deception was fabricated; others find it very troubling that the USA either (a) deliberately provided a phony pretext or (b) relies on comically incompetent intelligence agencies when devising war policy. (So far as I know, nobody any longer maintains that they may in fact be legitimate.)

You say that anybody who wants proof that the President of the US did not lie to the world and did not in fact launch an illegal war and is not, in fact, a war criminal, has a "microwave mentality." In that case I guess I'm what you would consider a microwave mentalist. I think it matters very much whether the USA is perceived, by people of goodwill, not as a champion of the oppressed, but as a rogue state bent on imperial control of basically the entire planet. That is why the issue of WMD is so important: it goes to the heart of the matter, which is the motive for this war.

You say that nobody in the world has the ability to challenge the USA and that therefore their opinions do not matter. I say that that is the logic of a bully, and it matters a lot if the USA has changed its foreign policy ideal from "strong and generous leadership" to "do what we say or you will be crushed."

You say that Hussein defied the UN for twelve years; others say that the sanctions imposed by the UN and enforced by the USA and UK had the perverse effect of strengthening the control of the dictator and cruelly punishing his people, especially children.

You say that all other means to get rid of Saddam had been tried, and had failed. I say that that is an outright lie, it is bullshit, it is false, and it is evil. Yes, that big bugaboo word, evil. To say that is it good that Saddam is gone is a pretty bland statement. (Of course today, April 22 2003, most people in Iraq are worse off than they were six months ago, but I'll stipulate that their future probably looks better now than it did then.) But it is wrong and cowardly to trivialize the suffering of the Iraqi people, whether that suffering was caused by Saddam, by the sanctions, or by the war. It is cowardly, false and self-serving to ignore the history of the USA in both putting Saddam in power and in keeping him there.

It has been said that more Iraqi WMD were destroyed by the UN after Gulf War I than by the coalition forces during that war. I believe that that is still true even after GWII. I certainly feel no more safe now than I did six months ago. On the evidence of this most recent war it's hard to credit Iraq of much of military threat to anybody. Which is not to say that the idea of Saddam developing biobombs does not trouble me. (Hell, I even wrote a novel about that very prospect!). It's only to say that the French/German/Russian/Chinese argument for a vastly strengthened inspections program backed by a military coalition that included them as well as us does not strike me as silly on the face of it.

The presence of the terrorist training camps bothers me. It has not been proved what went on there, or whether any of the people trained there have attacked the USA. But again, I'm willing to stipulate that the graduates of that school are the kind of people who would like to use their talents to kill me, my wife and my children. So the question in my mind is how to deal with the threat of fanatical young men filled with Islamofascist hatred of the west. I'm not convinced that unleashing a war is the best way to neutralize that threat; I fear that war may only exacerbate it. I do think that the destruction of the Al Qeida/Taliban network was necessary for several reasons. But frankly, the history of the USA's own terrorist training camp ("School of the Americas") troubles me more than anything yet to come out of Iraq. Fascism in America troubles me more than fascism anywhere else.

In the end, I guess I can agree with you that it does not matter too much what kind of WMD or terrorist links may be discovered in what's left of Iraq. It matters more whether this war was about the liberation of the Iraqi people and the taming of outlaw nations, or whether it was the watershed event that marked the transformation of the USA from a freedom-loving republic to a totalitarian/fascist empire. I don't think we'll know the answer to that question until the dust has settled a little more.

yr frn,
jrs
Get your free download of prizewinning novels Acts of the Apostles and Cheap Complex Devices.
[ Parent ]

Key point (4.00 / 4) (#73)
by sinexoverx on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 10:19:39 AM EST

I think the key points here a that Iraq was in material breach of 1441. If you don't believe that then read it here. Also, several nations on the security council had made major investments in Saddam's Iraq, and there are other political reasons for them to align with Saddam. When the US asked for action on the indictments in 1441, the security council balked. Not because they didn't believe that Iraq was screwing with them and the inspectors, but because they stood to lose money, due to to their complicity and avarice. I would bet that there is going to be more info on this as records in Iraq surface. Russia, France and Germany don't even dispute their inventments, which to me seems like a major conflict of interest. EU politics, including foreign relations and policy, is as dirty as as it comes.

The parent article is premature. It can at any moment be proven wrong. If you had believed the press and EU then the coallition should still be fighting a losing battle door to door in Baghdad. US and UK casualites should be mounting up into the multiple 1000s. It was only been a month. Maybe we should wait and see what surfaces. Give it a few more weeks at the very least. Don't count your chicks before they hatch.

[ Parent ]

1441, the jury's still out on that one (5.00 / 1) (#79)
by martingale on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 10:36:31 AM EST

It probably always will be. But it's most certainly not clear that 1441 was breached. If you'll pardon my dredging up a few old comments to counter...but then you're not saying anything new either on that topic. I really don't want to discuss this again, so I'm just putting this in pro forma.

sample comment 1, which was a reply to this, and sample comment 2 just for fun.

[ Parent ]

Video (none / 0) (#106)
by sinexoverx on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 12:25:25 PM EST

Here is video of Blix at the UN on 1-27-2003. You will have to choose the topic titled:
Security Council Meeting on Iraqi Weapons Inspections Hans Blix & Mohamed ElBaradei report on Iraqi cooperation in complying with United Nations Resolution 1441.
You really should watch it (realvideo - 1 hour). Unless you have your head all the way up your ass, you might change your mind.

Oops, I forgot, you won't talk about this issue ever again. After all you already know the truth.

[ Parent ]

Ok, fine (3.00 / 1) (#93)
by Politburo on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 11:11:00 AM EST

Let's just agree and say Iraq breached 1441. Now where in 1441 does it say the punishment is an invasion? We both know it is vague and only says "serious consequences"

Ignoring the UNs will, then attempting to use them as justification for the war is ridiculous.

[ Parent ]
You are right (4.33 / 3) (#101)
by sinexoverx on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 11:45:18 AM EST

There are no consequences outlined. So I guess by your reasoning, if Iraq just ignored 1441, as it had previous resolutions, nothing would happen. Nada, zip, zero, nothing.

That is why the whole thing was a joke and the US just gave up and attacked. The UN itself is a joke.

Even Blix admits on Jan 28th 2003 that Iraq was in non-compliance. You can read the official Blix spin here though it is much less explicit. You have to read between the lines in the official statement. Blix is a diplomat/politician and has some questionable ties and motives.

[ Parent ]

Look Elsewhere in the Text (none / 0) (#146)
by thelizman on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 03:30:51 PM EST

Try the statement "Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990)..." (Source: UN SC 1441).
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
You're Definately Smoking Something (2.50 / 8) (#147)
by thelizman on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 03:34:04 PM EST

You say that the CotW was enforcing the will of the United Nations; others, including key members of the United Nations, disagree.
I never said that.
You imply that the President of the United States shall be the arbiter of what is meant by security council resolutions; others think that the Security Council should decide that.
Again, nowhere have I said (or implied) that.
You say that it does not matter that the evidence proudly trumpeted by the United States as proof positive of Iraqi deception was fabricated;
I haven't said that either. Nor is it at all true that the evidence was fabricated. It is merely "questionable", much like the entirety of your posting.
others find it very troubling that the USA either (a) deliberately provided a phony pretext or (b) relies on comically incompetent intelligence agencies when devising war policy. (So far as I know, nobody any longer maintains that they may in fact be legitimate.)
I find it comical that in the reams of evidence provided, you hinge your entire argument on 14 pages of documents that cannot be independantly verified. Meanwhile, the preponderance of evidence supports the administration on this issue.
You say that anybody who wants proof that the President of the US did not lie to the world and did not in fact launch an illegal war and is not, in fact, a war criminal, has a "microwave mentality."
Is English a second language for you? I never said any of this either.
You say that nobody in the world has the ability to challenge the USA and that therefore their opinions do not matter.
Chalk up another lie; I never said that either.
You say that Hussein defied the UN for twelve years; others say that the sanctions imposed by the UN and enforced by the USA and UK had the perverse effect of strengthening the control of the dictator and cruelly punishing his people, especially children.
Which is exactly my point. The lack of resolve on the part of the UN led to sanctions. Had the UN not been so irresolute, then Saddam would have been removed from power in 91.
You say that all other means to get rid of Saddam had been tried, and had failed. I say that that is an outright lie, it is bullshit, it is false, and it is evil.
I never said that either. This is lie number 6 for you. And because the text of my statement is readily available, it is an outright lie, complete bullshit, and evil act on your part. Why do you need to lie?
The presence of the terrorist training camps bothers me. It has not been proved what went on there, or whether any of the people trained there have attacked the USA.
I provided the links. Al Qaeda fighters were trained at the Al Ansar camp in the north, while various other non-Iraqis were being trianed at Salman Pak. They were being trained to take control of commercial aircraft using knifes. They were doing this on a 727 parked at Salman Pak that was photographed by commercial surveillance satellites. Do you need someone to draw a picture for you?
But frankly, the history of the USA's own terrorist training camp ("School of the Americas") troubles me more than anything yet to come out of Iraq.
More leftist bullshit unsubstantiated with proof. Of the thousands of graduates of the SOA (now WHINSEC), a few dozen are believed to have committed atrocities, and none of them have acted in a manner consistent with "terrorism".

What is very amusing is that you made up 6 lies from which you formulated responses to my post. 6 lies that claim I said something I never said. Then you brought up at least two points irrelevent to the discussion at hand. I see nothing in your reply that in any way refutes the evidence I presented. You simply refuse to admit the possibility of being wrong, and to do so you are willing to tacitly excuse the closest thing to Adolph Hitler that the 21st century has. That is arrogance epitomized.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
Can't have it both ways (5.00 / 5) (#153)
by pyramid termite on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 03:56:27 PM EST

You say that the CotW was enforcing the will of the United Nations; others, including key members of the United Nations, disagree.

I never said that.

Then why even bring up U.N. resolution 1441? It's either not a justification or it is - you can't have it both ways. And if you claim it is, you'll have to explain how that can be when other countries disagree. If you think the U.N.'s irrelevant, then you can't use its resolutions to justify things.

Let's cut the crap - this is about American power and how it should be used.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
what are you talking about?? (none / 0) (#289)
by puppet10 on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 12:38:38 AM EST

the original post didnt resort to 1441 as a justification.

From the original post:
Further, the UN affirmed the impotence of inspections it unanimously approved UN Resolution 1441, and then abdicated its jurisdiction when it did not act according to it's own resolutions. In proletariat parlence, we would say that the UN is a "punk-ass bitch".

which was twisted by the reply into:
You say that the CotW was enforcing the will of the United Nations; others, including key members of the United Nations, disagree.

Which is completely different than the orignal intent as I see it.

My interpretation of the original intent is that the US and other countries feeling that the UN was  (yet again) not willing to enforce its own resolutions felt the matter urgent enough to act on their own accord and that the UN in not acting according to the resolution passed unanimously had abdicated its jurisdiciton on the matter.  This is not the same as enforcing the will of the UN.

[ Parent ]

He, and many others, including Bush ... (4.00 / 4) (#310)
by pyramid termite on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 05:32:14 AM EST

... have been using it as a justification for months. After all, we were trying to get another U.N. resolution on the matter right before the war, weren't we?

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Leap...er...Stumble of Logic (1.00 / 3) (#564)
by thelizman on Thu Apr 24, 2003 at 02:20:59 PM EST

You still aren't making any damn sense. 1441 was our justification for a UN action. But the UN member nations quibbled and instead went angling to profit from the war in their own ways. The CotW stepped up to the plate, and did what the UN did not - could not, because they are collectively spineless.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
Disingenuous (5.00 / 2) (#586)
by pyramid termite on Thu Apr 24, 2003 at 04:18:36 PM EST

Didn't Bush, and for that matter, you keep saying that Saddam needed to comply with the U.N. resolutions or else? Do you seriously mean to say that if he HAD complied, that we'd have just gone ahead with the war, anyway? Suddenly, after the fact, it turns out to be irrelevant - it's not a justification anymore. That statement is "no longer operative".

You tell me - the next time the U.S. wants a U.N resolution on something like this, how likely is our actually getting it? The next time the U.S. cites a U.N. resolution as a reason for a course of action, who's going to believe it?

That's what happens when you change your reasons for doing things too many times - you lose your credibility. Although to be fair, Bush hasn't been as unsubtle about it as you are. His is shaky - yours is shot.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Dead Horse (1.00 / 2) (#601)
by thelizman on Thu Apr 24, 2003 at 07:57:33 PM EST

You're still trying for that one angle, and you're just not getting it. Give up, the UN is dead, and so are your hopes for communism to rule the world.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
When all else fails ... (4.50 / 2) (#603)
by pyramid termite on Thu Apr 24, 2003 at 08:25:13 PM EST

... try red-baiting. Truly pathetic.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
By satellite? (none / 0) (#321)
by Amroarer on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 06:08:53 AM EST

Al Qaeda fighters were trained at the Al Ansar camp in the north, while various other non-Iraqis were being trianed at Salman Pak. They were being trained to take control of commercial aircraft using knifes. They were doing this on a 727 parked at Salman Pak that was photographed by commercial surveillance satellites. Do you need someone to draw a picture for you?

Yes, it would be nice.

Can you provide a link to any of this commercial footage? I've seen satellite imagery before, and I find it difficult to believe that it could provide evidence beyond 'there was a 727 parked at Salman Pak and there were some people around it.' It's pretty difficult to prove that people were training in hijack scenarios just from overhead photographs.

-
+++ A terrorist is somebody who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force. - William Blum
[ Parent ]

Clarification, rebuttal, apology (4.50 / 2) (#332)
by johnny on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 07:16:31 AM EST

[well last night I spent two hours writing a response to this, but then deleted it with a few inadvertent keystrokes. Oh well. Here follows the short version.]

I think you're being disingenuous, or shall we say, Clintonian, in some of your demurrals. For example, I don't see any "material" difference between what you said about the CofW enforcing the will of the UN and what I said you said. I think you're backpedaling and finding quibbles that you can use to accuse me of lies.

I also think you and I probably have very different definitions of "terrorism" and are unlikely to agree about the SOA (or whatever euphemism it's now called. A terrorist camp is a terrorist camp.)

However I was out of line to get all up on my high horse about "evil" and all that. I apologize. The point I was trying to make, or should have been trying to make, is that millions of people have suffered under Saddam for decades. The US bears some (large) measure of responsibility for this. In particular, "Chemical Donnie" Rumsfeld helped him along his WMD path during the Reagan administration. Clearly Saddam and his thugs are responsible for their own actions. But nobody in this fight is clean. Nobody except the children.

During the 90's Clinton thought that getting a blow job was more important than doing his job, which could have meant using the power of his office to address the plight of the people in Iraq. And the entire Republican party thought that humiliating Clinton was more important than using than doing anything serious to help the suffering millions in Iraq, including many many children. So shame on all of them. Shame on Rumsfeld, Cheney, Reagan, Clinton, Hyde, Lott, Gingrich, Starr, all of them.

And so now when AWOL Bush and his bunch of crony capitalists comes swaggering into town, saying "we have tried all other options. War is our only recourse," well, they're lying.

And when they use euphemism to describe what this war is, and what the sanctions are, they're lying. War is heads blown off, bullets in bellies, rotting corpses, orphaned children, looted libraries, eyes blinded, cars stolen, traumatized infants, and the replacement of civility with barbarism. And there are now, presumably, tens of thousands of dead people in what's left of Iraq, and those alive are facing a scary future.

What is "evil" is to trivialize this suffering and to exploit this suffering for personal gain. I should not have accused you of doing that. But certainly Bush, Rumsfeld, et al have trivialized the suffering that this war has caused. Whether they're exploiting it for personal gain is in the eye of the beholder, I guess. (Note: I don't mean simply financial gain or political gain.)Moreover, they have done so at little risk to themselves.

Nothing of what I've said should be construed to imply that I excuse Saddam. I resent your saying that.

We in the USA are a warlike people. We se war as the solution to hard problems. I wish we had tried other things, not merely in the last 6 months, but over the last 25 years.

yr frn,
jrs
Get your free download of prizewinning novels Acts of the Apostles and Cheap Complex Devices.
[ Parent ]

Iraqi defense was better than you think (none / 0) (#193)
by gandalf23 on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 06:00:56 PM EST

On the evidence of this most recent war it's hard to credit Iraq of much of military threat to anybody.

Actually, take another gander at the war. Look how long it took the Brits to take Basra vs how long it took the US to take Bahgdad.

Former Russian Generals Achalov and Maltsev designed, or helped design, the defense of Bahgdad which followed the classic Clausewitz rules. It was almost a repeat of the defense of Moscow in the second World War. Trade space for time, extend your enemy's supply lines till they break, wait for his forward progress to slow or stop, then pounce and destroy him. It's an excellent plan, that _works_ (historically).

No other army on earth could have destroyed Iraq's military as quickly as the US. Many other armies would likely have fallen to Saddam's defense. Given the problems the Brits had in Basra, even they might not have been able to defeat Sadam if they were on their own. I certainly would not place any money on the Russian millitary being able to defeat Saddam. Heck, they spent 8 (9?) years in Afghanistan and it took the US, what? Three or four months? And look at the Russian attacks on Grozny. They each took over a month to capture one city, much smaller in size than Bahgdad and the Russians took vastly larger casualties than the CotW, and the civillian population in Grozny was much more devestated.

-gandalf23@work

[ Parent ]

Too good for us, in fact (none / 0) (#317)
by Amroarer on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 05:59:31 AM EST

No other army on earth could have destroyed Iraq's military as quickly as the US.

Yes, you're right. The US certainly does have the most powerful armed force on Earth, at least in terms of expeditionary warfare (which rules out China or India as competitors).

What saddens me is the fact that possessing this force seems to have made the US Administration believe that it's okay to use it. But I realise that wasn't the point you were making.

Given the problems the Brits had in Basra, even they might not have been able to defeat Sadam if they were on their own.

It's flattering that you use the words 'even they', but there's no way in hell we could have defeated the Iraqi forces by ourselves. The UK is a looonng way from being the military equal of the US.

-
+++ A terrorist is somebody who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force. - William Blum
[ Parent ]

best way to neutralize that threat? (none / 0) (#200)
by gandalf23 on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 06:15:13 PM EST

I'm not convinced that unleashing a war is the best way to neutralize that threat; I fear that war may only exacerbate it.

Well, I'm not international afairs expert, but I was just in the Middle East and talked to a lot of Arabs and Muslims about what was going on in Iraq while I wsa there.

Most, the last time I ws there, and up until about a week and a half ago, were very against the US getting involved. What changed their mind? The fall of Bahgdad and the absense of minders on the Arabic news casters in Iraq. Prior to this they had been shown pictures of high up Ba'ath party officials homes (manisons) and were told this was everyday Iraqi homes. Now they were seeing the truth, that the Iraqi's were living in abject poverty. As my cab driver from the airport, Mahmood, said, "They have no phone, no satelite, no mobile, no food, no money, no internet. How can you take care of your family like this? How can you be a man like this?" Then the looting began and the local Abu Dhabi reporter asked a man rlooting a chair from the ministry of something or another why he was stealing form his government? The man said he had a wife, several children, his parents, all in his house and he had no chairs. None at all. So he was taking one for his mother to sit in. This really choked up a lot of folks in Abu Dhabi. And changed their mind about the war. They'd all agreed that, as Iraqi is a nation rich in oil, they could become a much larger Abu Dhabi/Dubai. The UAE treats it's citizens and guests very well, there are less freedoms than in the West, but more so than probably any other Arabic nation. The roads are wonderful to drive on, the signs great, water and electricity are availabe everywhere, housing is plentiful and inexpensive, schools are superb. There is a night life, things to do other than just work and pray and be tortured. They all felt that if you have a good job, things to do, a family, some money, that you'd not be tempted to kill yourself just to kill "infidels", that prosperity is the key to getitng rid of or reducing terrorism. The Arabic countries are rich, but the average person living in them is not, the wealth is much more closely hoarded than any country in the West. well, jsut got a call, my mom i heading to the hospital, so I'll stop now. Will try and pick this thread up later. -gandalf23@work

[ Parent ]

best way to neutralize that threat? (5.00 / 1) (#201)
by gandalf23 on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 06:16:05 PM EST

I'm not convinced that unleashing a war is the best way to neutralize that threat; I fear that war may only exacerbate it.

Well, I'm not international afairs expert, but I was just in the Middle East and talked to a lot of Arabs and Muslims about what was going on in Iraq while I wsa there.

Most, the last time I ws there, and up until about a week and a half ago, were very against the US getting involved. What changed their mind? The fall of Bahgdad and the absense of minders on the Arabic news casters in Iraq. Prior to this they had been shown pictures of high up Ba'ath party officials homes (manisons) and were told this was everyday Iraqi homes.

Now they were seeing the truth, that the Iraqi's were living in abject poverty. As my cab driver from the airport, Mahmood, said, "They have no phone, no satelite, no mobile, no food, no money, no internet. How can you take care of your family like this? How can you be a man like this?" Then the looting began and the local Abu Dhabi reporter asked a man rlooting a chair from the ministry of something or another why he was stealing form his government? The man said he had a wife, several children, his parents, all in his house and he had no chairs. None at all. So he was taking one for his mother to sit in. This really choked up a lot of folks in Abu Dhabi. And changed their mind about the war.

They'd all agreed that, as Iraqi is a nation rich in oil, they could become a much larger Abu Dhabi/Dubai. The UAE treats it's citizens and guests very well, there are less freedoms than in the West, but more so than probably any other Arabic nation. The roads are wonderful to drive on, the signs great, water and electricity are availabe everywhere, housing is plentiful and inexpensive, schools are superb. There is a night life, things to do other than just work and pray and be tortured.

They all felt that if you have a good job, things to do, a family, some money, that you'd not be tempted to kill yourself just to kill "infidels", that prosperity is the key to getitng rid of or reducing terrorism. The Arabic countries are rich, but the average person living in them is not, the wealth is much more closely hoarded than any country in the West.

well, jsut got a call, my mom i heading to the hospital, so I'll stop now. Will try and pick this thread up later.

-gandalf23@work

[ Parent ]

Just what I look for in a country! (none / 0) (#398)
by gte910h on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 12:47:49 PM EST

There is a night life, things to do other than just work and pray and be tortured

[ Parent ]
symbols (2.50 / 2) (#262)
by gdanjo on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 09:42:24 PM EST

Nice post. Except:
But again, I'm willing to stipulate that the graduates of that school are the kind of people who would like to use their talents to kill me, my wife and my children.
They are not after you, your wife, or your children.

The terrorists do not carry pictures of individuals they want to terrorise. They did not make sure there were no muslims on the planes or the buildings they crashed into on Sept. 11.

They were acting on behalf of a symbol to destroy another symbol. You are merely a participant in one of the symbols.

We need to humanise the de-humaned. That's the only way we'll understand.

Dan ...
"Death - oh! fair and `guiling copesmate Death!
Be not a malais'd beggar; claim this bloody jester!"
-ToT
[ Parent ]

Dead is still dead (3.00 / 1) (#279)
by johnny on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 11:00:33 PM EST

I appreciate your point, but if, God forbid, somebody were to kill somebody I love for some kind of political purpose, it would hardly matter to me whether that death were polically or personally motivated.

It is symbols against symbols; that is a very important insight. Yet we are all people.

I say this as a Bostonian who was once a New Yorker. I knew people on those planes and in those buildings.

yr frn,
jrs
Get your free download of prizewinning novels Acts of the Apostles and Cheap Complex Devices.
[ Parent ]

violence (3.00 / 1) (#299)
by gdanjo on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 02:43:15 AM EST

I appreciate your point, but if, God forbid, somebody were to kill somebody I love for some kind of political purpose, it would hardly matter to me whether that death were polically or personally motivated.
Of course. Now let's put it in perspective: How many bombs have exploded near you?

It is symbols against symbols; that is a very important insight. Yet we are all people.
Don't muddy the line between symbols and people. We can all relate to people. We can only relate to symbols that have been fed to us.

We are indeed all people, but when people act violently in the name of a symbol, they are no longer a person to me ... they are a symbol that is trying to get me.

This applies to both terrorists and militia.

I say this as a Bostonian who was once a New Yorker. I knew people on those planes and in those buildings.
I know lots of people who are dead - my homeland was bombed.

Dan ...
"Death - oh! fair and `guiling copesmate Death!
Be not a malais'd beggar; claim this bloody jester!"
-ToT
[ Parent ]

Typical Groupthink (4.00 / 1) (#568)
by thelizman on Thu Apr 24, 2003 at 02:28:01 PM EST

You can't "humanise" the inhuman tools if extremism. And yes, terrorists do carry pictures. One of the biggest tools of terrorists is the specific targeting of community and political leaders who oppose them.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
Typical Indy-think (3.33 / 3) (#607)
by gdanjo on Thu Apr 24, 2003 at 09:49:31 PM EST

You can't "humanise" the inhuman tools if extremism. And yes, terrorists do carry pictures. One of the biggest tools of terrorists is the specific targeting of community and political leaders who oppose them.
You can't "humanise" the inhuman tools of capitalism. And yes, capitalists do carry grudges. One of the biggest tools of capitalists is the specific economic targeting of peoples from countries who oppose them.

Is that what you mean by group-think?

Dan ...
"Death - oh! fair and `guiling copesmate Death!
Be not a malais'd beggar; claim this bloody jester!"
-ToT
[ Parent ]

CotW? AotC? PotUS?.. (none / 0) (#111)
by McMasters on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 12:35:06 PM EST

..I love these acronyms!

Hmmm...

MotC - Monkey of the Circus
KotT - Key of the Twilight

I can think of TONS more!

[ Parent ]

+1 FP (4.50 / 4) (#156)
by Scrag on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 04:07:56 PM EST

That was more clearly written than the article, and it made a lot more sense too.

"I'm... responsible for... many atrocities" - rusty
[ Parent ]
I appreciate your comments (4.50 / 14) (#171)
by randinah on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 05:00:48 PM EST

The world has already moved on to newer sexier issues like Laci Petersons torso, SARS, and Serb war criminals. This may be a big issue in the circles of hystrionic leftists, but the world in general has ceased to be amused by the media circus of a made for TV war.

The world doesn't know who Laci Peterson is. Only America, and bits of Canada even recognize the name. Hell, I'm an American and I don't know who she is.

Aaaah, no he didn't. In fact, nobody in the Bush administration ever said "hey, lets invade so we can show the world all the bad stuff Iraq has". The case against Iraq is that Saddam Hussein's regime was in "materiel breach" of UN resolutions, and it was the moral imperative of the UN to follow through on enforcing the will of the International community. The CotW basically did the job the UN at-large is supposed to have done.

The presence of illegal WMD's was Bush's justification for the war. That's what a material breach is, in this case, right? Bush's administration repeatedly claimed to have proof - proof! of the existence of WMD's. Essentially, he promised the world Iraq had them, and is a threat to the world.

I don't know where you've been the last four weeks, but there's a war going on. The primary mission of the CotW has been to fight the war. Consider the following:

Fighting the war and looking for weapons. There are literally thousands of American specialists over there searching for weapons. Where do you think the false alarms came from? To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld: You can't expect America to just stumble upon the weapons. They have to look for them.

Secondly, your information on the broken seals is absolutely incorrect. An "unnamed" UN Official was quoted by Philadelphia Tribune as speculating that US Army "Exploitation" teams may have broken the seals - not the Marines who secured the site (note the difference between a "soldier" and a "marine"). The fact of the matter is that the seals were already broken.

Just curious: How to you turn a UN official "speculating" into "The fact of the matter is that the seals were already broken"? Basically, in the link you gave me, it was the marine units' word against the UN inspector's.

Which "people" are whispering doubts? What countries are "increasing pressure" (as if any country on this planet can pressure the CotW)? Your rhetoric is dripping with derision, all predicated on the fact that the Iraqi military, unable to act in the throws of shock and awe, could not employ "all hell", or even a decent amount of "heck" for that matter. That doesn't mean they didn't have them, as they were prepared to fire chemical tipped rockets on us, they just never got the order.

The people that are whispering doubts are all over the place - follow my links. Go to Google News and type "WMD's" - read the comments posted in this article. People are getting antsy. And although of course, no country can literally increase pressure on the United States, the fact that governments like France, Germany, (Tony Blair was ready to resign over this whole debacle last week according to headlines), and Canada are starting to doubt and whisper. Although it may not be strongarming to increase pressure, international doubt is a form of pressure on the United States to find these weapons.

Some people will never accept any proof of Iraqs WMD programs. They haven't accepted the overwhelming crush of evidence to date, and when the evidence is provided, these same people will dismiss it off handedly as "manufactured". So my question to you is, if the CotW were to manufacture evidence, why haven't they already? It would be a simple task to secure a bucket of nuke-parts, some VX and Sarin, and fly it over there an plant it. It could have been done during the opening hours of the war.

I'm curious..what's this overwhelming crush of evidence the United States has given to date? My point in this article is that the United States needs the U.N. if they want to silence those of us who are cynical towards the US government's integrity.

How is this a case of the US lying? The US provided this as part of a thick-assed dossier of papers, and the IAEA found 14 documents that were questionable. "Questionable" was the exact word they used. Nevermind that the source of the documents was South African and Nigerian intelligence agents, you are calling the US government a liar. Perhaps you should look the word up, because this entire article of yours is a complete and utter lie.

First off, my article is not a complete and utter lie. Second, the quote I got from news sources about the IAEA's official reaction to these papers was not questionable, but not authentic. and another quote i found was "My jaw dropped when I saw these papers, they were so badly forged". Also, if you are willing to forgive US intelligence for not checking their facts before releasing a bunch of information, you should forgive a Kuro5hin writer before they do it as well. If i'm an utter liar for not checking my facts, so is the US government, right, the lizman?

Besides which, it should be pointed out to Blix that he is already tainted by his public admissions of his own political motivations in the Iraq issue. Further, the UN affirmed the impotence of inspections it unanimously approved UN Resolution 1441, and then abdicated its jurisdiction when it did not act according to it's own resolutions. In proletariat parlence, we would say that the UN is a "punk-ass bitch".

What are Hans Blix's political motivations in the Iraq issue?

I cannot emphasize what an ill informed piece of shit this article is. It stinks, and it is brutally irresponsible in the degree of willful misrepresentation of known facts that it displays. Anyone who reads this ought to feel insulted. You ignore, skew, or misstate facts as you see fit, and appear grossly negligent in your research. Even the latest news is well over 14 hours old, so there's no reason for it to have been so haphazardly included.

Seem to have lost your temper there. I'm sorry you didn't like my article. That's really all I have to say about that.

Further, this piece-of-shit of an article has another glaring flaw. It fails to address the Bush Administrations terrorism links, which were a key cornerstone in garnering support for this war. Now, if you were genuinely questioning the veracity of the administrations pre-war evidence, then you could be excused for forgetting that terrorist mastermind Abu Nidal had been living in Baghdad as a guest of Hussein until he committed suicide by riddling himself with bullets. You would certainly not be frowned upon for failing to mention that Abu Nidal and Saddam Hussein both belong to the B'ath party. But the living breathing person of Abu Abbas was captured in his Baghdad apartment by US Special Forces ought to send up a red flag. The existence of a terrorist training camp in north-central Iraq, and its links to Al Qaeda (and worse, Canada) should be wakup call that Saddam is supporting terrorism. And finally, the existence of a hijacking training facility at Salman Pak in Baghdad, where Saddam was training foreign nationals in hijacking techniques - something that was known well in advance of the war - out to be a slap in the face to you. Saddam Hussein supported the terrorists that attacked us, and WMDs or no, that simple fact in and of itself is good enough of a reason for me to support rolling on Iraq.

My article is not about Iraq's possible terrorist links. What country isn't harboring terrorists? Is India doing enough to make sure all of the Abu Nidal's are keeping out of the country? What about Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? One or two stray terrorists are found within a country's borders does not a terrorist loving nation make.

The existence of a terrorist training camp in north-central Iraq

Your link says nothing about terrorist training camps in Iraq.


"Why waste time learning when ignorance is instantaneous?"
[ Parent ]
Random drive-by clarification (none / 0) (#496)
by dtcook on Thu Apr 24, 2003 at 01:11:20 AM EST

Secondly, your information on the broken seals is absolutely incorrect. An "unnamed" UN Official was quoted by Philadelphia Tribune as speculating that US Army "Exploitation" teams may have broken the seals - not the Marines who secured the site (note the difference between a "soldier" and a "marine"). The fact of the matter is that the seals were already broken.

Just curious: How to you turn a UN official "speculating" into "The fact of the matter is that the seals were already broken"? Basically, in the link you gave me, it was the marine units' word against the UN inspector's.

I am not the poster of the top quote, but I believe he was speculating as to who caused the seals to be broken - and thus, it could indeed be a fact that they are already broken.

David.

[ Parent ]
It's Simple... (none / 0) (#567)
by thelizman on Thu Apr 24, 2003 at 02:26:27 PM EST

The Marines were there. The "UN Official" was not.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
Yeah (none / 0) (#581)
by randinah on Thu Apr 24, 2003 at 03:53:38 PM EST

Yeah I trust the US armed forces over there 100%. Why would they ever lie?


"Why waste time learning when ignorance is instantaneous?"
[ Parent ]
Insinuation: What You Do When You Don't Know (2.00 / 1) (#600)
by thelizman on Thu Apr 24, 2003 at 07:56:16 PM EST

They're questioning soldiers about some cash that is missing - cash that is worthless the world over. I hope you have something better than this. Your hate for US troops is a more of a reflection of your own shortcomings.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
What *I* do when I don't know (none / 0) (#604)
by randinah on Thu Apr 24, 2003 at 08:39:46 PM EST

They're questioning soldiers about some cash that is missing

yes, They're questioning some soldiers over some cash that is missing, as the U.N. questioned some marines over some seals that were broken. The soldiers said: We didn't do it. The Marines said: We didn't do it.

Why in either case would a person automatically believe the soldier or marine just because they were there? Should I trust them indefinitely based on he fact that they're marines or soldiers? Ha..I may not hate soldiers, but I don't love them either.


"Why waste time learning when ignorance is instantaneous?"
[ Parent ]
You ASSumed [n/t] (none / 0) (#661)
by thelizman on Fri Apr 25, 2003 at 02:05:52 PM EST


--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
Oh for Christ Sake (none / 0) (#666)
by randinah on Fri Apr 25, 2003 at 02:45:43 PM EST

You are ASSuming as well that the Marine's did not break the seals.

You do realize that people are capable of lying, don't you? Especially to save their asses? Can you imagine the trouble that marine unit would have gotten into if they would have admitted guilt about those seals? I'd try to save my ass in that situation as well.


"Why waste time learning when ignorance is instantaneous?"
[ Parent ]
Lies... (none / 0) (#686)
by thelizman on Sat Apr 26, 2003 at 01:57:49 AM EST

Not everybody is like you. I don't expect you to understand the ethos of a Soldier or Marine, but to accuse one of lying without proof is pathetic. Not even the "unnamed UN official" is that big of a prick.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
facts (1.75 / 8) (#259)
by gdanjo on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 09:26:35 PM EST

Aaaah, no he didn't. In fact, nobody in the Bush administration ever said "hey, lets invade so we can show the world all the bad stuff Iraq has". The case against Iraq is that Saddam Hussein's regime was in "materiel breach" of UN resolutions, and it was the moral imperative of the UN to follow through on enforcing the will of the International community. The CotW basically did the job the UN at-large is supposed to have done.
But the message was not "materiel breach." This is also a fact.

And for good reason. Mention "materiel breach" and "Israel" is heard in the next breath.

But it's oh-so comforting to know that, really, truly, deep down, it was for the UN's own good that we invaded. Ahhhhh.

For anyone reading this, and feeling a little bit in the dark, here is the truth about this incident.[...]
You only give "facts" (and boring ones at that). How is that "the truth"?

Which "people" are whispering doubts? [...]
Me.

What countries are "increasing pressure" (as if any country on this planet can pressure the CotW)?
Are you so anal? I can increase pressure on the President all by myself. Whether my pressure results in any action is questionable (it would probably get me jailed in Madagaskar).

Are you denying that people are asking questions?

[...] So my question to you is, if the CotW were to manufacture evidence, why haven't they already? It would be a simple task to secure a bucket of nuke-parts, some VX and Sarin, and fly it over there an plant it. [...]
You don't play chess? Poker? Give your hand away and you'll be left with nothing later.

It could have been done during the opening hours of the war.
And take the thunder away from shock and ore? You'd make a bad imperialist.

Hardly odd considering that the UN weapons inspectors did such an abysmal job of locating anything previously, and did their best to downplay significant finds that established patterns of guilt within the Iraqi regime. There is still no word from Blix on the discovery of mobile bioweapons labs discovered last month.
You're very impatient. Isn't the lack of WMD an indication that the inspections were working?

Oh, right, no facts.

The UN (of which the IAEA is an agency) has also demonstrated it's willful incapability to act with resolve. The bottom line is this whole Iraq unpleasantness would not have been necessary if the UN at large had lived up to its obligations at any given point in the last 12 years, and enforced the resolutions. How rediculous is it that a petty dictator, dangerous though he is, could not only expel United Nations personnel in violation of prior treaties and UN Resolutions, but in fact got away with it for 5 years. Tell me the UN is not irrelevent.
The US is a part of the UN. The UN is where countries "fight" each other without weapons, technology, and "facts". It's a civilised way of fighting since we, the citizenry, do not get hurt in the semantics.

So yes, I guess it's irrelevant. The US has shown that might is faster. And we have shown, through our own behaviour, that fast is good.

I cannot emphasize what an ill informed piece of shit this article is. It stinks, and it is brutally irresponsible in the degree of willful misrepresentation of known facts that it displays. [...]
You imply here that the only people that should have an opinion on the war are the ones armed with facts.

And the only people that should be waging war are the ones armed with friendly weapons.

And the only people that should complain about the US actions are the ones that should be worried.

Dan ...
"Death - oh! fair and `guiling copesmate Death!
Be not a malais'd beggar; claim this bloody jester!"
-ToT
[ Parent ]

HA HA! (3.66 / 3) (#566)
by thelizman on Thu Apr 24, 2003 at 02:23:24 PM EST

You only give "facts" (and boring ones at that). How is that "the truth"?
That says it all!
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
you give yourself away (2.85 / 7) (#606)
by gdanjo on Thu Apr 24, 2003 at 09:42:50 PM EST

You're a slave to facts and figures, and hence will never understand my reasons for opposition to bombing.

You're so envelloped in your world of facts that any doubt of your God Factimilius is immediately struck down and the prepetrator labelled a joke (hence the "HA HA!").

I allows you to dismiss off-hand everything I say, no matter how close to the truth, because I didn't follow your path of facts. I'm a godless heathen who just likes to rip other people's work apart... right?

You suck. Anyone else wanna debate?

Dan ...
"Death - oh! fair and `guiling copesmate Death!
Be not a malais'd beggar; claim this bloody jester!"
-ToT
[ Parent ]

Who Needs Fact When You Have Conjecture (3.00 / 3) (#662)
by thelizman on Fri Apr 25, 2003 at 02:12:37 PM EST

I can stand liberals when they can argue based on the merits, but very few liberals can. Any time logic, reason, facts, or reality trump emotion, liberals like you automatically forswear the very notion of common sense.

Lets face it, your "who needs facts" mentality is the very reason why leftism is bankrupt. You and people like you use innuendo, allegation, assumption and inference to capitalize on basal emotional impulse. So what if I can demonstrate that Iraq had an active WMD program, if you can simply infer that it was lied about so the US could have an excuse to spend billions of dollars and lose hundreds of soldiers just to knock over a regime that supposedly had nothing to do with terrorism, 9/11, and Al Qaeda?


--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
emotions (3.25 / 4) (#682)
by gdanjo on Fri Apr 25, 2003 at 10:42:36 PM EST

I can stand liberals when they can argue based on the merits, but very few liberals can. Any time logic, reason, facts, or reality trump emotion, liberals like you automatically forswear the very notion of common sense.
I'm no god-damn liberal. Is your flawed assumption the reason for your attack on me? That's a very conservative thing to do, you know. But I know better than to call you conservative.

Lets face it, your "who needs facts" mentality is the very reason why leftism is bankrupt. You and people like you use innuendo, allegation, assumption and inference to capitalize on basal emotional impulse. [...]
You really do see facts in black and white (truth and lie), don't you?

So what if I can demonstrate that Iraq had an active WMD program, if you can simply infer that it was lied about so the US could have an excuse to spend billions of dollars and lose hundreds of soldiers just to knock over a regime that supposedly had nothing to do with terrorism, 9/11, and Al Qaeda?
And there is the problem with facts. You conveniently strip away all context such that all that is left is a fact, and an implicit arrow pointing to the solution. You're very kind as to not smack me over the head with it - this way, you make me think I found the solution all by myself.

So you prove with facts that Iraq had WMD. Now prove, with facts, that they intended to kill you with them. A little more difficult, no? Why not try to think like the "enemy" and try to ascertain their agenda? No, that would introduce emotion now, wouldn't it.

I use emotions as my gyroscope. Any time I hear a tempting, too-good-to-be-true fact, I turn on my emotions and see if it's brown-chocolate or brown-smellyshit.

I am fortunate, though, as I have experience in homeland bombing. I have emotions of my own, and the emotions of my family that went through the very situation we now debate.

I have some facts, but it is a patchy trail indeed - all I have is my story. It's unfortunatete that there's nothing in it for you.

Dan ...
"Death - oh! fair and `guiling copesmate Death!
Be not a malais'd beggar; claim this bloody jester!"
-ToT
[ Parent ]

a sig. quote even? (4.00 / 3) (#608)
by gdanjo on Thu Apr 24, 2003 at 10:00:42 PM EST

Holy shit, I must have struck a nerve.

Dan ...
"Death - oh! fair and `guiling copesmate Death!
Be not a malais'd beggar; claim this bloody jester!"
-ToT
[ Parent ]

Ancient history (2.03 / 33) (#57)
by Filthy Socialist Hippy on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 06:52:55 AM EST

Who cares?

Sorry, let me rephrase: how many people that matter actually care about this?

Bleeding heart liberals care, but that's all right, because they're in the minority, and we don't do consensus politics any more.

The right thinking majority don't care.  We got our war porn, we liberated the oil (yeee haw).

Some Eurotrash might care.  Who cares about them though?  What exactly are they going to do about it?  Have another marathon whine-in that ends up in deadlock over whether their objection should be "strong" or "robustly" worded?

Seriously now, find me someone with the actual ability to effect world events (which means someone in the USA, in case you haven't been keeping up to date) who actually cares enough to take any action over this?

Nobody believed that we went in to get any WMDs (I didn't.  Did you?), so this is just sour grapes.

Rage, liberal, rage.

--
leftist, you don't love America, you love what America with all its wealth and power can be if you turn it into a socialist state. - thelizman

So, no actual answers then? (1.71 / 7) (#67)
by Filthy Socialist Hippy on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 08:34:36 AM EST

Anyone?  Anyone at all?  Hello?

--
leftist, you don't love America, you love what America with all its wealth and power can be if you turn it into a socialist state. - thelizman
[ Parent ]
heh... (none / 0) (#96)
by Run4YourLives on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 11:22:35 AM EST

the funny thing is... somebody will answer arrogance like yours, in the form of another 9/11, or what have you.

Of course, I'm sure you'll say that had nothing to do with that arrogance either... don't say I didn't warn you.


It's slightly Japanese, but without all of that fanatical devotion to the workplace. - CheeseburgerBrown
[ Parent ]

I think.. (none / 0) (#168)
by Kwil on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 04:50:24 PM EST

..when you have to start actually asking people to respond to a troll, it's a good indication you need to try another strategy.

That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze


[ Parent ]
What about (5.00 / 3) (#78)
by tetsuwan on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 10:33:17 AM EST

the governments of 180 countries thinking: "In diplomacy, never trust anything the USA goverment says, nor ever belive the motives it states for its actions."

Trust can be a great force. It is far more dangerous to depend on fear.

Njal's Saga: Just like Romeo & Juliet without the romance
[ Parent ]

oh thats right, TROLLS affect world events [nt] (3.50 / 2) (#127)
by zzzeek on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 02:03:47 PM EST



[ Parent ]
admit (1.00 / 1) (#277)
by gdanjo on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 10:35:49 PM EST

Seriously now, find me someone with the actual ability to effect world events (which means someone in the USA, in case you haven't been keeping up to date) who actually cares enough to take any action over this?
You love being your country's bitch when it's "Numba Won."

Admit it.

Dan ...
"Death - oh! fair and `guiling copesmate Death!
Be not a malais'd beggar; claim this bloody jester!"
-ToT
[ Parent ]

I love (4.03 / 28) (#66)
by OmniCognate on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 07:53:49 AM EST

the way the Americans have ended up sounding just like Hans Blix did before they kicked him out. "We need more time! It's a big country! You can't expect results in a couple of weeks!".

Boo-hoo-fucking-hoo!



There's an important difference (1.00 / 3) (#77)
by Filthy Socialist Hippy on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 10:32:57 AM EST

When we say it, it ends in a fit of giggles and "Yeah, and what are you going to do about it, Frenchie?"

--
leftist, you don't love America, you love what America with all its wealth and power can be if you turn it into a socialist state. - thelizman
[ Parent ]
A change of method (4.66 / 3) (#86)
by bobpence on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 10:45:16 AM EST

Hans Blix and crew should never have been called "inspectors," but rather "auditors." The U.S. forces in Iraq are handling many tasks, including humanitarian aid, mop-up operations, and, yes, searching for hidden weapons of mass destruction. Oh, and finding and questioning those who know where the weapons are hidden. Yes, it will take more time because they actually are investigating, do detective work.

The UN inspectors, on the other hand, were supposed to do what compliance auditors do: Examine what is presented to them for completeness and authenticity (e.g. make sure all of the Anthrax that is supposed to be surrendered is there, and that it is actually Anthrax and not flour). GWB was right, if inelegant, in saying that they could have done their job by meeting the Iraqis in a parking lot.

That, of course, would require the Iraqis to comply with UNSC resolution 1441 and hand over the weapons that, as Colin Powell said, every nation with a competant intelligence service knew they had. The UNMOVIC request for "more time" not only lead down the false road of inspectors as "it" in a game of hide-and-go-seek, it gave the Saddam regime more time to move weapons (to Syria? Iran? Paris?) and set traps (and pesticide red herrings?) for coalition troops.
"Interesting. No wait, the other thing: tedious." - Bender
[ Parent ]

Meh! (4.87 / 8) (#105)
by OmniCognate on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 12:19:06 PM EST

The weapons inspectors were not simply auditors, they were investigators. Their job was to find out whether Saddam had WMDs, and they could demand any information necessary to acheive that end. If (in their own time) they had decided that necessary information was being withheld, that second UN resolution would have been forthcoming and we would have had this war with the blessing of the international community. I think this is what probably would have happened if the US/UK had been patient.

However, the US/UK forced this thing, undermining the UN and generally pissing the world off in the process, claiming there was some kind of immediate threat which needed to be dealt with. Well, considering Saddam didn't use WMDs even when his country was invaded, I'm inclined to think that was a load of bollocks.

Now, when asked to prove that the threat existed, they are pointing out exactly what Blix pointed out: that (even when you are in charge of an occupying force) it takes a long time to ascertain that a country is free of WMDs. To my mind this shows that they were perfectly aware that they had not given Blix enough time to do his job, and that Resolution 1441 was a sham from the beginning.

Incidentally, talking of Saddam not using WMDs in the war, I had fun watching some guy from the British government on TV (can never remember his name), answering questions from the audience about the hunt for the WMDs. His answer to the question "If he had them, why didn't he use them?" was hilarious.

He said Saddam didn't use his much publicised WMDs because he was afraid if he did so he would be tried as a war criminal when he was caught.

HaHaHaHaHaHa!!!! ROFL! 'Nuff said.

Finally, rather than implying that everyone else's intelligence services are incompetent, perhaps Colin Powell would like to have a look at his own. Fabricated evidence, false alarms, an innocent British man in a South African jail due to mistaken identity - this is the kind of competence we've come to expect from them. Only Americans themselves could possibly take the assurances of the American intelligence services at face value.

I hope they don't find any WMDs in Iraq. I'd be most intreagued as to how they would deal with the PR arising from that. I think one guy in the Bush administration coined the term "catastrophic success" for such a scenario. Chuckle.



[ Parent ]
Plausable Explanation (5.00 / 2) (#371)
by CENGEL3 on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 10:58:57 AM EST

Firstly I don't know whether Iraq had any WMD's or not.

I tend to believe they did but that's just a gut feeling, it's not based on fact.

However there are 2 very plausable explanations for Iraq not using them if they did possess them.
(Bare in mind, I make no claims of expertiese on the subject)

1) Chemical and Bio weapons are pretty tricky things, it's tough to deliver them with pinpoint accuracy and even tougher to get them to stay where you put them. The wind shifts a little bit and suddenly thier coming back on your own positions (This used to happen when Chems were used in WWI all the time).

Obviously Iraq's ability to deliver such weapons with any degree of accuracy during the conflict was severely impaired. Which means that it's quite likely that thier own troops would have gotten caught up in the muck had they released it.

Now I don't believe for a second that Saddam gave a rats arse about his own grunts. However, the Iraqi millitary, even the Republican Guard has far less capabilty to operate in NBC environments then U.S./U.K.  By releasing those weapons it's quite likely that Iraq would have degraded the combality abilities of it's own forces far more then thier opposition.... and that's something Iraq really couldn't afford given the state of it's millitary.

2) Realisticly, Iraq never had a chance in hell of winning the conflict millitarly. Saddam's only chance was to drag out the conflict and try to win the war of public opinion. Personaly I suspect even that wouldn't have saved him...but it was his best shot. Using WMD's that he claimed he didn't have and that the U.S./U.K. was using as a justification for war wasn't going to help him do that.

Did Iraq have WMD? I honestly don't know. They certainly had them at the end of Gulf War I. According to the Cease Fire Agreement they were supposed to destroy them IN FRONT of the U.N. teams (so thier destruction could be verified).
They didn't do that which is certainly cause for suspicion.

They were supposed to cooperate fully with the UNMOVIC teams. It's clear to me at least that there was credible evidence that Iraq was actively trying to hinder the UNMOVIC inspections. In my opinion that alone is enough to violate the terms of the Cease Fire Agreement and justify the use of force.

I also feel that Hans Blix was not the best choice for undertaking that kind of mission and would have performed poorly even under ideal conditions..... and the conditions were far from ideal.

All that being said. I STRONGLY FAVOR having U.N. teams and other independent observers working alongside our own inspection teams in Iraq. It royaly pisses me off that the Administration is opposing it. We are shooting ourselves in the foot by not having as much independent verification as possible. If we don't do that, the credibility of any evidence we find will be called into question. Of course some people will refuse to accept any evidence that supports our position no matter how credible it is... but that's entirely beside the point.

[ Parent ]

It was years not weeks n/t (none / 0) (#165)
by jgerman on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 04:31:00 PM EST


if textbooks were a kuro5hin user, they would probably be Silent Chris. because textbooks piss me off. -- anaesthesis
[ Parent ]

So, why wouldn't they fake it? (3.72 / 11) (#68)
by dark on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 10:04:30 AM EST

If evidence were to be planted, it would probably be done by military special forces or by the CIA. Let's look at it from the point of view of the CIA. Why would they not plant evidence? I can think of some possibilities:
  • They want the Bush administration to look bad. (possible; there seem to be some high-level disagreements)
  • They don't think they can pull it off. (unlikely)
  • They're so confident of what they'll find that they see no need for a backup plan. (unlikely; goes against CYA policy, and they're bound to get nervous by now)
  • It would go against their deeply held principles of fairness and honesty in international dealings. (Ha!)
  • They expect to get more benefit from the "Syria now has Iraq's WMD" line. (?? hard to evaluate).
These are all just speculations, but my own bet is on the last possibility, even though I find it hard to estimate those benefits. The US seems not to be interested in attacking Syria right now. One scenario would be that they use this line to force Syria to accept weapons inspectors, which are then used as a cover for the CIA. (Hey, it worked once...)

If that possibility is the one they're going for, then I would expect the US to actually try to cover up any chemical weapon finds in Iraq. On the other hand, it can get very interesting if the CIA and the military are opposed in this policy, with the CIA putting high priority on spying on Syria and the military putting high priority on avoiding another fight in the region.

You forget something (2.00 / 6) (#87)
by Filthy Socialist Hippy on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 10:48:18 AM EST

We're the good guys.  We tell the absolute truth, all the time.

If you think otherwise, you're one of those brainwashed terrorist liberal cultists that Fox News  warned me about.

--
leftist, you don't love America, you love what America with all its wealth and power can be if you turn it into a socialist state. - thelizman
[ Parent ]

Wow... (3.00 / 2) (#118)
by Gooba42 on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 01:18:40 PM EST

Even you came off sarcastic with that line. Good job!

[ Parent ]
Even I have limits (1.00 / 1) (#195)
by Filthy Socialist Hippy on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 06:08:21 PM EST

Love the message, hate the messenger.

--
leftist, you don't love America, you love what America with all its wealth and power can be if you turn it into a socialist state. - thelizman
[ Parent ]
Well, _I_ don't think they could pull it off (4.33 / 3) (#109)
by mcherm on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 12:30:34 PM EST

Suppose that the Bush administration displayed some papers, perhaps even physical evidence that they had discovered. Much of the media may have a "go along to get along" attitude, but this is too big a story to bury. The media WOULD investigate, and if they found strong suggestions that the evidence had been faked they WOULD publish. This is the sort of outright lie that people can easily understand is clearly wrong. (I don't understand why lying (even about personal matters) is an impeachable offense, while torturing untried prisoners isn't, but then there's a lot about the "new world" that I don't understand.)

Of course, I suppose that the Bush administration could prevent that -- simply declare that the evidence had been found, but was being kept secret for national security reasons, and thus the press couldn't stop by to have a look. But that would be just too obvious, wouldn't it? Wouldn't it?

-- Michael Chermside
[ Parent ]

Maybe to us. (4.00 / 1) (#245)
by valeko on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 09:03:22 PM EST

Of course, I suppose that the Bush administration could prevent that -- simply declare that the evidence had been found, but was being kept secret for national security reasons, and thus the press couldn't stop by to have a look. But that would be just too obvious, wouldn't it? Wouldn't it?

To us it would be. Keep in mind that K5 is not a very good sample of average Joe American -- the kind that reads Newsmax and nods his head along, "Yeah, finally some unbiased reporting out there in our great republic!" Sure, some parts of the country are obviously more reactionary than others, but the tide of public sentiment is overwhelmingly pro-Bush, pro-war, and basically pro-PNAC. Additionally, they are driven by their pundits to rage at such suggestions as, "if there are real WMDs in Iraq, why do they have to be classified under national security guidelines?" You'd be surprised how many Americans would knock your teeth out for such disloyalty. It's almost happened to me a few times when I mentioned something casually and politely about it.

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

Of course they have proof! (3.87 / 16) (#82)
by HereticMessiah on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 10:39:58 AM EST

At the end of the day, if the US doesn't find the supposed weapons, they can always produce the receipts!

--
Disagree with me? Post a reply.
Think my post's poor or trolling? Rate me down.
Yeah, but... (none / 0) (#204)
by br284 on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 06:20:13 PM EST

... Do you think the US has all the German, French, Russian, and Chinese reciepts too?

-Chris

[ Parent ]

No, but do they need them? (none / 0) (#331)
by HereticMessiah on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 07:15:44 AM EST

After all, it's just that they have to show that Saddam's been a naughty boy. They don't have to uncover everything. Tut tut to those who gave my comment above 1s—I was pointing out a well-known irony. Jeeze! Get a sense of humour!

--
Disagree with me? Post a reply.
Think my post's poor or trolling? Rate me down.
[ Parent ]
Hans Blix (1.33 / 3) (#88)
by tetsuwan on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 10:52:07 AM EST

has resigned. Sorry, I couldn't find a link in English.

Njal's Saga: Just like Romeo & Juliet without the romance

Curious (none / 0) (#90)
by randinah on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 10:56:03 AM EST

I find that curious, considering he's made Yahoo headlines this morning saying that he wants his inspectors back in Iraq.


"Why waste time learning when ignorance is instantaneous?"
[ Parent ]
Sorry, make that: (4.00 / 2) (#98)
by tetsuwan on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 11:35:43 AM EST

"will resign in June". He is of course still in office, sloppy me.

Njal's Saga: Just like Romeo & Juliet without the romance
[ Parent ]

Follow the money... (4.36 / 38) (#92)
by Pac on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 11:07:51 AM EST

While the American people view of their government actions is severely limited by their own sources of information (with the once magnificent American free press establishment now reduced to a Cold War Pravda look alike), the rest of the world has a more or less coherent point of view about this war.

The Bush administration actions are viewed as twofold. First, they are asserting the United States self-awarded right to mess with any country they perceive as a "threat", imagined or otherwise. Second, in Iraq's case, they are trying to get a good place to install another friendly government in the Middle East, so in the future the Saudi Arabian role as the United States representative in the region can be relegated to a second plane (and since Saudi money is the main source of income for fundamentalist islamic groups, this make a lot of strategic sense).

Everything else were only "white lies" to make the public come along. The United States has never been a champion of democracy around the world, they never cared about dictators as long as those dictators were following Washington guidelines. In the past, the United States has even finnanced and supported some of the most violent totalitarian governments in their sphere of influence (Pinochet in Chile, Somoza in Nicaragua, Palevhi in Iran, Papa and Baby Doc in Haiti, the military governments of Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay - just to name a few). Nowadays they support the nuclear powered military government of Pakistan, are trying hard to undermine the democratically elected government of Venezuela and obviously the numerous feudal lords in and around the Middle East.

Another point that made Iraq a perfect target is also that, with the "correct" government in place, it is a huge market. Once the UN sanction are lifted, the Iraquian oil money will be able to buy countless good and services from Western companies, mostly American (and British and Australian) companies.

In a way, the end of the Cold War and the globalization process has taken the geopolitical scene back to 1914. The diference is that now we have an hegemonic army, one that will take a far larger alliance to defeat. China and Russia generals are probably already playing wargames where their combined forces face the American Army. Weaker countries like India and Brazil should be seriously considering alternatives.

We should really brace ourselves for a rough ride in the next few decades.

Evolution doesn't take prisoners


ummmm...no (5.00 / 1) (#185)
by gandalf23 on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 05:25:08 PM EST

China and Russia generals are probably already playing wargames where their combined forces face the American Army.

ummm...no.

There is no way in hell that China and Russia will team up against anyone. Have you taken a look at the past few _hundred_ years of history? They are constantly fighting each other. What makes you think they'd team up?

If anything we'd go in on the side of the Russians against the Chinese.

[ Parent ]

The enemy of my enemy... (5.00 / 4) (#194)
by Pac on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 06:07:53 PM EST

If you consider most of Central Asia was for most of the time part of the Russian Empire, China and Russia have been fighting each other for a lot more than the past few hundred years. The past few thousand years would be more accurate.

Nevertheless, the game has changed. If this war may serve as a lesson, it is clear that the only chance the rest of the world has against the United States is to overcome past disagreements and face the enemy with a united front. During World War II, the Soviet Union and the West forged an alliance to face what was seem as a greater evil, despite of their different economic systems and USSR's previous alliance with Germany to share Poland. There nothing preventing long time enemies to forget their past problems and join up to fight an evil and arrogant empire of Christian fundamentalists.

Evolution doesn't take prisoners


[ Parent ]
Direct conflict unthinkable... (none / 0) (#229)
by goonie on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 07:28:53 PM EST

Get a grip, will you?

Aside from the fact the Russians and the Chinese hate each other, let's not forget one very simple fact. Russia, China, and the United States cannot be invaded by each other, for the very simple reason that all three posess substantial numbers of thermonuclear weapons and the means to deliver them reliably to each other's cities. Despite the US's efforts to develop BMD, this is not likely to change for a long time, particularly with regards to Russia's massive arsenal.

[ Parent ]

You're right (4.50 / 2) (#285)
by JahToasted on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 11:40:01 PM EST

But we may see Cold War II start up soon. If you look at the world as a huge chess board, as I'm sure Russian (and maybe Chinese) strategist are probably doing right now, you can guess the moves nations will make.

Here is my iraqwar.ru style guess about what will happen:

The US would like a land route from the Mediterranean and Turkey doesn't want to oblige, so that makes Syria a logical target.

Viewing US propaganda indicates that after Syria, the US plans to begin a campaign against Iran. This will take the form of air strikes lasting not less than three months. Initially these strikes will be under the guise of destroying the Iranian Nuclear programme and terrorist training camps but will be escalated.

Russia and China plan to aid Iran against the Americans. This aid will include (but not limited to) intelligence, weapons, and military expertise.

Seriously though, I'm not exactly sure what is going to happen. But it seems that an easy victory in Iraq will only increase the US's thirst for power. Maybe Russia, China and Iran can give the US enough of a bloody nose that y'all calm the fuck down.

[ Parent ]

Trace the Ideology... (5.00 / 3) (#422)
by cr8dle2grave on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 02:38:14 PM EST

Everything else were only "white lies" to make the public come along.

Agreed. Every war requires a good pretext.

The United States has never been a champion of democracy around the world, they never cared about dictators as long as those dictators were following Washington guidelines.

There is certainly a strong point to be made here, but I think you're missing out on a larger context which goes someway toward resolving the apparent contradiction between the US's historical actions and it's ostensibly liberal ideology. Post WWII American foreign policy was fixated above all else upon the destruction of the Soviet Union; guided by the belief that the development of a stable, prosperous, and peaceful world was impossible so long as they continued to export dissent, instability, and their peculiar brand of totalitarian Marxist ideology. Faced with what the US perceived to be a grave threat to it's long term viability, a choice was made to surrender the present for the sake of the future (everywhere but at home). Of course, this is not to say that there wasn't a fair amount of corruption, greed, megalomania, and just pure unadulterated power lust which affected the implementation of specific policies.

Those who are today at the helm of US foreign policy are very much within same ideological fold, and are just a comfortable with the idea of sacraficing the present in pursuit of the future, but with a few very important distinctions: 1.) an overweening sense of optimism bred by the belief that we are quite literally within the home stretch; 2.) faced with the prospect of actually having to bring to fruition the long existing plan of establishing a stable, prosperous, and peaceful world, today's policy elite have been forced to refine and solidify their goals and the emergent consensus view is that it is the establishment of political liberalism, and not simply procedural democracy, which is the primary objective; 3.) absent the binary polarity which marked the Cold War era, this present generation of policy makers is more self consciously ideological and, at least among themselves, more inclined to accept the mantle of an overt imperialism.

I can't stress enough that if you really want to understand the ideological and philosophical firmament of the Neo-Con/PNAC position, you should read Fukuyama's The End of History and the Last Man (link to introductory chapter). Fukuyama's argument is manufactured by conjoining the universal scope claimed by liberal rationalism with the teleological historicism of Hegel and Marx. And just as with Marxism before it, Fukuyama's argument is demonstrating that a political philosophy explicitly predicated upon a grand and expansive sense of historical destiny can exert significant motivating influence upon the world.

Side note: it is one of those delicious ironies of human history that those who are today deemed conservatives, at least within the context of American politics, bear the distinct mark of Marx more so than that of Burke.

I'd also recommend taking a look at the article Democratic Imperialism: A Blueprint published in the latest edition of Policy Review. Actually, if you want to keep abreast of what's going on within the intellectual (and purely secular) wing of the Neo-Con movement, regularly reading Policy Review is a must.

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
Meh? (4.22 / 9) (#97)
by jmzero on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 11:22:52 AM EST

It is inevitable that the US will eventually come up with these hidden WMD's the war in Iraq was supposedly fought over.

I don't believe that this is inevitable.  I don't even believe it's terribly likely - not unless they find something spectacular.  

I think Bush will restrict his speaking on Iraq to matters of reconstruction and other feel-good things.  Right now, I think most people have a general feeling that the war was justified and successful - and Bush knows this.  He likely understands that if he just doesn't bring up the subject again, people will continue thinking of the war as good (and anyone who tries to bring it up in public discourse will look "behind the times").  

Make no mistake - the Bush administration has political genius.  They can manage public perception of this without resorting to planted weapons.

.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife

They don't need to find any (4.91 / 12) (#107)
by substrate on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 12:27:28 PM EST

I did a verbal poll of my office workers, most of them believe that WMDs were already discovered in Iraq. They remember CNN, ABCNEWS and FOX alerts that weapons may have been discovered but they don't remember the retractions. Most of my co-workers are conservatives but even a few liberals I've spoken with remember things this way.

Now the US is essentially controlling the country of Iraq. There's nothing to prevent them, other than decency, from bringing their own WMD cache on scene to prove that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. They don't need to do this though. The majority already believe that WMDs were found, that an evil dictator was deposed (which is true - though I hate the way the word evil is thrown about) and that Iraqi's accounted for some percentage of the September 11th hijackers.

[ Parent ]

Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#112)
by jmzero on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 12:38:55 PM EST

They've already pretty much won this debate, why would they press this?  Talking about whether the war was justified may be fun - but it's silly to think this is still "the issue" in the minds of anyone Bush cares about.  I think Bush knows he's won over as many as he could have on this question, and will now put it to bed as much as possible.
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]
Interesting commentary (4.30 / 56) (#103)
by gbd on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 11:55:39 AM EST

Most of the commentary from the war apologists here is basically taking the following form: "Okay, so maybe Bush lied about these massive stockpiles of banned weapons, but it doesn't really matter because we won the war and the majority of the people were behind it anyway." The interesting lesson here is that it's (apparently) okay for a president to lie to Americans about matters of war, but if you lie to Americans about getting a hummer in a closet, it's time to start the impeachment hearings.

More than anything, I guess this just goes to show that it all depends on who's in office.

--
Gunter glieben glauchen globen.

Also... (4.50 / 12) (#104)
by lazloToth on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 12:18:55 PM EST

It's ok to have a surplus evaporate, to be replaced by some big honking deficit, as long as you go blow a bunch of stuff up spectacularly on the TV.

It's such a good distraction you can cut veteran's benefits while it's going on! Nobody gives a damn about actual actions anymore anyway. All you have to do is say 'I support the troops', or buy a Toby Keith album, and BOOM, you've supported the troops. You don't have to ACTUALLY DO anything in the US anymore, just say the right words, wear the right buttons or ribbons, put the right signs in your yard (or carry them around).

Anyhow, all you have to do is blame the bad economy on the guy before you, just like you said the good economy was due to the guy before the president you didn't like.

Those Repubs, damn they're clever. Don't be playa hatas, hate the game, they are really really good at playing it.

[ Parent ]

Uh Huh (2.00 / 11) (#117)
by Skywise on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 01:04:51 PM EST

And if the US DID find WMD's in Iraq, the anti-war apologists would claim the US planted them.

What's your point?

And it does depend on who's in office.  The world didn't seem to have a problem with the US overthrowing the democratically elected Serbian government because he was just like Hitler.


[ Parent ]

You must be joking (5.00 / 8) (#120)
by gbd on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 01:27:32 PM EST

And if the US DID find WMD's in Iraq, the anti-war apologists would claim the US planted them.

I'm sure that some of them would. I'm also pretty certain that we're going to find some chemicals, if not anything more than leftovers from the Iran-Iraq war. But in the hours before the war began, the President was characterizing Iraq as a "terrorist state with ultimate weapons" (whatever that means.) We were lead to believe that there were large stockpiles of weapons and active manufacturing facilities. And while I do believe that we'll eventually find something, it's becoming quite clear that it will be nothing close to what we were promised. Since the weapons issue was the justification for the war in the first place, I don't think it's unreasonable to raise some questions about it.

And it does depend on who's in office.  The world didn't seem to have a problem with the US overthrowing the democratically elected Serbian government because he was just like Hitler.

You're kidding, right? The NATO governments were unified behind Operation Allied Force, but by and large the public opinion abroad was not. Public opinion in the U.S. was mixed. Many of the people who demonstrated against the Iraq war in the US demonstrated against that campaign as well, though not in the numbers that we've seen for this war (not surprising, since Allied Force was order of magnitude smaller in terms of scale.) And large segments of the rest of the world, most notably China and especially Russia, were vociferously opposed to the campaign.

--
Gunter glieben glauchen globen.
[ Parent ]

But the UN was against the Serbian invasion... (1.00 / 1) (#132)
by Skywise on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 02:40:09 PM EST

Which is why Clinton never asked the UN, and threatened the EU with pulling military support if it didn't back NATO which is now why the EU is trying to establish its own military.

[ Parent ]
It's not unreasonable.. (2.00 / 3) (#133)
by Skywise on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 02:56:02 PM EST

To ask questions.  But nobody on K5 and I think the vast majority of people in the world ever thought that it was about stopping WMD's.  (Remember, every *knows* its about the oil).  Unless you're defending against an invasion, all wars are fought with ulterior motives.

Just like Clinton's actions in Serbia were about stopping "future Hitler-like expansion fears of Milosevic".

Just like our invasion of Vietnam was to "stop communism".

Just like our invasion of Germany was in resonse to the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor.  (Think about that a second).

Just like our invasion of China in the early 1900's was to protect US Interests.  (Somewhat true).

The Bush Administration has already claimed that the WMD's were transported to Syria.  There's your answer.  Do you believe it?

[ Parent ]

Don't forget (4.50 / 2) (#215)
by seanic on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 06:50:53 PM EST

Just like our invasion of Germany was in resonse to the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor.

They started it. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and invaded Siam and Malaya on 7 Dec. 1941. The US and Britian declared war on Japan the next day. Germany and Italy declared war on the US on 11th of that month, which prompted the US to recognize a state of war with them. It is this point when the Neutrality Act of 1937, already weakened by the Lend-Lease Act, became extraneous.

As an aside, oil had been discovered in the area of Siam and Malaya. Coincidence?

--
"The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is, however, alleviated by their lack of consistency" -- Albert Einstein
[ Parent ]
Just thinking a second... (2.00 / 2) (#657)
by drquick on Fri Apr 25, 2003 at 12:06:42 PM EST

Just like our invasion of Germany was in resonse to the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor. (Think about that a second).
Umm...? How can that be a reason to attack Germany?
So, if Israel attacks Syria, you will invade North-Korea?

[ Parent ]
It's not (1.50 / 2) (#668)
by Skywise on Fri Apr 25, 2003 at 03:06:26 PM EST

a reason.

[ Parent ]
who (3.50 / 2) (#238)
by gdanjo on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 08:39:35 PM EST

And it does depend on who's in office. The world didn't seem to have a problem with the US overthrowing the democratically elected Serbian government because he was just like Hitler.
You're right.

A smart president uses all the diplomacy he can to get as many allies as possible. This has two main effects: a) it gives the other participants a stake in the outcome and b) it reduces the liability of the aggresor should the actions fail.

A dumb president will go it alone, risking the wrath of potential allies should the action fail or the consequences become too demanding. Victory, though, will redeem his actions.

A stupid president will feign to get allies, then walk away when things don't go honkey-dorey. This has one main effect: we lose confidence. In you and your institutions. The word "democracy" does not mean what it used to, just like the words "gay", "blow", or "new" (or even "New!").

And victory will make everyone more cautious and weary.

Dan ...
"Death - oh! fair and `guiling copesmate Death!
Be not a malais'd beggar; claim this bloody jester!"
-ToT
[ Parent ]

Not quite (2.57 / 7) (#124)
by JetJaguar on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 01:37:21 PM EST

Regardless of whether or not WMD's are found and if Bush lied about them, there is a much bigger issue to be dealt with now: Rebuilding the government in Iraq.

The thing that pisses me off about all this, is that all the anti-war people keep going on and on about how no WMD's have been found, how this is all about oil, etc, etc, but not a single damn one of them are saying anything about how the government in Iraq should be rebuilt? That country needs to be put back together and it needs to be done fast.

Yes, the issue of WMD's and the less than stellar diplomatric record of the Bush administration is going to force them to answer some tough questions further down the road. But right now, what's more important? Getting Iraq back on its feet or attacking Bush? I don't like how Bush has handled this whole thing any more than any of the rest of anti-war protesters, but at this point it's way too late to be continually grousing about oil and WMD's, all it shows is that you're more interesting in tearing down the Bush administration than you are in making sure the Iraqi people get put back on their feet.

[ Parent ]

Rebuilding (3.50 / 2) (#154)
by slippytoad on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 04:00:44 PM EST

The thing that pisses me off about all this, is that all the anti-war people keep going on and on about how no WMD's have been found, how this is all about oil, etc, etc, but not a single damn one of them are saying anything about how the government in Iraq should be rebuilt?

That problem belongs to them that brung it.
If I were the al Qaeda people right now I would be planning a lot of attacks in the next few days and weeks -- John "Bring 'em On" McCain
[ Parent ]

Absolutely! (4.66 / 3) (#167)
by epepke on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 04:42:26 PM EST

That problem belongs to them that brung it.

Of course. And them that brung it are going to be doing it. And I'm guessing that the most likely result will be a puppet government that is, at best, suboptimal for the Iraqi people.

The only possible reason for the left to think up and press for alternatives would be a genuine concern for the Iraqi people and the desire to prevent a botched, U.S. puppet government from getting established at a time when there is something might actually be done about it.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
Exactly! (none / 0) (#181)
by JetJaguar on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 05:13:11 PM EST

This is exactly the point I was trying to make. The oil and WMD's complainers seem to be more concerned with firing salvos at the Bush administration, than about the Iraqi people they claim to be so worried about.

While I think Bush deserves all the criticism he gets, I also think that getting a proper government running in Iraq is far more important issue at this point. For the last 100 years, US and European foreign policy have screwed things up royally over there, repeatedly, and it seems to me that it is very important that the same mistakes are not made again, especially since it looks like we are headed down a similar path that started a lot of these problems in the first place.

So to the anti-war protesters: Don't stop, but it is also time to re-think what is really important about the situation in Iraq, right now, not what was important six weeks ago. Things are much different now than they were then...

[ Parent ]

Clarification (4.50 / 2) (#249)
by slippytoad on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 09:13:06 PM EST

The oil and WMD's complainers seem to be more concerned with firing salvos at the Bush administration, than about the Iraqi people they claim to be so worried about.

I guess I percieved your comment as a statement that read more like "Damn liberals complain about Bush's course, but don't offer an alternative." I am not suggesting heartlessly abandoning the Iraqi citizens to whatever disaster awaits them, but on the other hand what real input do you expect anyone who disagrees with Bush & Co. to have? He has made it pointedly clear that he is not leading a "focus group" and has no apparent interest in a consensus. He behaves as if he's been placed on the throne by divine mandate.

For my part, all that's left is to give these people rope. What happens next isn't hard to guess. For eight years, conservatives yawped about Clinton and "damn liberals" and "bias" and "the media" and "communists." They are in charge now, and this is the first, the very first time that Bush has done something that no amount of his Daddy's money or influence can rescue him from. It sucks that he's pulled millions of people who have nothing to do with him into a pit. There's nothing we can do about it. I voted. I protested. I tried to maintain a reasonable tone of voice. 51% or more of the electorate chose to just let it happen.

It's a pit, but it's his pit. He owns it, outright. He has made it clear that he will brook no interference in God's Plan for Iraq, or whatever the fuck it is he's up to. When there's a new development -- and it turns out that Instant Democracy is more complicated than Just Add Freedom, people will have something new to talk about. Until then, it's interesting to note, just as an aside, that we did not in fact find WMD in Iraq. This entire conversation got started with fear and terror, and somehow ended up at Freedom & Democracy. Well, I happen to think the neo-cons don't know jack about the latter, and have been all too quick to manipulate us with the former. So let's talk about the former, and why it's more like Smoke & Mirrors.
If I were the al Qaeda people right now I would be planning a lot of attacks in the next few days and weeks -- John "Bring 'em On" McCain
[ Parent ]

agreed (NT) (none / 0) (#268)
by JetJaguar on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 10:04:46 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Heh .. what? (5.00 / 2) (#159)
by gbd on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 04:18:07 PM EST

The thing that pisses me off about all this, is that all the anti-war people keep going on and on about how no WMD's have been found, how this is all about oil, etc, etc, but not a single damn one of them are saying anything about how the government in Iraq should be rebuilt? That country needs to be put back together and it needs to be done fast.

With all due respect, this is ridiculous. I can't speak for the entirety of the anti-Iraq-war crowd, but if I were in charge, the invasion would never have happened in the first place. How is it then (apparently) my responsibility to figure out how to pick up the pieces? Yes, things are a mess, just like many of us said they would be. But you lot made your bed .. now lie in it. Now that Saddam is out, I want to see a benevolent, modern, and democratic Iraq as much as anybody else. But you shouldn't run around and attack folks for not having ideas about how to clean up after a war that they were opposed to in the first place. The resulting mess was one of the reasons that I was not enamored with the whole policy to begin with!

--
Gunter glieben glauchen globen.
[ Parent ]

I agree (none / 0) (#170)
by JetJaguar on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 04:59:49 PM EST

You are absolutely right. It is not your responsibility to figure out how to pick up the pieces. However, it seems to pretty damn silly to be going on and on about oil and WMD's when that is clearly not the major problem in Iraq now (if it ever was).

It just makes much more sense to me that it is much more important to be trying to get things moving forward in Iraq as quickly as possible, before things become even more destabilized. You said yourself that things are a real mess now, and that is a much more pressing issue. We can return to the myriad problems created by the Bush administration, they won't go away, and I am sure there are more to follow. At this point though, I think the time is better spent trying to get the Iraqi people back on their feet, regardless of who's fault it is and how badly it was handled. Getting a democratic government in place is not going to be an easy thing, but even you support that. So doesn't it make some sense that this is what we should be focusing on? If for no other reason than to get the Iraqi's back in control of their own country?

[ Parent ]

why not? (5.00 / 3) (#389)
by pb on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 11:59:08 AM EST

I thought it was silly for Bush to be going on and on about oil and WMDs; if it was clearly not the major problem in Iraq, then I'd say he's guilty of fraud (as well as 2,200 counts of murdering Iraqi civilians).

Do you think Bush--or the average American--has decided to "forgive and forget" about September 11th? Well let me tell you, more innocent Iraqis died in this needless war; I don't see why Iraq or the Middle East would choose to forgive the US; jihad is more likely.

No, the fact of the matter is, Bush doesn't care one whit about forgiving anyone or forgetting anything, unless it has to do with forgiving Bush. You know, because he's a good Christian, he's changed, he says he isn't an alcoholic or a cocaine addict anymore, and please don't ask about any possible abortions he paid for, any shady companies or corporate dealings he was ever involved in (or still is in the rebuilding of Iraq)... no, you should just blindly support your president, and not question his actions, dammit, because that's what The First Amendment is all about, protecting the freedom of Judeo-Christianity and non-combative speech.

So I think you'll find that a lot of people are totally pissed off about what happened with Iraq. That's why there have been protests throughout the world since before the war that continue to this day. I'm not eager to "forgive and forget" Bush or his administration for this one, and I'm certainly not going to condone their actions. They fucked it up, and they should be held accountable for their actions. And I doubt they will be, which is all the more reason to stay pissed off.

Would you "forgive and forget" a murderer, or would you argue that what we really should be doing is helping out the survivors and ignoring the real problem? What if he kills again? I thought bombing Afghanistan was a little shady considering the paucity of evidence the US had, but after September 11th, no one was going to argue about it. However, Iraq? That was just completely gratuitous and uncalled-for. We'll see who's next...
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
[ Parent ]

Perhaps a little slow... (5.00 / 1) (#169)
by mikelist on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 04:54:31 PM EST

But it seems to me that this issue of "rebuilding Iraq" would be unnecessary if war had not been prosecuted against Iraq. Doesn't it bother you to think that evidence was falsified and selectively released to media to persuade a majority to support this war?

[ Parent ]
Yes, but what's the most pressing question now? (2.00 / 1) (#190)
by JetJaguar on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 05:46:53 PM EST

But it seems to me that this issue of "rebuilding Iraq" would be unnecessary if war had not been prosecuted against Iraq.

This question is moot. It can be revisited come election time, but the time for debating this question is over, and can't serve any useful purpose except for when the next election comes around.

Doesn't it bother you to think that evidence was falsified and selectively released to media to persuade a majority to support this war?

Yes, this concerns me a great deal as well, but again this question is also moot, again it's only going to become relevant when the next election comes around.

The point I was trying to make, and I think epepke in his response comes much closer. Is that before and during the war, the anti-war camp's primary motivation was supposed to be about the innocent people in Iraq. Well, the innocent people in Iraq now need a new government, they also need to be reassured that this war isn't going to plunge the whole region into a war. All the continued wranglings over oil and WMD's would seem to show that the anti-war camp is being rather hypocritical. They were very concerned about the innocent people that would be harmed in all this, but now that the war is over, they are more concerned with bringing down Bush than with trying to help the Iraqi people figure out how to form a new stable government, as well as making sure that the foreign policy mistakes made in the past will not be repeated.

At this stage in the game, bringing down the Bush administration should be secondary to trying to ensure that a proper government is installed, without making the same mistakes in the past, but that's not what the anti-war people seem to be focusing on.

[ Parent ]

What goes around... (none / 0) (#217)
by ghosty on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 06:53:02 PM EST

Is that before and during the war, the anti-war camp's primary motivation was supposed to be about the innocent people in Iraq. Well, the innocent people in Iraq now need a new government, they also need to be reassured that this war isn't going to plunge the whole region into a war. All the continued wranglings over oil and WMD's would seem to show that the anti-war camp is being rather hypocritical.

I'll see your claim of hypocrisy and raise you. I spent much of the last two months protesting the war. In that time, I also sent money to the Mercy Corps fund for civilian relief in Iraq. How much did *you* contribute?

Here's the url http://www.mercycorps.org/



[ Parent ]

thanks for that (4.00 / 1) (#436)
by Wah on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 04:01:06 PM EST

If I get hauled off in the middle of the afternoon for giving to a terrorist charity (like this guy, supposedly..), I'm blaming it on you.
--
Fail to Obey?
[ Parent ]
pretty good (none / 0) (#552)
by ghosty on Thu Apr 24, 2003 at 01:02:56 PM EST

If I get hauled off in the middle of the afternoon for giving to a terrorist charity (like this guy, supposedly..), I'm blaming it on you.

Oy gevalt! :):):)



[ Parent ]

3 reasons (5.00 / 3) (#329)
by greenrd on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 07:01:31 AM EST

At this stage in the game, bringing down the Bush administration should be secondary to trying to ensure that a proper government is installed

Here's three reasons why I think this is important to present now.

Firstly, it's an issue of credibility for the anti-war movement and the related causes that a lot of us support. I am tired of us anti-war types being characterised by some on k5 and in the wider world as fringe loonies, deluded fools, idealists etc. who don't have an argumentative leg to stand of. We did and do have a case. The President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Great Britain lied to us, consistently and intentionally. That is now very clear.

This war had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction, and everything to do with securing Iraqi oil and gaining increased military influence on the region. That is now also very clear.

Retaining credibility in our argumentation (especially against a backdrop of almost total saturation pro-war, rah-rah "support our troops" media coverage in the US during the war, which makes things more difficult for us) is important because when you lose credibility, people turn away and stop listening.

Just look at the (comparatively tiny) band of window-smashers in the hardline anarchist Black Block, for example - they've certainly been a double-edged sword - got the anti-corporate-globalisation movement in the mainstream news more than they would have done otherwise, which is good, but also turned a lot of people away. Sorry to digress, but I just thought that was a particularly good example to illustrate movement credibility.

Secondly, as valeko and I and others never tire of pointing out, if you look at past US foreign policy, the tactical mistakes are far less important than the illegitimate and illegal goals which the US government has pursued in the past half century or so. If you look at the actual stated policy of this administration - not the PR fluff but the actual high-level policy documents, you'll see that the explicit vision of the Bush administration is for the US to "pre-emptively" cut off any challenges to its level of influence and control over world affairs. As Noam Chomsky says, we can take this as pretty accurate but for one thing - the "rogue states" may be "rogue" not for any publically stated reasons, but for the threat which they pose to US hegemony.

In other words, "what we say goes, and if you don't like it, we'll put a gun to your head, manufacture some explanation for going to war - and if we really want a war we'll put impossible demands on the table (cf. Kosovo, Afghanistan) that are never intended to be taken seriously by you, so that we are guaranteed to have our "just" war".

After all, as Madelaine Albright once said, what's the point of having the world's best military if you never use it? To most effectively strike fear into the hearts of "intransigents" (e.g. national liberation movements, etc.), the thinking goes, US power has to be seen as driven by hyperviolent, vindictive, unpacifiable hawks.

Thirdly, the two issues are both important and should be addressed hand-in-hand. It's quite simple to lay it out: number 1, here's why you can't trust the Bush Administration - here's why our rants about their nefarious intentions are probably closer to conspiracy practice than conspiracy theory. Number 2, given their nefarious intentions, it would be better to have a multilateral force administrating Iraq for a short transition period, and then allow Iraq to have free and fair democratic elections - not subject to foreign interference - once law and order and a functioning government bureaucracy has been restored. (Of course my anarchist friends may disagree with this prescription, but we agree to disagree.)

Anyways discussions about number 2 will probably naturally lead back to number 1 anyway - because assumptions about US intent are only strengthened by referring back to number 1. You're right that number 2 is important, of course.


"Capitalism is the absurd belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." -- John Maynard Keynes
[ Parent ]

points (2.00 / 1) (#414)
by JetJaguar on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 01:32:26 PM EST

As far as credibility goes, the antiwar movement's credibility is already gone, precisely because of the loonies, fools, and idealists that are surrounding you. I have the same problem with the "moderate antiwar" people as I do with moderate christians. Neither of them seem to have the guts to properly distance themselves from the idiots in their midst. Your credibility would go up considerably if you would start denouncing the idiocy of some of these people. At this point proving that this was all about oil and an increased military presence will not help your credibility because you still have all the nuts around you. The other thing that bothers me in all this mess is that you are not as critical of the UN in all this as you should be. The UN is not blameless here, and yet many people in the antiwar movement seem to think the UN has done nothing wrong. The fact is, the UN has made many mis-steps over the last 15 years in dealing with Iraq, and in my opinion, the UN's lack of action over the last 8-9 years allowed this situation to occur. If they had acted when they should we wouldn't be having this conversation at all right now.

As for your other points, I think we going to have to agree to disagree here. I understand your cynicism, and in many respects I agree with it. However, many things have changed for the better (and for the worse) in the US since 9-11, and some of those changes are encouraging. That's not say that we should roll over and go with the flow, but I do think a reduction in the cynicism is in order, but an equal increase in pressure on our leaders to come clean about what their intentions are is also in order. And I'm not just talking about Bush and Blair, I'm also talking about France, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, etc, they all have their own self-absorbed agendas, all of which are not any better than what you have been chastising the US for.

[ Parent ]

those points were non-starters (5.00 / 3) (#478)
by ghosty on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 09:30:21 PM EST

"As far as credibility goes, the antiwar movement's credibility is already gone, precisely because of the loonies, fools, and idealists that are surrounding you."

You have no substantive argument against the anti-war movement, so you switch tacks and deride those on the periphery of the movement. Then, you try to re-direct the argument with the unrelated and unsubstantiated assertion that protestors have not admitted that the UN has made mistakes. Finally, you top off this questionable rhetorical pie with an attempt to mitigate Bush's excesses (which include *killing* people) by comparing them to the "self-absorbed agendas" in the rest of the world. Wow! All those gyrations for naught.

So, about those charities, when can they expect your check?



[ Parent ]

Idiot (none / 0) (#555)
by JetJaguar on Thu Apr 24, 2003 at 01:11:58 PM EST

I have no substantial arguments against the antiwar movement, because in large part I agree with it, you moron! However, I strongly disagree with a number of its tactics, most of its "popular" arguments are just as intellectually bankrupt as the ones that Bush has been using, and finally, it continues to do a piss poor job of distancing itself from the kooks that think this is an opportunity to bring back the 60s (or are just looking for a reason to cause mayhem).

As for my argument being unsubstantiated, I have yet to see any protesters on the street denouncing the UN for its part in this mess. That argument is not a non-starter because if the UN had done its job the first time around we wouldn't be in this mess now. The UN, by its inaction 10 years ago made another war in Iraq inevitable. I admit, that I am surprised at how it came about, but I am not surprised in the least that its happened, I knew this was coming 10 years ago. Finally, nowhere in my argument have I attempted to mitigate Bush excesses, I have only stated that Bush's reasons for this are not exactly what the antiwar people continue to say they are, that's not saying the real ones are any better, just that they are different.

Lastly, just because I am very critical of the antiwar movement doesn't mean that I'm against it, I just think its doing and all around pathetic job. As for charities, I've supported quite a few, long before this started, and I will continue to support them. Where did I say that I didn't, and where do you get off implying that I don't?

[ Parent ]

re: Idiot (none / 0) (#591)
by ghosty on Thu Apr 24, 2003 at 04:44:36 PM EST

Forgive this poor "moron" for pointing out a few relevant facts. I would indeed be an "idiot" if I let the following points go by:

1) Your argument regarding fringe elements is highly similar to the one the right makes against liberals - that we condemn racists on the right but fail to condemn Al Sharpton's comments about Jews. It's a tactic of trying to circumvent an argument by altering focus.

2) Your argument regarding the anti-war movement failing to denounce the UN's mistakes is more of the same. Further, you ignored the fact that it was the US that invaded Iraq, not the UN. Why should *anti-war* protesters be attacking an organization that did not start or participate in a war?

3) You stated that "France, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, etc... all have their own self-absorbed agendas, all of which are not any better than what you have been chastising the US for." That's pretty clearly intended to get Bush off the hook.

4) You use phrases like "...kooks that think this is an opportunity to bring back the 60s." The pro-war crowd has worked hard at stereotyping anti-war protesters as "a bunch of fucking hippies" (that quote's from someone else). Why, oh why, are you parroting the oposition's stereotypes?

If you actually do agree with the anti-war movement, you're doing a really poor job of expressing it. In this posting, and the other one I replied to (which is where the charity dig came from), you said things that suggested agreement but then spewed unsubstantiated generalizations about the protesters. You wouldn't be the first to offer your opponent token agreement and then nit-pick his opinion to death.

Perhaps now you can understand my "confusion".



[ Parent ]

Ok, (none / 0) (#597)
by JetJaguar on Thu Apr 24, 2003 at 06:03:59 PM EST

1) Your argument regarding fringe elements is highly similar to the one the right makes against liberals - that we condemn racists on the right but fail to condemn Al Sharpton's comments about Jews. It's a tactic of trying to circumvent an argument by altering focus. and

4) You use phrases like "...kooks that think this is an opportunity to bring back the 60s." The pro-war crowd has worked hard at stereotyping anti-war protesters as "a bunch of fucking hippies" (that quote's from someone else). Why, oh why, are you parroting the oposition's stereotypes?

This argument was regarding the credibility of the antiwar movement, and how they have failed to distance themselves from the kooks. The antiwar movement *needs* some credibility, it needs to find some cogent and coherent leaders instead of the crazy that got on CNN a few weeks ago that went directly from talking about being a human shield in Iraq to going on about prison gang rape in the span of 10 seconds. They need to find spokes people that have some intelligence, integrity, and credentials, instead of Susan Sarandon or Micheal Moore, or to a lesser extent Hans Blix. People like that are the current face of the antiwar movement, and they aren't going to win any points with anybody. You need somebody that can still get the point across while also being able to denounce the idiocy. The reason I use those stereotypes is because, more often than not, they have been closer to the truth, its unfortunate, but that is the state we find ourselves in.

2) Your argument regarding the anti-war movement failing to denounce the UN's mistakes is more of the same. Further, you ignored the fact that it was the US that invaded Iraq, not the UN. Why should *anti-war* protesters be attacking an organization that did not start or participate in a war?

3) You stated that "France, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, etc... all have their own self-absorbed agendas, all of which are not any better than what you have been chastising the US for." That's pretty clearly intended to get Bush off the hook.

I disagree on both counts. While Bush and Co have their part of the blame to share in all this, their dubious accomplishments were not achieved in a vacuum. The UN had numerous opportunities to deal with this situation in a much stronger much more proactive fashion and by refusing to do anything, it was only a matter of time before someone did. Like I said, I knew 10 years ago that there was going to be another war in Iraq, I'm surprised that the US turned out to be the instigator, but I knew that it was coming regardless. It took a spineless UN, and an idiot with a backbone in the whitehouse for it to happen, and unfortunately, such circumstances are not as uncommon as we would hope.

This is not intended to turn blame away from the whitehouse, it is intended to put blame where it is due. The UN didn't invade Iraq, but they precipitated this mess. And as with France, et al and the arab nations, their actions do not absolve them from being partially responsible (particularly the arab states). All these events are happening across a much larger tapestry. Bringing attention to the other agents that have a hand of responsibility in all this, is not intended to get Bush off the hook so much as it is intended to force a look at the larger picture. The antiwar movement's focus on Bush, the oil arguments, the "shock and outrage" that Bush and Blair may have lied about WMDs are the wrong things for the antiwar movement to be worried about, proving that Bush lied isn't going to gain you any points (such events happen far too often to even worry about them), showing that trying to impose democracy on a country not ready for it will win far more points.

[ Parent ]

Advocating single-mindedness (5.00 / 3) (#191)
by John Bayko on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 05:55:55 PM EST

"The thing that pisses me off about all this, is that all the anti-war people keep going on and on about how no WMD's have been found, [...] but not a single damn one of them are saying anything about how the government in Iraq should be rebuilt?"

Aren't they? Certainly not in the same sentence, but it's completely possible to criticize Bush and be concerned about rebuilding Iraq. Canada both opposes the war, and has pledged $100 Million (CAD) to rebuild Iraq.

BTW, the war's not over. There are three main ethnic groups still sorting out what they can and can't get away with, plus an entire government and military division that seemed to disappear - a government which got into power in the first place through a revolution, and might very well intend to do so again, in a few years after the U.S famed attention span has - hey, that's a neat looking car there. Can I drive it?

The Kurds want autonomy. The Shiites and Sunnis want to keep the country whole, and the Shiite majority want to impost Islamic law on the Sunnis and Kurds. As a secular state, Iraq managed to keep the groups acting relatively civil to each other, but there have been flare-ups in which religious minorities have been attacked. This is similar to Yugoslavia - remember how that went when centralized power was dismantled?

Basically, the risk of civil war is there, and will keep growing without something to stabilize the country. Chances are that the government in hiding will do what they can to destabilize it and use that to their advantage. And they still have lots of support in Iraq and among Arabs in general - and they know the populartion far better than the U.S-picked Iraqi leaders who are generally as self-serving and power-hungry as the removed leaders, and most of whom haven't even lived in the country for decades.

That civil war would be the real war in Iraq. That's the one that would be bloody and drawn out, and the one which Americans/the coalition could lose - that's the kind of war France and the U.S lost in Vietnam, and the U.S.S.R lost in Afghanistan (France is one country to have won that type of war, in Algeria, but America hates France now and isn't likely to bother finding out how they did it or asking for help).

I certainly hope that doesn't happen, but there are signs starting, and a well-organized group which would like to see it.

[ Parent ]

At the governmental level, you are correct (none / 0) (#214)
by JetJaguar on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 06:48:11 PM EST

You are correct, at the governmental level at least. It's quite clear that many governments that were anti-war are willing to help with the rebuilding process.

But that wasn't really the people I was speaking about. I was addressing a lot the "activists" on the street and here on K5 that seem to keep beating the dead horse of oil and WMDs, and can't seem to get beyond that, and in my mind, that's looking more and more hypocritical.

You are absolutely right about the possibility of additional war in Iraq. That is exactly the point that I have been trying to get across. There is a great danger of more war in Iraq, and I don't think its limited to the civil type. It certainly looks to me as though both Turkey and Iran wouldn't mind biting off a chunk of Iraq in addition to how the internal factions inside might like to carve things up. Rebuilding the government in Iraq is going to be a very delicate matter, but on K5 there seem to be a whole host of yokels that can't see anything but oil and WMD's, which are mostly moot points at this stage. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but that does seem to be the case when looking at the edit queue for the last couple of weeks.

[ Parent ]

Immediate problems and that 'dead horse'. (none / 0) (#250)
by malaflux on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 09:13:56 PM EST

Absolutely, the big issue for Iraq and its people right now is rebuilding their own country. Yet any temporary government and eventual democratic process is going to need strong and clear legitimacy to survive. If the rebuilding of Iraq is carried out with the help and support of a foreign power that blatantly lied about its reasons for being in the country in the first place it is hard to see where legitimacy could come from. This is especially the case if the Foreign power is going to hang around as a military presence. Simply put, the helpfulness of the US's involvement in Iraq's future political process is dependent on that dead horse.

[ Parent ]
Kind of (2.00 / 1) (#266)
by JetJaguar on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 10:00:23 PM EST

Well, I agree with you to some extent, in that the actions of Bush can make things more difficult, but not in terms of legitimacy. I think the idea that only the UN has the legitimacy to embark on these kinds of tasks is overstated, as Iraq is a sovereign state in itself and so is the US. The UN when its functioning properly is supposed to try and head off these problems in advance, but in the case of Iraq, they really messed up. The UN's legitimacy and credibility were greatly reduced when they didn't deal with Iraq appropriately 8 or 9 years ago (when Iraq kicked out the weapons inspectors and the UN rolled over and did nothing).

[ Parent ]
Sovereign state? (none / 0) (#286)
by malaflux on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 11:43:50 PM EST

Absolutely, the UN's credibility is and should be under a lot of pressure given how this whole scenario has played out. However I'm not quite sure that I see how Iraq is still a soveriegn state. Given the invasion and current uncertainties its status seems somewhat suspended. Which is why I am saying legitmacy is vital to its own and others recognition of itself as a sovereign/nation state. Until the coalition motivation for war is either clarified or their involvement ends the question of future Iraq sovereignty remains problematic. On the other hand I see your original point that outrage and fixation on the oil and wmd issue is often self-centred.

[ Parent ]
Civil / colonial wars (none / 0) (#315)
by deggial on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 05:49:28 AM EST

That civil war would be the real war in Iraq. That's the one that would be bloody and drawn out, and the one which Americans/the coalition could lose - that's the kind of war France and the U.S lost in Vietnam, and the U.S.S.R lost in Afghanistan (France is one country to have won that type of war, in Algeria, but America hates France now and isn't likely to bother finding out how they did it or asking for help).

Yes, they are not civil, but colonial wars. And France has won militarily... only. But the political cost was much too high; and the scars are still there (in France; dunno about Algeria). There is still a passionate debate about how to consider the Army's behaviour (torture, assassinations, mass arrests...). 40 years after the facts, things ain't sorted out.

So yes, you may win a colonial war. And loose your soul in the process... It is definitively somthing to avoid.

PS : I suspect both sides of the confict loose their souls in the process. The FLN after 62 wasn't exactly a governement representing and working for the alergians. It still isn't...

[ Parent ]

Oz (4.76 / 17) (#208)
by DarkZero on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 06:36:03 PM EST

The thing that pisses me off about all this, is that all the anti-war people keep going on and on about how no WMD's have been found, how this is all about oil, etc, etc, but not a single damn one of them are saying anything about how the government in Iraq should be rebuilt? That country needs to be put back together and it needs to be done fast.

The thing that pisses me off is that I've been seeing this ridiculous argument displayed since Bush's presidency started.

"Don't think about the suspicious way Bush came into office, the economy is tanking!"

"Don't think about the reasons behind September 11th, just think about the tragedy!"

"Don't think about the United Nations' resistance to the war, think about Iraq's prior misdeeds!"

"Don't think about weapons of mass destruction, think about Saddam Hussein's brutality!"

"Don't think about the entire situation, just think about rebuilding Iraq!"

What a ridiculous argument. The fact that the enormous Wizard of Oz is being loudly shoved in my face is more reason to look behind the curtain, not less. Besides, it's not as if human beings aren't capable of thinking about more than one thing at a time. Is this article the only site you've visited today? Is it the only thing that you've thought about all week? Is it the only thing you've voiced your opinion on today?

[ Parent ]

Agreed. (2.00 / 2) (#232)
by seanic on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 07:56:04 PM EST

The arguments are ridiculous

"Don't think about the suspicious way Bush came into office, the economy is tanking!"

Trying to divert attention from an economy that was tanking well before the election by making a stink about a majority which no candidate had, is ridiculous.

"Don't think about the reasons behind September 11th, just think about the tragedy!"

The tragedy was clearly caused by radical fundamentalists who scream oppression, while their true desire is to become the oppressors. Other excuses are ridiculous.

"Don't think about the United Nations' resistance to the war, think about Iraq's prior misdeeds!"

Denying the monetary interest of member nations for or against war is ridiculous.

"Don't think about weapons of mass destruction, think about Saddam Hussein's brutality!"

Please by all means keep your eyes on the WMD while the whole shell game plays itself out. Not that it matters anyway, people will believe what they want, depending on who they trust. It's self righteousness in your own opinion that's truely important.

"Don't think about the entire situation, just think about rebuilding Iraq!"

In other words "think globally, act locally?"

--
"The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is, however, alleviated by their lack of consistency" -- Albert Einstein
[ Parent ]
Explanations (none / 0) (#333)
by greenrd on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 07:34:03 AM EST

Trying to divert attention from an economy that was tanking well before the election by making a stink about a majority which no candidate had, is ridiculous.

The fact that it was a close call is not the point. Everyone knows that. The point is that the procedure was illegitimate and corrupted even in its own terms!

From the "voter purge" by database in Florida which removed hundreds of "felons" who were only guilty of breathing while black - through the arguably undemocratic and aristocratic origins of the "Electoral College" (We can't have ordinary people voting for the president! No, they must elect their betters who will do it for them - thus ensuring a two-party system) - to the blatantly partisan legal contortions of the majority in the Supreme Court (obviously designed to help Bush win rather than meet any standard of reason and fairness) - it was a fix!

To quote Ani DiFrance:

"Jeb said he'd deliver Florida, folks - and boy, did he ever!
And we hold these truths to be self-evident:
Number 1. George W. Bush is not President.
Number 2. America is not a true democracy.
And number 3: The media is not fooling me."

The tragedy was clearly caused by radical fundamentalists who scream oppression, while their true desire is to become the oppressors. Other excuses are ridiculous.

Yes, all that's true, but you're missing the point. Radical fundamentalists were the proximate cause (so we're told, and I'm not going to dispute that here).

But what drives people to join terrorist cells and pro-terrorist movements? Part poisonous ideology (supported financially and diplomatically by the US government - yes, the US supports dangerous fundamentalists of all three Abrahamic religions), partly poverty, hopelessness and oppression. We have to look at both causes - and the US is complicit in both (although many people focus on only the latter).

Denying the monetary interest of member nations for or against war is ridiculous

I agree, and that cuts both ways.

Please by all means keep your eyes on the WMD while the whole shell game plays itself out. Not that it matters anyway, people will believe what they want, depending on who they trust. It's self righteousness in your own opinion that's truely important.

It's not (just) about self-righteousness. See my earlier comment about movement credibility and linking up the past deceptions with what's going on now.


"Capitalism is the absurd belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." -- John Maynard Keynes
[ Parent ]

Typo (none / 0) (#334)
by greenrd on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 07:35:52 AM EST

That should have been Ani DiFranco, not Ani DiFrance, of course.


"Capitalism is the absurd belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." -- John Maynard Keynes
[ Parent ]

Oh. (2.00 / 2) (#390)
by SPYvSPY on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 11:59:42 AM EST

That's just too rich!

Even if you hadn't quoted a marginally talented lesbian entertainer as support for your argument, you would be wrong. The fact that the congress veered republican in the mid-terms following the presidential election is better evidence of how Americans meant to vote, anyway. The fact that Florida's voting systems flaws were exposed so pathetically means nothing. Every other state's vote counting sucks just as bad, and always has. The difference is either that you don't hear about it, or you don't care because your man won.
------------------------------------------------

By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
[ Parent ]

That's funny (none / 0) (#483)
by seanic on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 10:38:54 PM EST

they must elect their betters who will do it for them - thus ensuring a two-party system.

The electoral college was created to give states a vote and create parity between large population centers and the rest of the country, not to create "betters". This abates the problem where a few large cities could determine who is President in the same way the Senate tempers the House of Representatives.

The two party system is ensured by the majority of the states having their electors vote in unison. Notice that it is a state that decides how the electors should vote, look at Maine and Nebraska where they have different rules. It would be difficult to change because it biases the power to the states and two major parties but that doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be done.

Ani DiFranco should come back to reality
Number 1. George W. Bush is not President.

Someone clearly needs to learn how the elections work.

Number 2. America is not a true democracy.

Do the words "representative democracy" or "democratic republic" mean anything to anyone? Mob rule (a democracy) doesn't work now and never will for populations greater than a few hundred. I'd suggest she read Plato's Republic.

And number 3: The media is not fooling me.

No she has clearly fooled herself.

--
"The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is, however, alleviated by their lack of consistency" -- Albert Einstein
[ Parent ]
You Misunderstand (4.00 / 1) (#479)
by DarkZero on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 09:41:40 PM EST

Trying to divert attention from an economy that was tanking well before the election by making a stink about a majority which no candidate had, is ridiculous.

I was questioning the validity of a certain tactic employed by the defenders of the Bush Administration, not the policies of that administration. Those are beside the point right now. I was criticizing the "Why are you bothering with that when there's <whatever our side cares about more> going on? What's wrong with you?" argument that the Bush Administration's defenders have been using. It assumes that human beings are incapable of thinking about more than one thing at a time and that discussing issues somehow detracts from the task at hand, as if disagreeing with the Iraq war somehow put a bullet in an American soldier or gave an Iraqi soldier another ammo clip.

Whether or not a bad argument is defending a good idea doesn't make the argument any more sound, any more convincing, or any less vitriolic. Your arguments, short-winded though they may be, do make sense, but they're beside the point. They're a defense of the idea, not of the "Don't pay attention to THIS, pay attention to THAT!" argument, and I was just talking about the argument.

[ Parent ]

how would you rebuild? (none / 0) (#337)
by martingale on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 08:14:36 AM EST

Personally, I'm exceedingly skeptical that Iraq can be rebuilt by the invaders and then things will somehow stabilize. For one, the full population of Iraq cannot be represented fairly by a US imposed system of government. Hussein kept the country secular through force, and obviously the US isn't interested in a non-secular state. All that's going to happen in the short run is that those willing to work with the US will be branded collaborators, and those on the sidelines will be pissed off at being manipulated. The Iraqi government will be exceedingly weak, as it will derive all its power of coercion from US and UK occupation troops. Once the US troops go, the government will be toppled. The collaborators will be hunted down. If the US troops stay, there may be a civil war if the pressure isn't kept up. Hussein had enough troubles keeping control, do you think the US won't? All this also ignores the neighbouring populations, which will see the Iraqi government as a puppet government, a convenient local rallying point for their anger.

I really don't see the US rebuilding Iraq like a lego construct, and things stabilizing.

[ Parent ]

misplaced post (none / 0) (#339)
by martingale on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 08:19:26 AM EST

Sorry, my comment wasn't meant to answer you. My browser doesn't do italics, which is a major pain in the ass sometimes.

[ Parent ]
So... (5.00 / 2) (#314)
by google on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 05:48:33 AM EST


The thing that pisses me off about all this, is that all the anti-war people keep going on and on about how no WMD's have been found, how this is all about oil, etc, etc, but not a single damn one of them are saying anything about how the government in Iraq should be rebuilt? That country needs to be put back together and it needs to be done fast.

Yes, the issue of WMD's and the less than stellar diplomatric record of the Bush administration is going to force them to answer some tough questions further down the road. But right now, what's more important? Getting Iraq back on its feet or attacking Bush? I don't like how Bush has handled this whole thing any more than any of the rest of anti-war protesters, but at this point it's way too late to be continually grousing about oil and WMD's, all it shows is that you're more interesting in tearing down the Bush administration than you are in making sure the Iraqi people get put back on their feet.

So, it is okay to go bomb a country for false reasons?

[ Parent ]

how would you rebuild? (5.00 / 3) (#340)
by martingale on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 08:22:54 AM EST

Personally, I'm exceedingly skeptical that Iraq can be rebuilt by the invaders and then things will somehow stabilize.

For one, the full population of Iraq cannot be represented fairly by a US imposed system of government. Hussein kept the country secular through force, and obviously the US isn't interested in a non-secular state. All that's going to happen in the short run is that those willing to work with the US will be branded collaborators, and those on the sidelines will be pissed off at being manipulated.

The Iraqi government will be exceedingly weak, as it will derive all its power of coercion from US and UK occupation troops. Once the US troops go, the government will be toppled. The collaborators will be hunted down. If the US troops stay, there may be a civil war if the pressure isn't kept up. Hussein had enough troubles keeping control, do you think the US won't?

All this also ignores the neighbouring populations, which will see the Iraqi government as a puppet government, a convenient local rallying point for their anger.

I really don't see the US rebuilding Iraq like a lego construct, and things stabilizing.

[ Parent ]

That's part of my point (none / 0) (#404)
by JetJaguar on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 01:02:17 PM EST

Many of the anti-war and even anti-US countries need to be involved in the rebuilding process. Now Bush and Co. are somewhat against this, but many of those that could and should be part of that are shooting themselves in the foot over this because of their total opposition. I'll be the first to admit that its going to be a tough line to walk, especially given all the dunder-headed moves the whitehouse is making (and they seem to have started out making a whole bunch of stupid moves again over the last couple of days). But for the antiwar camp it is imperative that you try to work within this system as best you can so that the US isn't the only one trying to stabilize Iraq.

We both know that otherwise worse things will happen, or at least the odds of them will be greatly increased.

[ Parent ]

Deeply puzzling questions (2.18 / 11) (#110)
by Alan Crowe on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 12:31:31 PM EST

The Northern Island Peace Process is stalled, because the IRA refuses to disarm. It has its arms hidden in buried weapons caches and the British Government cannot find them.

Suppose that the Americans "find" hidden Weapons of Mass Destruction. It would then be natural to ask them to help find the IRA's hidden weapons. What if they cannot? Would that be evidence that they do not in fact possess the capacity to detect hidden weapon caches and have faked their Iraqi "finds"?

Suppose that the Americans fail to find hidden Weapons of Mass Destruction. Do we believe that they possess the technology to find hidden weapons caches, and infer that the weapons were not found because they do not exist? If so, what do we infer about the relationship between the British and American governments? Do we infer that the Americans are holding out on the British, with-holding the technology to find hidden arms caches? Do we infer the IRA arms caches cannot be found because they do not exist?

Questions, questions, does any-one have any serious answers?



The shrub would never act against the Irish... (1.66 / 6) (#141)
by SvnLyrBrto on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 03:14:27 PM EST

> Suppose that the Americans "find" hidden Weapons of
> Mass Destruction. It would then be natural to ask them
> to help find the IRA's hidden weapons.

See, the Irish are, by and large, xtian (Catholics aren't exactly WASPs, but close enough for government work.), beer and whisky drinkers (Unlike those dirty muslims, who brought us hashish, and don't heve the decency to drink good ol' booze.), have some cool songs to go with the alcohol (Unlike arabs, who have the audacity not to sing in English), and most importantly, they're WHITE.

For a republican to really get it in its head to go out and kill people (Or, as is invariably the case, send "useful fools" out to kill people for them.), their target really HAS to have brown, or darker, skin.

cya,
john

Imagine all the people...
[ Parent ]

Republican? (none / 0) (#150)
by tkatchev on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 03:45:26 PM EST

Nice job shifting the blame, dude. Hope it makes you feel better.

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

catholic republicans (none / 0) (#242)
by atavist on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 08:54:09 PM EST

right ... I'm from Massachusetts and find that funny.

[ Parent ]
Ignorance must be wonderfull (none / 0) (#356)
by CENGEL3 on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 10:07:32 AM EST

That's why so many republicans SUPPORTED U.S. action against Serbia in Bosnia and Kosovo. Their only really quibble was that they wanted to use ground troops in addition to air power.

I guess the Serbs aren't "Christian" or "White", huh?

Come to think of it, exactly what race do you think Iraqi's are.... Australian Aborigine?

[ Parent ]

The Irish situation... (4.50 / 4) (#230)
by Cougaris on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 07:36:59 PM EST

is slightly more complex then how you portray it.

The British and the Irish Governements have known the location of many of these arms dumps for years now - but hesitate to make a move on "discovering" them until the political situation so warrants it. Northern Ireland is something of a political quagmire, and simple solutions involving raiding said dumps would terminally destabalize any chance of enduring peace. Make no doubt, the IRA will disarm. But they'll redefine disarming to suit their purposes.



[ Parent ]
You seem to be saying ... (none / 0) (#312)
by Alan Crowe on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 05:43:15 AM EST

... that on the one hand the British Government has made some progress, an informer here, a chance discovery there, while on the other hand it lacks a means of systematically discovering secret arms  dumps, and consequently remains beholden to the goodwill of the hiders.

[ Parent ]
Well... (none / 0) (#318)
by Cougaris on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 06:03:21 AM EST

... you have to understand, they have never really looked for them openly. There is no weapons inspectors or their ilk in NI. Rather, their intelligence sources have managed to locate these dumps through informants and from the Loyalist paramilitary groups.

[ Parent ]
WMD Humor (3.77 / 9) (#114)
by jonathon on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 12:51:11 PM EST

These Weapons of Mass Destruction Cannot Be Displayed.


It is not clear that intelligence has any long-term survival value.
-- Stephen Hawking
+1 FP: The game's over, but... (2.90 / 11) (#128)
by Quantumpanda on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 02:15:34 PM EST

...the tournament has only begun.

While I don't presume upon whether this author's facts are good, the discussion is important to keep alive. The Bush administration has been backing and filling about the WMD issue for months, since long before the invasion began. This needs to be kept fresh in people's minds continually until next November.

That is, if Bush doesn't find some way to prevent an election from happening in November 2004. I wouldn't put it past him; he's proven, and even admitted, that the opinions of the voters don't mean much to him. It's only a small step from that to keeping the voters from having a say at all.

People are stupid. But we usually can't kill them, so we have to settle for the next best thing: we laugh at them.

+1FP.. What I'd like to know is (2.62 / 24) (#142)
by Hellraisr on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 03:15:10 PM EST

How does a monkey like George W. Bush become the President of the United States when he can't even pronounce NUCLEAR properly?? He says it like this: nuculur I mean I know he has an accent of sorts, but is this the level of quality Americans expect from their President? Hussein should have just said that he'd start divulging information on his nuclear weapons when Bush could start saying it properly.

Nukular vs. nuclear (5.00 / 3) (#206)
by baron samedi on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 06:21:39 PM EST

Sadly, many dictionaries now include the 'nukular' form as an alternate pronunciation. It makes you look like a rube, an uneducated dolt. Thankfully, 'lie-berry' is still not an acceptable way to pronounce 'library'.
"Hands that help are better by far than lips that pray."- Robert G. Ingersoll
[ Parent ]
Sadly, indeed... (3.00 / 3) (#220)
by Francis on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 06:57:12 PM EST

There are certain words that perhaps deserve alternate pronunciations (for instance either), but legitimately allowing nukular is only lowering expectations and bastardizing a language. The Brits already have enough ammunition to fire at the Americans for having demolished English; there is no need to provide them with this. ;) And yes, I grimace every time I hear Bush say nukular.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _

Insults are the first and last arguments of fools. -- Unknown
[ Parent ]

All that and... (5.00 / 2) (#223)
by baron samedi on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 07:02:17 PM EST

One of the Democratic presidential candidates also uses the nukular word. I think it's Kerry, but when I find out, their campaign will get a letter with some helpful advice.
"Hands that help are better by far than lips that pray."- Robert G. Ingersoll
[ Parent ]
Hee Hee... (none / 0) (#295)
by Francis on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 01:56:14 AM EST

You get points for the humor (I'd love to see said letter!) and for being bipartisan in your phonetics-bashing...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _

Insults are the first and last arguments of fools. -- Unknown
[ Parent ]

Are we from YURP? (2.50 / 2) (#275)
by it certainly is on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 10:27:00 PM EST

You must be some kinda YURPEEN TERRIST with NOOKULAR WEPPINS!

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

Purpose of dictionaries (3.00 / 2) (#342)
by borderline on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 08:28:26 AM EST

You seem to beleive that the purpose of a dictionary is to lay down the rules of what is the correct usage of a language. If you think about it, that's ridiculous. Dictionaries can only try to reflect how a language is actually used. How else are new words or new ways to use old words supposed to get into the dictionary? Languages change, dictionaries follow, not the other way around.

Or do you think we should somehow "freeze" the language in its current state? Apart from it being an impossible task, why should we settle for that? Surely the english language has "degenerated" in many ways for the past few hundred years. Of course, you would have some trouble trying to communicate with a person speaking 18th century english, but that's because you insist on pronouncing words like an uneducated dolt, and even using words that "doesn't even exist".

Go on, try to conserve laguages for all you're worth. You don't stand a chance.

[ Parent ]

Standards in English. (5.00 / 1) (#379)
by it certainly is on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 11:22:52 AM EST

There's a difference between local dialects, accents and slang (informal English) and written, edited, knowingly correct (formal) English.

For example, you will find "cuppa" in the dictionary, but it will note that this is slang shorthand for "cup of tea". It will not pretend that this is correct or formal English.

If you rearry think Engrish language should ask "how high" whenever someone tell it to jump, then we should forrow majolity lule. Majolity of Engrish speakers are Chinese, and they glow up with ranguage that has same retter for "l" and "r". Or you could admit they don't speak Engrish ploperly as it's their second ranguage. Better than Amelicans, they just ignolant of first ranguage.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

Dictionaries do (2.00 / 1) (#426)
by baron samedi on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 02:57:10 PM EST

Dictionaries *are* the books that tell us not only what a word means, but how it's pronounced. I'm not advocating that we 'freeze' the language, but when such a blatant mispronounciation of a word makes it into the dictionary as an acceptable alternate way to pronounce it, I think it is a sad reflection. Take my example about the word 'library'; there are plenty of people who pronounce it 'liberry', and that's wrong. It's not in the dictionary, either. Nukular should be the same way. I want my elected officials to sound like statesmen, not hicks.
"Hands that help are better by far than lips that pray."- Robert G. Ingersoll
[ Parent ]
But languages change, deal with it (none / 0) (#514)
by borderline on Thu Apr 24, 2003 at 08:56:34 AM EST

Dictionaries will become useless if they are not updated as a language changes. When the 'liberry' pronounciation has become widespread enough, it will eventually take place in the dictionaries as well.

English is not my first language. When I look up a word in an English dictionary I expect to find a pronounciation that will be understood by the people who actually speak English, not some arcane pronounciation some people still cling on to because it was correct in the past.

Languages change all they time. People are lazy when they speak. If you can drop a syllable and still get the message across, that's what people will do. If it is easier for an English speaker to say 'ber' instead of 'bre' that's what people will eventually do. A dialect that is now considered rural or whatever might very well through some strange turn of events become what's considered educated and distinguished in the future.

I do not know much about English etymology, but if you ask a linguist I'm sure they can provide you endless examples of pronounciations that were incorrect not long ago, but now they are. And you use the 'incorrect' pronounciations too. Every day.

[ Parent ]

Jimmy couldn't say it either (4.00 / 2) (#254)
by cretog8 on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 09:17:50 PM EST

Jimmy Carter, who almost nobody thinks is stupid (though many think he was a lousy president), also said "nukular" instead of "nuclear". I remember him being mocked for it at the time. And Carter was trained as a nuclear engineer. I hate to find myself "defending" Bush. Bush needs to be impeached for locking people up without trial. However, this is a pretty silly thing to pick on him for.

[ Parent ]
Laid out in front of me now (1.14 / 7) (#151)
by t v on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 03:54:45 PM EST

I don't know how I was led astray all this time into believing the vast conspiracy that has been underfoot for 12 years now.  The first Gulf war, the unseating by 'illegal' means of our Democratic leadership, the 'hidden' weapons, those Iraqi scientists that keeps saying "they were there", all of it!

Those damn Republicans... I should have known they are only up to no good.  Only out for themselves and the almighty dollar unlike the Liberals.

I'll be changing my voter registration to the Green Party (or whatever their name is today) at least when they lose elections it is not a surprise, and they can say that people just don't understand them.  There is a plan that doesn't need to be changed - we know how they fare in nearly every election.  Just call everyone else evil and it's all good.

huh? (5.00 / 1) (#162)
by theforlornone on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 04:26:39 PM EST

wha...? uh, do i smell sarcasm? or something else?

--------------
It is hard enough to remember my opinions, without also remembering my reasons for them!
-Nietzsche
[ Parent ]
A mixture I think (5.00 / 1) (#172)
by t v on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 05:00:53 PM EST

Sarcasm and a bit of the liquid diet to boot.

[ Parent ]
Supposedly there was proof! (3.31 / 16) (#152)
by drquick on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 03:55:31 PM EST

At this point the most important point is not if WMD are found or even if there is WMD in Iraq. The most important issue is that we were lied to! There was supposed to be proof that Iraq has WMD. How can it be possible to have proof - with satellite pictures and even agents providing first hand information - and still no WMD is found. Given the much touted high quality of that proof the WMD should be found by now! No, doubt will someting be planted and found, but the lie is already exposed. What was all of that 100% certain proof worth. They were a propaganda lie. How can anyone trust the Bush administation after this?

Indeed (none / 0) (#163)
by epepke on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 04:27:49 PM EST

The Bush administration needs to be asked if it can release the alledged secret information and if not, why not?


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
Official answer? (none / 0) (#213)
by Francis on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 06:47:47 PM EST

I think the pat answer to that question is normally that releasing sensitive intelligence often might put intelligence field agents in danger...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _

Insults are the first and last arguments of fools. -- Unknown
[ Parent ]

I understand that (none / 0) (#225)
by epepke on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 07:11:50 PM EST

But before the invasion, there was a lot of hoo hah about how intelligence agents would be in danger from the Iraqi government. Now that the situation has changed, they need to be asked. Not that I have much faith that there would be a straight answer, but at least the question should be asked.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
A great cover story (none / 0) (#358)
by gauntlet on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 10:10:31 AM EST

One of the reasons put forth, although I haven't seen the government doing it explicitly, is that in addition to endangering its operatives, sharing information would make it apparent how the information was obtained, and would enable other rogue states to thereafter defend against that (or those) method(s).

Into Canadian Politics?
[ Parent ]

Just a with clinton ? (none / 0) (#175)
by garaged on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 05:04:14 PM EST

a "BJ" is not sex, and bigamy is not penalized in that country, when the actor is a president


[ Parent ]
Revisiting questions and a few new questions (3.75 / 8) (#158)
by HidingMyName on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 04:15:10 PM EST

Again, this boils down to previously asked questions, originally asked here
  1. Who would you consider authoritative if they presented evidence regarding the presence/absence of WMD in Iraq?
  2. What is the minumum threshold of evidence that you would consider conclusive?
While there has been a lot of speculation about the motivations of the U.S. there has been little talk about the motivations of other parties. One question I have is what is the incentive structure for the IAEA? Are there rewards for finding weapons, or declaring that there are no weapons, or are they rewarded for long inconclusive searches?

Perhaps saddam destroyed his WMD.. (2.40 / 10) (#164)
by Stick on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 04:30:01 PM EST

Using his WMD.


---
Stick, thine posts bring light to mine eyes, tingles to my loins. Yea, each moment I sit, my monitor before me, waiting, yearning, needing your prose to make the moment complete. - Joh3n
He most definetly destroyed (3.00 / 1) (#282)
by mmsmatt on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 11:10:11 PM EST

Millions of lives with those WMDs.

[ Parent ]
Really? (none / 0) (#344)
by scorchio on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 09:07:57 AM EST

> Millions of lives with those WMDs Millions? Citation please. Don't throw those numbers around without some justification. "One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic" (attributed to J Stalin).

[ Parent ]
Proof? Unlikely. (2.40 / 5) (#166)
by tokugawa on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 04:41:16 PM EST

Sadam likely destroying his WMD on his way out. The international community not finding such weapons is his only ace in the hole, if a pathetic one. It is the last vestige of international illegitimacy against the United States.

Does it really matter if such weapons are found? I certainly don't care. I'm just glad the war is over. Let's look to the future, shall we?

I do care (none / 0) (#174)
by garaged on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 05:02:31 PM EST

I cant look to the future and forget the past like "gringos" (I'm american if u ask, from Mexico) do.
If you can forget as easy, why dont you fgorgive Iraq for any hurt on the past, and let them live USA-free, and take their own decisions, after all, there are no WMD in there isnt it ??, they can go on with their lives.
That lack of memory makes people vote for a president that didnt had a real life job after his fourthys, and make people vow to a guy that says lies as clinton, but wants the better for his country !
Please take some consience and think before acting, USA is not the owner of the world, and certainly dont have any right outside USA. So, please stop being so selfish and act like adult

[ Parent ]
Oh I don't support the war (none / 0) (#176)
by tokugawa on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 05:05:20 PM EST

I never supported this aggressive war. However, I am still glad it's over. The sooner it finished the sooner the poor people of Iraq could start living again. I only hoped that casualties on both side would remain to a minimum.

[ Parent ]
But: (none / 0) (#221)
by spacemoose on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 06:58:04 PM EST

I also am glad that the war is over, and I agree it's important to look to the future.

The key point is "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it". That's also true of recent history. We as Americans (if you're American, if not you're opinion is probably less relevant to American politics) must learn about, and pay close attention to corruption and duplicitousness in our government, to remind our selves "yes, it can happen here, and in fact it seems to be happening here quite a lot". And then hopefully to get off our asses and do something about it.

So what's on the political scene these days... Is there any hope for a non 2 party candidate with a brain around? Is Ralph Nader going to run again? How the fuck can we get someone like that into office?

You can disagree with his politics, but of all the candidates last time around, I think he was only one who would really try to do what he thought was good for the country, as opposed to whatever bundle of corporate interests supported him.

[ Parent ]

Future could be another war (none / 0) (#184)
by svampa on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 05:20:17 PM EST

Does it really matter if such weapons are found? I certainly don't care. I'm just glad the war is over. Let's look to the future, shall we?

If we forget anything about past claims, the next USA policy could be "Let's acuse to xxx, no matter how stupid and blatant the accusation be, after we win the war nothing will matter" replace xxx with Siria, Iran, North Corea, Cuba, Venezuela... stop when you think USA runs out of budget.

Perhaps as USA citizen you don't see nothing bad in such future if the wars are won quickly. As citizen of another country, I'm really worried.

If you don't like that future, the first movement to prevent it, is to make USA government justy this recent war.



[ Parent ]
In the end (none / 0) (#186)
by tokugawa on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 05:27:37 PM EST

the only people that the US needs to justify this war to are Americans. There is no international body that could credibly stand in its way, as the UN's inability to prevent the Iraq war has shown.

We have seen how easily the bulk of the American populace can be led into supporting a war. Unfortunately the swiftness with which this recent war was won will ultimately make it far easier for the government to convince its people to support future wars.

At least the death toll was relatively low. Hopefully the Americans will win the peace the same way they won the war, but this I doubt.

[ Parent ]

i have to ask (3.50 / 14) (#178)
by somasonic on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 05:05:45 PM EST

why does it really matter if he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction? ask the kurds or anyone who disagrees with him, they'll tell you he does plenty well with his weapons of normal destruction.

Because... (4.66 / 6) (#227)
by Cougaris on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 07:24:48 PM EST

...no matter the beneficial (?) outcome, the US has lied to both its citizens and the world if no WMD's are found.

[ Parent ]
Not necessarily (4.33 / 3) (#233)
by Wateshay on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 08:01:50 PM EST

They only lied if they knew (or could reasonably suspect) that there were in fact no weapons of mass destruction. If the evidence they had (which we will hopefully see at some time in the relatively near future) pointed to a reasonable assumption that there were weapons of mass destruction, then they are not guilty of lying, only of making a mistake.

"If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else."


[ Parent ]
Yes, necessarily. (5.00 / 2) (#260)
by Zero Sum on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 09:29:30 PM EST

They stated that they had absolute proof, that there was no doubt. "Sorry we made a mistake" is not good enough after the assurances they gave.

Hng them all. They have commited a felony and people died during that felony. The president and administration is guilty of felonious murder.

No other point of view is viable...
Zero Sum - Vescere bracis meis
[ Parent ]

WMDs not withstanding. (5.00 / 1) (#241)
by valeko on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 08:51:38 PM EST

The U.S. government has lied to its citizens and to the world on so many different matters pertaining to Iraq, from so many different angles, that the Weapons of Mass Distraction quickly become just another microscopic piece of minutia.

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

32 Flavors (4.59 / 27) (#183)
by Robb on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 05:18:58 PM EST

At the level of president of the United States people are willing to tell you pretty much anything you want --there is intelligence to suit any agenda. President Bush, like almost every high-ranking administration official, is completely incapable of any accurate judgement as to the suitability of aluminum tubes for enriching uranium. I'm sure the same is true for virtually all of the evidence we have been told exists.

If you surround yourself with like-minded individuals (and of course assuming you are important enough that they all want to make a really good impression) then you run the risk of getting told what you want to hear. Especially, when you cannot verify for yourself the quality of the intelligence you are receiving. This does not happen through some nefarious plot to manipulate the public but because we as humans are extremely good at seeing what we want to see in the mass of information that washes over us daily.

The is why people who are truly wise don't surround themselves with yes men. They value different perspectives and view points, they accept and even cultivate dissention and they are slow to judge. The current administration is both quick to punish dissention and quick to judge the motives of those who dissent. In that type of climate I would not be suprised if in fact there are no WMDs and that the members of the administration were and still are completely convinced that they exist.

The military has a term for this... (4.76 / 13) (#246)
by skyknight on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 09:06:22 PM EST

incestuous amplification: a condition in warfare where one only listens to those who are already in lock-step agreement, reinforcing set beliefs and creating a situation ripe for miscalculation

It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
[ Parent ]
Didn't the CIA provide accurate information? (4.81 / 11) (#302)
by jeti on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 03:14:10 AM EST

AFAIK the CIA has provided pretty accurate information regarding Iraq. Only it was not what the government wanted to hear. So the gov founded a new "experts group" (within the DoD?). This group is said to have been working closely to the "Iraq Congress" and doctored new accusations with forged proof against Iraq. Surprisingly, the director of the CIA spoke openly against the accusations of the US gov.

Pasted from The American Partisan:
In fact, George Tenet, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, conclusively debunked the administration's theories on Iraqi intentions. In a letter to the Senate dated Oct. 7, Tenet stated that "Iraq appears to have drawn a line in the sand" against launching terrorist and/or WMD attacks against the United States.

[ Parent ]

surrounding yourself with like-minded individuals (2.33 / 3) (#453)
by dh003i on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 05:00:48 PM EST

You mean, sort of like what goes on at Kuro5hin, which is basically a liberal stomping ground for trashing anyone who dares think differently than they do, most notable Republicans -- epitomized in G.W. Bush -- and occasionally libertarians?

This place is basically a monoculture.

Social Security is a pyramid scam.
[ Parent ]

monoculture... (5.00 / 2) (#464)
by martingale on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 06:30:07 PM EST

That's why we tend to get such great flame wars. Monocultures always breed those.

[ Parent ]
The population isn't balanced. (none / 0) (#765)
by ti dave on Wed Aug 13, 2003 at 08:33:53 AM EST

There are far more 'X' gamete sperm present in ejaculate, but things even out.

I'm almost drunk enough to go on IRC. ~Herring
[ Parent ]

4400 Gallons of Anthrax and Vx gas (2.91 / 12) (#189)
by FisheBulb on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 05:43:15 PM EST

at the end of the gulf war, Iraq had caches of anthrax and vx nerve gas as well as many others.

2200 gallons were destroyed, while the remaing 2200 was not found.  The UN inspectors of the 90's were very  effective at finding weapons (not pre war either)

I have a hard time believing that Iraq suddenly destroyed their weapons after 1998.

btw, 4400 gallons of those weapons is enough to kill every person on Earth, 3 times.  The above was according the documentary on the History Channel, "Saddam's Arsenal"

Also, according to the Iraqi Govt, Saddam killed 300,000 people.  Other world organizations place that number upto 1 million.  Chemical Ali earned his name for a reason.

As the Iraqi people emphasised the "disappearance" of thousands of people.

The cargo container that contained photos of those "missing" people is important.

Why is Hans Blix qualified for inspections?  What work has he done besides other inspections? how did he get that job in the first place?

The USA has been accused of being the world's police for many years.

I cannot defend past actions involving many operations of the CIA, because they were wrong.  But if the US is the police, it will hopefully act like it.  Germany and Japan style is the goal and plan so far.

The brutality of Saddam justifies this invasion.  I am glad to see it, and the Iraqi people were too.  I EXPECT my govt to implement the govt properly and become allies with Iraq.

On the WMD topic, what UN resolutions and sanctions would STOP the murder of the Iraqi's by Saddam.  

Qualified? (4.00 / 1) (#211)
by Happy Monkey on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 06:42:02 PM EST

Why is Hans Blix qualified for inspections? What work has he done besides other inspections?

How else does one become qualified?
___
Length 17, Width 3
[ Parent ]
phd's yes (none / 0) (#218)
by FisheBulb on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 06:53:37 PM EST

before i get reamed for the PHD comment, that is a plus, doesnt mean everything (yes he is a Dr)

one important note about blix though:

"For example, Mr Blix vehemently opposed surprise raids of suspect buildings by UN weapons inspectors. He insisted that the Iraqi authorities be given prior notification."

thats an idiotic idea, truly stupid.


[ Parent ]

blix' doctorate... (none / 0) (#255)
by droobie on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 09:19:31 PM EST

was in law, i believe. how does that make him the right man to lead UN weapons inspections?

[ Parent ]
Blix Qualifications. (4.00 / 1) (#257)
by Zero Sum on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 09:24:41 PM EST

The most important qualification he has is his honesty and integrity. Having read what he has said and what people have said about him, I would trust him to the ends of the Earth. Bush or any of the current US administration have repeatedly proven themselves to be liars and decievers - and not very good ones at that.

In fact sufficiently bad at it that they wouldn't last in a second or third world country. They would be dead.
Zero Sum - Vescere bracis meis
[ Parent ]

come now... (none / 0) (#281)
by droobie on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 11:07:24 PM EST

did you forget his 1991 comments that saddam hussein didn't have a substantial WMD program? when he was the head of the international atomic energy assocation? and it was later revealed that iraq was less than a year away from producing a nuclear bomb? you have to admit, he doesn't have a very good track record when it comes to iraq...

[ Parent ]
On the contrary... (none / 0) (#308)
by Zero Sum on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 04:08:56 AM EST

I've seen no evidence to show that he was wrong. The operative word was substantial. I've yet to hear any evidence that they were anywhere close to suceeding. Given the reliability of his opponents, even if he were wrong in that one instance he would still be far more reliable and trustworthy.

I am not saying he is perfect, I am saying that he is the most reliable one out there...


Zero Sum - Vescere bracis meis
[ Parent ]

What a crock of bull (2.33 / 3) (#235)
by Eric Green on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 08:15:31 PM EST

If we have these tons of chemical weapons just lying all over the place, why haven't we found them? You can talk about how "well, we knew he had X, we destroyed Y, he thus has X-Y", but where are they?

btw, anthrax is useless for terror purposes (the mail guy killed, what, 20 people?), and VX only slightly more useful (it's about as deadly as Sarin, though more persistent, and the worst Sarin attack by terrorists only killed a dozen or so people). The good ole' fashioned truck bomb works much better for blowing lots of folks into smithereens, as Hezbollah proved in Beiruit when they blew close to 300 U.S. Marines into red mist, and as Timothy McVeigh proved in Oklahoma City when he blew a similar number into smithereens. And truck bombs are a helluva lot easier to assemble and transport than "non-conventional weapons", needing nothing but a truck, fertilizer, diesel, and some kind of timer (unless it's a suicide attack, in which case they can be mechanically detonated).
--
You are feeling sleepy... you are feeling verrry sleepy...
[ Parent ]

20 people for a teaspoon (none / 0) (#237)
by FisheBulb on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 08:29:42 PM EST

Terror does not only cause death.  Terrorist attacks also cause much larger problems.

Anthrax incites fear.  If a teaspoon/very small amount can kill 20 people.  A gallon spread throughout a mall not only causes a large loss of life, but an incredible damage to the economy as people are now afraid to go to malls.

You simplify terrorism and the consequences to coloring book levels.  Terrorism is not a numbers game.  The goal is not body counts, but to incite TERROR.  Yes that is accomplished by large casualties, but then again it people's fear is a powerful emotion.

Well one particular reason why the military has not found anything in the tremedous time of a week or two, is due to Saddam's 12 year practice at hiding and developing them.  And I never stated he would still have X-Y amount.  I stated that's what he HAD.  He had much larger amounts than that due to 12 year's of development.  Why would he stop, Iraq was very good at producing the weapons and keeping them hidden.  When the inspectors left, do you believe Saddam simply said "Let's give peace a chance"  and destroyed the stockpiles.

Iraq is a California sized area, a huge area of hot sand.  Pick a spot and grab a metal detector.  So in 4 weeks the US should have found the stock piles?  

That is pretty pathetic to think they will just leave them out in the open.  It isnt very difficult to hide relatively small objects in a desert.

[ Parent ]

TONS?! (1.00 / 1) (#252)
by Eric Green on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 09:16:21 PM EST

Let me get this straight. We said Saddam had tons of this stuff. We said Saddam had issued these shells and stuff to his commanders for them to use against our soldiers. We said the stuff was bursting out of every arms locker in the whole bloody country. And now you're talking "relatively small objects hidden in the desert"?!

If that ain't crawfishin', I don't know what is!
--
You are feeling sleepy... you are feeling verrry sleepy...
[ Parent ]

TONS? (none / 0) (#269)
by FisheBulb on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 10:05:59 PM EST

Yes, tons, imagine the physical size, they are small objects. How many kg's of anthrax/vx/whatever would fit in a container the size of a tank. It would not exactly be difficult to hide a few of those sized containers. That would definately qualify as tons.

[ Parent ]
So Colin Powell lied? (5.00 / 1) (#412)
by Eric Green on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 01:30:21 PM EST

So when Colin Powell said we knew where the "weapons of mass destruction" were, he lied? So our satellites could not pick up the movement of what Colin Powell said was over forty THOUSAND tons of "weapons of mass destruction"? Dude, you're killin' me! In case you don't know, a common semi-trailer truck carries around 40 tons. You're telling me that a *THOUSAND* of these things went carreening across the desert, and WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY WENT?!

Dude, that's the most ridiculous notion I ever heard. Surely even our woeful CIA isn't that pathetic!
--
You are feeling sleepy... you are feeling verrry sleepy...
[ Parent ]

why is this difficult to understand (none / 0) (#536)
by FisheBulb on Thu Apr 24, 2003 at 11:19:49 AM EST

Say the US had intelligence prior to the war.  Once the war started, *gasp* the iraqi's could have moved their weapons.  Intelligence does not remain constant.  Or here is an additional possibility,  maybe the intelligence was wrong?


[ Parent ]
Nothing moved after war started (5.00 / 1) (#594)
by Eric Green on Thu Apr 24, 2003 at 05:52:34 PM EST

Look, we had aircraft flying all over Iraq. We had unmanned drones scouring Iraq reporting on everything. We had special forces teams all over the place. There's no freakin' way that forty THOUSAND tons of "weapons of mass destruction" went anywhere once war broke out. One or two truckloads, well, maybe. But a THOUSAND truckloads? And not a single drone and not a single U-2 flight and not a single recon aircraft and not a single Special Forces op team noticed this?! Dude, lemme know your supplier of splif, I want some of whatever you're smokin'!
--
You are feeling sleepy... you are feeling verrry sleepy...
[ Parent ]
you made a huge leap (none / 0) (#619)
by FisheBulb on Fri Apr 25, 2003 at 01:05:47 AM EST

The US had intelligence of where some WMD's were.

two things:  where did you get the 40,000 TONS.  They may have had that much, but the intelligence never claimed it knew where ALLL of it was.

second thing:  intelligence can be wrong, or outdated.

but the first point is more important.
maybe those locations only had 10 tons of material.  

i should ask you the same, as random numbers seem to pop up.

[ Parent ]

that's the whole point (none / 0) (#640)
by martingale on Fri Apr 25, 2003 at 09:52:36 AM EST

You can't claim the intelligence was wrong or outdated, that was repeatedly challenged and dismissed by Bush and Blair. It simply wasn't wrong or outdated, otherwise the USUKA invaded a country for no good reason, and that is a crime.

So where are the fourty thousand tons?

Tell us or face the facts: the US is a lawless bully and must be put in its place sooner or later, like the Germans were after WWII.

[ Parent ]

excuse me? (none / 0) (#690)
by FisheBulb on Sat Apr 26, 2003 at 04:24:27 AM EST

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=5773

no, thats a lawless bully.  thats why i support this war.  I just wish clinton would have had the leadership to do it and maybe saved a few more Iraqi lives.  

that is also 300,000 good reasons to invade.

in case you missed this concept,  military intelligence can be invalidated in minutes.  they were routinley claiming that towards the beginning, well a couple of weeks can drastically change that.  destroy some, hide some, destroy the equipment (which weighs a lot)

[ Parent ]

Colin Powell said 40,000 *TONS* (none / 0) (#660)
by Eric Green on Fri Apr 25, 2003 at 01:55:45 PM EST

Not pounds. *TONS*. In his little presentation to the U.N. on behalf of his massah, Uncle Colin said there was 40,000 tons of the stuff unaccounted for by Saddam, between chemical and biologicals.

So where did it go? Did Uncle Colin tell a little white lie? Was there actually less than 40,000 tons? Or was there any left at all after UNSCOM finished disarming Iraq in the 1990's?
--
You are feeling sleepy... you are feeling verrry sleepy...
[ Parent ]

interesting.... (none / 0) (#243)
by bluemonkie24 on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 09:01:13 PM EST

But if the US is the police, it will hopefully act like it. Germany and Japan style is the goal and plan so far.

God, I hope that the US is never the police of the world....that would be the worst thing to happen, having the US Gov't control another country...to impose your will on another, vvery bad.

Its bed enough here in Canada with the DEA and other US organisations trying to impose their laws on Canada....Trying to devise ways to get at Canadas engery reserves (#1 US supplier) blah blah blah....

I wish I could remember who said it..it was a US gov't offical or wanna be offical...said 5-6years ago that he thought they should build a big wall on the Canadian and Mexico boarder to keep others out.....At first I was like, why? thats pretty silly...now Im all of it...not only will it keep people out of your country...but more importantly for the rest of us, it will keep americans in.



[ Parent ]

it already has (none / 0) (#381)
by FisheBulb on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 11:25:36 AM EST

The USA has already been called the worlds police for a long time.  And the USA screwed up and abused power and abilities.  I was simply refering to the USA to not half ass it anymore.

The German/Japan rebuilding effort after WW2 is something the US can be proud of.   (not the entire plan, there were mistakes)  But in the end, it resulted into two economic superpowers.

The US has long had policing abilities, it is about time the  govt uses it responsibilly.

[ Parent ]

hmmm (none / 0) (#474)
by bluemonkie24 on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 08:08:31 PM EST

ok, I see your possition now. Yah I have to say that Id hope them not to half ass it either..then again...whats worse? US Gov't half assing it or being their greedy self again.

Yah, Germany and Japan are impressive countries...and to be honest I hope that Iraq becomes the Arib Japan....because I look forward to the day when politions and the such start bitching about how much control iraq has in the US business...much the way people where worried about Japan.

Ofcourse...nothing really will change...because even with the ARab world backing down....thats what they are doing...meaning they are not changing their minds about their feelings about America....reather they understand that if they piss the US off then they will get bombed to hell......

Thats a hell of a Foreign Policy...

[ Parent ]

the fact remains (none / 0) (#535)
by FisheBulb on Thu Apr 24, 2003 at 11:15:56 AM EST

the Iraq becoming a japan powerhouse is a benefit of the war.

Stopping the deaths of Iraqis is the most important reason to me.  Saddam still killed ~300,000 people.  of his people.

That is reason enough alone to go to war.  

[ Parent ]

fair enough.... (none / 0) (#621)
by bluemonkie24 on Fri Apr 25, 2003 at 01:12:38 AM EST

..but why didnt the US stop this before it started?

I could go into the whole "Gov't supports dictators" thing, but thats so old and really not the point of this thread.

Honestly, I really really hope that they (US et al)et the hell out of there as fast as they can, for their saftey, to validate the US gov't reasonings and we dont here of all the "real" secret reasons as time goes on.

there is one thing to say though about Mr. Bushs presidency, its been a wild and crazy ride. Good? Bad? Some of each Id say. Some Id agree with, some I wouldnt but can understand, and some I just dont get. Such are the actions of gov't

I do have to ask a question...its sort of off topic in a way...one thing I dont understand is although the US is a democracy...why dont you people get to vote for all thoughs people that run the government that are appointed by the Prez? It would seem that the people would want to have a say in how their gov't is run as much as possiable. In Canada, granted gov't system dirived from the British so the US wouldnt have used this system, but we elect our MPs and MPP (Member of Parliment, Member of Povential Parliment..sort of congress people) and whom ever party has the most seats runs the gov't and the P.M decides whom the ministers of Enivorment, of Health, blah blah blah are from teh elected officals.

Now granted that limits experience fromt these areas, but makes them all the more responsible to the people.

[ Parent ]

Scare mongering... (none / 0) (#244)
by skyknight on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 09:02:11 PM EST

It's totally fallacious to say that "4400 gallons of those weapons is enough to kill every person on Earth, 3 times." Why? That statement implies perfect spreading techniques that somehow manage to give every person on the planet just the right exposure dose.

Did you know that a droplet of poison ivy oil is enough to infect the whole world? Whoop-dee-doo. As you may have noticed, people aren't contracting poison ivy rashes in droves, and that stuff is all over the damn place. Why? Just like with these biochemical weapons, it's a huge pain in the ass to spread the agent around.

Pound for pound, conventional explosives are still far more effective than any kind of NCB weaponry. The only reason that NCB weapons have any value to terrorists whatsoever is because of irrational fear on the part of people like you. To quote Gregg Easterbrook, "you're more likely to die on your trip to the store to purchase duct tape than you are to die for a lack of duct tape."



It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
[ Parent ]
Not about WMD (3.92 / 26) (#197)
by John Bayko on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 06:11:00 PM EST

It was not about Weapons of Mass Destruction. It was never about WMD.

WMD was just a smokescreen by those who opposed the war to delay the war by insisting on inspections and U.N resolutions, and other tactics, or to raise the fear that coalition troops would face massive casualties because of them.

Remember, Bush was very clear on that point, that it was all about bringing freedom to Iraqi citizens. He persevered against those who would try to use the U.N for their own political purposes with this WMD red herring, and completely ignored them in order to do what was right.

And he was shown to be right - there were no weapons of mass destruction, the soldiers were not in any danger, the anti-war crowd was wrong.

So stop persisting in thie WMD myth once and for all.

See how easy it is? And I bet it'll work too ten years from now - after all, most people believe that Iraqy kicked out the U.N weapons inspectors, even though it was reported very clearly and widely at the time that they were pulled out before U.S bombings. If "withdrawn" can become "kicked out", then "WMD were the reason" can become "WMD were an opposition myth".

And history becomes Orwell's palimpsest... (4.75 / 12) (#216)
by Dr. Zowie on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 06:51:15 PM EST

... No, actually, pre-emption against Hussein's alleged WMD's was exactly the reason that Bush gave for going to war. I'm not sure exactly what you've been smoking, but I want some.

The web is most susceptible to revisionism, but check out these quotes:

Delegates to the General Assembly, we have been more than patient. We've tried sanctions. We've tried the carrot of oil for food, and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be completely certain he has a -- nuclear weapons is when, God forbids, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming.
(From Bush's 12-September-2002 speech)

First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.
(From Bush's 07-Oct-2002 speech)

If you want something closer to the present, check out these choice words:

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.

Those words were uttered by President Bush in his live national radio address on 17-March-2003 just 48 hours before attacking the sovereign nation of Iraq.

In short, the absence (so far) of WMD's within the country is a major embarrassment for the U.S. -- finding them would be the McGuffin that saved Bush's international reputation. It is not unreasonable to think that the Bush administration would plant weapons if none were found. With each day that passes, the potential credibility of any weapons discovery falls even further.

[ Parent ]

He agrees (4.60 / 5) (#228)
by Krazor on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 07:25:23 PM EST

Dr. Zowie, the first post agrees with you! He is saying that the truth will get trampelled by 'popular view', which will of course be fabricated to the benerfit of certain groups. He even uese the 1998 case of the UN pulling out weapon inspectors from Iraq. The popular view since then of course is that Iraq kicked these inspectors out.

What the guy is saying is not that WMD was a myth created by the anti-war group, but that history will be written so that people think it is a myth from the anti-war group. Therefor, no WMD will need to be found.

[ Parent ]
Hmmm... (none / 0) (#234)
by Dr. Zowie on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 08:15:16 PM EST

... could be that my sarcasm detector just doesn't have a low enough threshold... :-P

[ Parent ]
Well... (none / 0) (#328)
by davidmb on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 06:54:49 AM EST

It could be that you don't read the whole comment (see the last paragraph). I was nearly caught out and had a whole rebuttal forming in my mind before I spotted that :-)
־‮־
[ Parent ]
YHBT...HAND. (none / 0) (#401)
by Dr. Zowie on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 12:53:22 PM EST

I have definitely been trolled and trolled well on this one. I read the last sentence but just didn't twig to the sarcasm. *sigh*.

[ Parent ]
Huh? That's not what the administration said! (4.50 / 8) (#231)
by Eric Green on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 07:48:54 PM EST

From the conservative Washington Times:

Two top Bush administration officials said yesterday that America would accept the continuation of Saddam Hussein's regime if Iraq disarms.

From George W. Bush's speech February 2, 2003: My attitude is that we owe it to future generations of Americans and citizens in freedom-loving countries to see to it that Mr. Saddam Hussein is disarmed. (Applause.) It's his choice to make as to how he will be disarmed. He can either do so -- which it doesn't look like he's going to -- for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition of willing countries and disarm Saddam Hussein. (Applause.)

From George W. Bush's news conference, November 12, 2002: t's over, we're through negotiations, there's no more time. The man must disarm. He said he would disarm, he now must disarm.

The fact of the matter is that disarming Iraq was the justification of the war from the beginning. The whole "liberation" spiel wasn't even mentioned until March. The fact that we can no longer find any of those tons of biological and chemical weapons that George W. Bush assured us that we would find bulging out of every weapons depot in Iraq is disturbing, to say the least. Did George lie? Or was he misled by his CIA? Or did Saddam actually disarm, which is why there was the sudden change from a mantra of "Saddam must disarm" to "liberation" shortly before the war started?
--
You are feeling sleepy... you are feeling verrry sleepy...
[ Parent ]

No mislead (none / 0) (#431)
by azurensis on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 03:19:58 PM EST

At least by the CIA. They were telling him last summer that Iraq was unlikely to use any WMD unless it was attacked and that there was a low probability that it would hand them over to any terrorists.

[ Parent ]
Can I have a WTF?! please? (5.00 / 2) (#261)
by daliman on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 09:30:32 PM EST

The only valid reason for an invasion was to help the Iraqi people. It was also the one which Bush almost completely ignored. I dunno what you've been taknig but they must have been strong...

[ Parent ]
Hmmmmm..... (none / 0) (#267)
by Hillman on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 10:00:38 PM EST

One of the reason(apart from WMD, helping Iraqis(which I doubt, What is the West doing with all the human rights abuses in south asia?), oil) is to etablish an american presence in the middle-east to make the region more stable and to get the upper hand on a strategic region(that also goes of Central Asia). The US wants to slow the progression of Islam. Also, the Asia region is so unstable and volatile that, for now, the US presence is necessary to prevent wars. I don't really think that oil is the only reason, Iran has way more oil than Iraq, but if I remember right, Iran was WMD and is under the power of religious rulers. That's no secret, it's in the document that the Dep. of Defense release each year.

Yes, I have a life. I know this stuff because I study in international politics.

[ Parent ]

WTF! (none / 0) (#270)
by Pop Top on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 10:09:15 PM EST

Your welcome. . .

[ Parent ]
Yup (5.00 / 3) (#272)
by it certainly is on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 10:18:52 PM EST

and "We have always been at war with Eurasia. Eastasia are our allies." can become "We have always been at war with Eastasia. Eurasia are our allies.". After all, it doesn't really matter, does it? As long as you're permanently at war, people will Support Their Country and Support Their Troops and be patriotic and not question things like why the economy's all fucked up and why they're being urged to buy houses, cars and holidays on credit when their job has just been given to a retarded mongoloid who considers a bowl of rice a week to be reasonable payment.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

Thank you! (none / 0) (#274)
by eann on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 10:22:40 PM EST

Sad is the state of things when people don't recognize such a common literary device.


Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men. —MLK

$email =~ s/0/o/; # The K5 cabal is out to get you.


[ Parent ]
No reason needed (none / 0) (#323)
by flo on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 06:19:34 AM EST

We have always been at war with Eurasia.
---------
"Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
[ Parent ]
WMDs were used in Iraq (3.80 / 10) (#209)
by baron samedi on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 06:37:11 PM EST

Depleted Uranium munitions were classified as a Weapon of Mass Destruction by the UN in 2001. Just saying. Not that it matters to anyone what the UN thinks.

Major Doug Rocke can tell you all about it.
"Hands that help are better by far than lips that pray."- Robert G. Ingersoll

umm (2.00 / 1) (#264)
by burntfriedman on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 09:51:15 PM EST

didn't they have a10s firing those within the metropolitan city of bagdad?

[ Parent ]
a-10 thunderbolt (2.00 / 1) (#283)
by superflex on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 11:18:57 PM EST

aka "The Warthog". i stopped watching the propaganda footage weeks ago, so i don't know if A-10s were flying in Baghdad or not, but here is an interesting read on the GAU-8 Avenger cannon, nose mounted on the A-10.

3900 rounds/minute (65 rounds/second), fired in a "combat mix" ratio of 4 DU shells to 1 HE shell. each DU shell containis .66 pounds of U-238, which has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. in the soil... in the water...

some math:
65 rounds/sec * (4/5) * .66 pounds = ~17 pounds per second of firing

[ Parent ]

that just means (5.00 / 2) (#284)
by puppet10 on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 11:24:18 PM EST

half-life of 4.5 billion years that its barely radioactive.

[ Parent ]
Iraqi Soldiers terrorfid of A-10s (none / 0) (#388)
by StrifeZ on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 11:50:05 AM EST

After the first gulf war, Iraqi POWs said that of all the weapons the US had, they were most terrorfied of the A-10s. Everytime they heard the engine, they started waving white flags and running for cover because they knew that as soon as the plane entered about 1 mile of the tank, it was going to get shot up. Its a very effective weapon. Going to be replaced with a SVTOL F-35 Joint Strike Fighter tho, for some reason. The A-10s are really rugged and have a very classic look to them. The F-35s are marvelous planes, but look too pristine for close air support IMO. A-10s commonly get shot to hell too, but its thick armor and dual engines keep it flying (it can fly with 1 engine).


KITTENS@(_%&@%@_($&@(_$&^@$()&@%@+(&%
[ Parent ]
USAF never wanted the A-10s in the 1st place. (none / 0) (#416)
by porkchop_d_clown on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 01:36:06 PM EST

Not because they don't like the plane, but because they have to stock spare parts and train techs for each type of plane they fly. Replacing both it and the F-16 with a "multi-role" plane makes the bean counters happy.


--
Fishing for Men, Trolling for Newbies, what's the difference?


[ Parent ]
Half-life of U-238 (4.00 / 2) (#402)
by smithmc on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 12:57:07 PM EST

U-238, which has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. in the soil... in the water...

Uh, exactly. With a half-life of 4.5 billion years, U-238 releases radiation at a much slower rate than nearly any other radioactive material. And besides, that same U-238 has been sitting in the ground for at least that long. Hasn't killed us yet, has it? Short half-lives are more dangerous because it means that the radioactivity is emitted at a faster rate.

[ Parent ]

LOL. do me a favor (1.00 / 1) (#415)
by porkchop_d_clown on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 01:32:44 PM EST

And look up the half-life of various carbon isotopes and look up the definition of half-life while your at it.

In other words, many of the carbon atoms which make up your own body are more "radioactive"than DU.


--
Fishing for Men, Trolling for Newbies, what's the difference?


[ Parent ]
Heavy Metal, not radiation (4.00 / 1) (#424)
by baron samedi on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 02:47:50 PM EST

The risk from DU is not from radioactivity, but from the toxic effects of heavy metals. I refer you to google for Major Doug Rocke, MD. He's been working with DU for years, and has some interesting things to say. You can hear some interviews with him at Flashpoints. I used to think that DU wasn't a problem, now I do.
"Hands that help are better by far than lips that pray."- Robert G. Ingersoll
[ Parent ]
cite? (4.00 / 1) (#265)
by tiamat on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 09:55:08 PM EST

I'd like to see a source on that...

[ Parent ]
Yeah, you're right. <nt> (2.00 / 1) (#280)
by mmsmatt on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 11:03:20 PM EST



[ Parent ]
No, it isnt. (5.00 / 2) (#291)
by StrifeZ on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 12:47:11 AM EST

the UN concluded in 2000 that DU has no effect on biological organisms in the form of toxicity or cancers after extensive testing.



Please, dont lie when you're bound to get caught.

Besides, we've been using DU for decades and it works really damn well.

Screw the UN. Only alliance that matters is NATO.


KITTENS@(_%&@%@_($&@(_$&^@$()&@%@+(&%
[ Parent ]
UN (WHO) and depleted uranium (5.00 / 1) (#294)
by gregbillock on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 01:46:39 AM EST

<i>the UN concluded in 2000 that DU has no effect on biological organisms in the form of toxicity or cancers after extensive testing.
</i>

The WHO site on depleted uranium is here:
http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/env/du/en/

From the Kosovo mission report (where DU anti-tank weaponry was used and fears were high):

"The radiological toxicity of depleted uranium is primarily confined to body cells that are susceptible to the effects of alpha and beta radiation. It is therefore thought that inhaled depleted uranium particles may lead to damage of lung cells and might increase the possibility of lung cancer."

and later...

"Kidney dysfunction is considered the main chemically induced toxic effect of depleted uranium in humans..."

on the other hand, in the conclusion...

"Scientific and medical studies have not established a link between exposure to depleted uranium and the onset of cancers, congenital abnormalities or serious toxic chemical effects on organs. Caution has been expressed by some scientists who would like to see a large body of independently (i.e. non-military) funded studies to confirm the current viewpoint."

The synthesis here is that while DU does have toxicity, it is unlikely to be present on a battlefield in its most dangerous form (dust) in sufficient quantity to cause lasting health problems for most people. Or, to put it another way, the health effects, if any, are small enough to require extensive, sophisticated epidemiology to find them.

[ Parent ]

DU is dangerous and was used extensively this time (none / 0) (#427)
by humble on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 03:01:02 PM EST

Here's an article on the subject that lays out some of the problems.

Those of you who would challenge the assertion that this shit is dangerous should note the source that I've pointed you to. I leave it to your imagination as to what the real story on DU is...
Indymedia - Civil society's not-so-secret servicetm
[ Parent ]

A quote of significance... (4.50 / 16) (#219)
by cvou on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 06:54:42 PM EST

Taken from the following article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/22/opinion/22KRIS.html?ex=1051588800&en=28ec5 04ac5045bfe&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

President Bush, in his State of the Union address, described a vast Iraqi weapons program and talked about several mobile labs, 30,000 munitions, 500 tons of chemical weapons, 25,000 liters of anthrax and 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin. These weapons were supposedly deployed in the war and controlled by field commands that we have long since overrun -- so where are they?

It's a good article, besides.  A reporter looks back at his pre-war predictions and seems fairly honest about where he screwed up.

Mobile weapons labs (4.50 / 2) (#397)
by Wah on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 12:41:00 PM EST

We did find some of those.

A trailer at the back of a military hospital, suspected of being a mobile chemical weapons laboratory, turned out to be a cooking trailer, while a laboratory the U.S. team visited was for research into concrete and asphalt work, he said.

The other interesting quote from the article might point to a point of failure in the human intelligence cycle (i.e. the honest paranoia of the Iraq people leading U.S. intelligence to believe something that may or may not be true)

Many of the tips come from local residents, convinced that mustard gas or other lethal weapons were being produced at the sites, he said.

Regardlessn, there were numerous call outs about the administration spinning intelligence reports to support their position.  The question now is wether or not they will be successfully called out for it.  The problem here being that most Bush supporters will ignore out of hand those that would be happy to call out the administration on such tactics, and the people they listen to, won't.
--
Fail to Obey?
[ Parent ]

You're kidding... (3.00 / 7) (#276)
by nsgnfcnt1 on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 10:29:29 PM EST

You've been watching too many X-Files re-runs.

The Washington Post article you reference hardly provides the proof you claim when saying that the US "lied before". I would continue but I couldn't come close the the detail and clarity that thelizman does. Don't waste your time here, read his response. It should be on the FP.

Got any opinions of your own? (2.00 / 3) (#278)
by randinah on Tue Apr 22, 2003 at 10:41:41 PM EST

Your comment says nothing to me. I've already read thelizman's response to my article - and replied to it. Where have you been?

If you have nothing better to say than "I'm a thelizman cronie" - you're wasting space.


"Why waste time learning when ignorance is instantaneous?"
[ Parent ]
Bah. (none / 0) (#346)
by regeya on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 09:12:55 AM EST

All you're doing is spouting the same simpleminded bullshit that's been floating around kuro5hin.org for a few weeks now. Talk about not having an opinion...

[ yokelpunk | kuro5hin diary ]
[ Parent ]

Please (none / 0) (#391)
by randinah on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 12:02:03 PM EST

Just because my opinion is a fairly common one around Kuro5hin doesn't mean I'm spouting "simpleminded" bullshit. Oh yes, and although it is a biased Op Ed, i hope you realize that in writing this article I was asking a question: Can the US be trusted to find WMD's on it's own? I gave you reason why I think it can't be trusted - now it's your job to find reasons why it CAN be trusted if you disagree with me.

I wrote an article of my own - I did not point to an article that was already written on Kuro5hin and post my own story linking to it saying "Read this story - it's good!" Because that's basically what nsgnfcnt1 did by creating a whole new comment to my article saying "Read the comment down there, it's good!"


"Why waste time learning when ignorance is instantaneous?"
[ Parent ]
Give it time & the failure of the UN (3.16 / 24) (#290)
by StrifeZ on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 12:44:41 AM EST

Its about 2 dozen people with 1000 sites to look at in a country they've only been able to have free reign in for 2 weeks or so. 1000 more US investigators are on the way, and according to the NY Times, the goernment may have already found WMDs and is just checking to make sure they are right.

You know, give the people time. The stuff is there. The amount of chemical weapons Saddam had just don't vanish over night and they can't just be dumped down the drain. They ARE somewhere and we will find them.

Now if only far the leftists and Eurotrash who apparently havent gotten the point yet would just back off and not declare the search a "failure" when you have only a handful of teams on the search and 2 weeks in. Want a few real failures? I can give you some.

One failure was the failure of journalistic integrity in the NYT when the edited General Wallace's quote to make it sound more bleak than it even was close to being.

Another failure was of far left Americans, who put the feelings of Europeans who want to tie down your country and generally don't give a damn about it over the well being of your country.

The third failure was an ethical one, perpetated by Salon.com's senior editor who said that he and other people he knew wished that there were more american casualties and their worst case scenarios about the war came true. Thats right. They wanted this war to be tougher and more american sons and daughters to die so they can bitch online.

You know, the ability of any moron to bitch online is getting really out of control. Nearly everyone isnt looking at the whole picture anymore. They are just selectivly picking and choosing facts to form their argument and ignore the mountain of contrary evidence. My favorite left wing jackass is Eric ALterman at MSNBC.com. He apparently forgot to read about or didnt care to notice that Retired General Garner, now in charge of reconstruction bot the job not because hes Rummy's friend, but because during and after the Gulf War, he was responsible, with very limited resources, into setting up the Kurdish state in the north. Thats right. He has a PROVEN track record of rebuilding Iraq. But of coruse, that didnt fit Mr. Alterman's Bush Administration = the real terrorists argument, so he ignored it.

Now back on to this post... this thread is about 10 weeks too early. 1000 more American investigators are on the way, and you call it over before they even got into the country.

The United Nations failed itself. There is practically no chance in hell of them being allowed to step foot in Iraq again. For 12 years they let down the Iraqi people and played nice nice with a dictator so the world could avoid war. Well in the fight for a better world, some times you have to fight. The Future of American multilateralism will be home in the democratic alliance (NATO), not this sham and failure of an organization.

Some quick facts about the UN that the author of this article felt to ignore:
  • Libya is chair of the human rigths comittee and the comitte introduced a bill to investigate American War crimes in Iraq.
  • Iraq was the chair of the disarmnament comitee.
  • Germany helped Iraqi intelligence as recent as March 2003.
  • France sold Iraq brand new missiles in 2002 despite UN sanctions. They got in since then, despite UN Sactions and disarmnament.
  • Chineese Silk Worm missles were sold to Iraq since '91 and used in the war.They got in since then, despite UN Sactions and disarmnament.
  • Much has been said about russian anti tank missles and night vision goggles and GPS jammes. That stuff didnt exist in '91. They got in since then, despite UN Sactions and disarmnament.
  • An oil pipeline from Iraq to Syria has been in existance since Gulf War I and pumped in 30% of Syria's oil . THis pipe line, which was just shut down, was not listed under the open piplines in the oilf or food program.


  • Lets be serious. The UN has no power other than what the US gives it. We provide 25% of the funding per year, more than the next 25 nations combined. When they defy US, as our investment, we have every right to break it. The UN was ineffectual during the Cold War, it was ineffectual during nearly almost ever genocide in the last 50 years (Kosovo, Bosnia, Rwanada most notably). It clearly failed keeping stupid little Iraq in shape. I ask, what precisley do we have the UN for?

    Sheesh, lay off the America bashing. Selectivng facts and ignoring others convinces no one but yourself. The WMDs are there, but hes had 12 years to hide them.

    As for the UN, I can tell you right now, it is not going to happen. We do not care about legitimizing it in the rest of the world's eyes because they were too lazy, too content with an untenable peace to do anything.

    America is a country of action, of progress. It seems everyone else is interested in nothing but stability and faux peace.


    KITTENS@(_%&@%@_($&@(_$&^@$()&@%@+(&%
    Might is Right (5.00 / 2) (#316)
    by Space on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 05:51:00 AM EST

    What do American's define as progressive action? Is every other country supposed to rely on America's benevolence rather than consensus sustained through international agreement? What buisiness do American's have advancing American progressive action in foreign nations? Is the concept of national sovreignty completely dead or does it only apply to nations that Americans approve of? This post appears to be a long winded justification of the principal that "might is right" rather than arguing for a more effective means of maintaining peace and stability. So far all unilateral action has produced is death, anarchy and escalating international conflict.
    <recycle your pets>
    [ Parent ]
    Changing definition of Soverignity (none / 0) (#361)
    by StrifeZ on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 10:22:25 AM EST

    No. We define progress as the ability to make hard choices when we have to and adapt to change willingly.

    Americans are more wary than ever of International Agreements. One of our founders, George Washington, said as he left office to "beware entangling alliances". Basically what he was saying was put your own (Americas) interests infront of everyone elses because at the end of the day, only America will take care of itself, not its allies or international alliances. To this day, the United States has never signed a single Non-Aggression Pact, and only has a cooperative Military alliance with one country: Brittain. NATO is different because we very much tell NATO members what to do. The Anglo-American alliances is the only one where some one else can tell Americans what to do. I'll point to the fact that until the Iraq war, when US Marines were under British Control, no American Soldier had served under a forgein general since World War II.

    Americans have 227 years of not trusting international instutitions because we understand that at the end of the day, people always put their own interests firsts, instead of the commong good.

    The concept of International Soverignity is not dead, but it is changing. A few weeks ago I wrote a post a lot of people agreed with with how the concept was changing. In years past the concept of soverginity was something like "A Nation's right to chart its own destiny so long as it does not diverge from the bounds of the most basic human decency, including outlawing murder, cannibalism and slavery". Since September 11th, the definition has changed, quite necessarily IMO and I think in many peoples opinions to include " and not developing WMD of any kind and not abbetting terrorist organizations". Countries that do these things, things that are as unecessary for a nation as canibalism, will become targets by the US because their actions threaten the lives of Americans.

    What business does America have doing this?

    Because like all nations, even the treasonous trio at the UN, we put ourselves infront of others. It has zero to do with might makes right. It has everything to do with being a decent international citizen. So long as a country doesnt step outside the lines above, they'll be fine, but when they start threatening others with either or both WMDs and terrorists, they cross the line and forfiet their soveringity.

    Its like being a thug on a crowded street, waving a gun at people and shooting into the air. Do you let him continue to threaten, to respect his freedom, or do you do something about it for the good of everyone.

    Sorry, in the real world, some times playing for keeps is necessary. That means that a lot of people die, but as a shirt I saw recently said War has never solved anything except Slavery, Anarchism (check the late 19th century for that one),Fascism, Naziism, Communism. In a few years, maybe we can add Terrorism to the list. We've captured 6 of the top 8 Al Queda leaders. We've ripped their heart out. Give War a chance.


    KITTENS@(_%&@%@_($&@(_$&^@$()&@%@+(&%
    [ Parent ]
    hegemonic sovreignty (none / 0) (#395)
    by Space on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 12:21:24 PM EST

    Simply stated sovreignty is changing to accommodate hegemony by self-interested institutions. There will never be peace so long as the US applies double standards and top down approaches to all international concerns. Coercion is no substitute for co-operation and to consider the current state of affairs sustainable, much less ethical is hopelessly optimistic.
    <recycle your pets>
    [ Parent ]
    Well.... (none / 0) (#400)
    by StrifeZ on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 12:51:25 PM EST

    We will cooperate when possible, but we will act alone when the world refuses to act out of fear of consequences.

    And it is not a double standard. The US is a democracy. The most powerful person in government only stays powerful for a maximum of 8 years. Theres an old saying "in democracies, no one re-elects an asshole". Our keeping WMDs and defying international institutions is okay because we are not pshycotic and it is the will of the people, not a dictatoral individal. Iraq very much was a phsycotic dictatorship. You can trust democracies, you can't trust totalitarnian states.

    Double standard? How about the double standard of the international community. They wanted Iraq to be dealt with on a multilateral basis, but North Korea delt with on a bi-lateral basis. Just admit it, the International Community is nothing but cover for self interested nation states of whaning power. I mean, consider for a second, that the US has pull with every single country on the planet. When was the last time France had pull with some one in South America or Asia. What you're seeing is the decline of ancient states brought on by impotency. Don't try to call that multi-laterialism, or they are fooling you too.

    Recent polling suggests 80% of Americans think that Bush did the right thing by defying the UN. 8 in 10 americans. Thats amazing. 8 in 10 Americans have a negative view of the international community's effectivness.

    Think about that for a bit.


    KITTENS@(_%&@%@_($&@(_$&^@$()&@%@+(&%
    [ Parent ]
    Inconsistent! (none / 0) (#484)
    by Space on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 10:40:28 PM EST

    The double standard even pervades this inconsistent argument. You criticise the international community because it's a conglomerate of self interested nation states yet you justify unilateral action by the US on the basis that It's self interested and shouldn't submit to the will of "entangling alliances". What's even more disturbing is you believe faith in the US public is as much assurance as any nation needs in this realm of conflict! May I remind you Hitler was democratically elected to begin with and enjoyed patriotic approval up until the very end of days!
    <recycle your pets>
    [ Parent ]
    Multilateralism (1.00 / 1) (#540)
    by StrifeZ on Thu Apr 24, 2003 at 11:56:03 AM EST

    The United States thinks of others far more than most other countries do. To claim otherwise would be juvenile. We shell out billions in international aid every year. Yemen, for example, has been getting $78 million a year for the bast 6 years. ANgola is recieving $128 milliion. Afghanistan is getting $780 million. We shell out money like no other nation except Japan. We created the primary international institutions of the world: the UN and NATO. The UN is bankrolled 25% every year by the US and stands on US soil. The UN throws itself in the middle of international conflagartions that have nothing to do with the US directly, such as North Korea or the Rwanda genocide, which we implored the UN to do something about (they never did). Even Mighty NATO is more for everyone elses benefit than ours. We really don't need the doctrine of mutual defense when its Poland and Germany and Belgium and Italy and other militarily impotent countries rallying to our defense. NATO is far more for the protection of our friends than their protecting US. We've been nothing but selfless when it comes to forming international institutions.

    After on 9/12/01, the day after 9/11, NATO unaniumously ratified for the first time in their history the mutual defense clause and all 19 nations were ready to go to war. All 19 nations did go to war to limited extents in Afghanistan, but the US is so effective a military power, it really didnt need the concept of mutual defense, nevertheless, it was the gesture that mattered.

    Now the US is tired of playing nice-nice with the lethargic states of the world. We provide over 50% of the R&D every year on this planet, build international trade agreements, patrol the world in our navy, keeping it stable and generally try to give all peoples a fair shot. What we get in return is calls of "American Unilateralism". No, its more of the US being able to make the hard choices and the rest of the world being too weak, too impotent to make them. Its like the US is a good and in shape runner and the rest of the world is a 250lbs lard ass who cant keep up and accussess the good in shape runner of using performance enhancers and steroids. The rest of the world blames the US for their short comings and that 8/10 approval shows that the American people are sick of being the rest of world's scape goat. America will take care of others - it will always put itself first - but it has and always will take care of weaker nations around the world. It is a real multi-lateral nation. The Axis of Weasel was just interested in contracts for their failing economies. Check out France's, Germany's and Russia's economies. The US has whethered th global recession pretty well. These nations are sucking wind and there is no room for improvement.

    Comparing Nazi Germany to the US is just sick. Nazi Germany is the antithesis of the US. 290,000 American soldiers died so you can say something so stupid.


    KITTENS@(_%&@%@_($&@(_$&^@$()&@%@+(&%
    [ Parent ]
    Wow... (5.00 / 4) (#324)
    by godspeed on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 06:20:08 AM EST

    That was intense... it could take a while to effectively rebut it all.

    Firstly I think the point you're missing in the article is not that this search has already failed, its that its a fairly important aim that these weapons are discovered. And probably more importantly that they are discovered by neutral arbiters and not these 1000 US inspectors, who may have trouble claiming legitimacy if it is them who discover the weapons. A lot of countries don't trust the US as much as the US trusts itself. Irrespective of the validity of their stance, it does exist and its dangerous to just ignore.

    I guess this leads into another point you raise about not seeing the bigger picture. While you seem to attribute this directly and solely to the left, thats appears a remarkably shortsighted approach. Especially since the main criticism to be levelled at the US's handling of this situation is that they treated Iraq like a country completely divorced from the real world. And Hussein as completely divorced from the present and future plight of the Iraqi people. There was no thought about the impact such a conflict might have upon already inflamed regional sentiment, or whether or not it may actually have a detrimental effect upon the War on Terror due to this inflammation. There was also no thought about the broader global ramifications of ratifying a concept of pre-emption. Am I the only one who finds it vaguely ironic that Iraq probably would have had better grounds to launch an attack upon the US or Britain in the name of pre-emption then the US or Britain had for Iraq?

    Onto the UN. No-one is claiming the UN is a perfect body, there are too many conflicting interests for that. But I prefer the chance at multilateral solutions to global problems then a US dictatorship. I mean after all isn't that what the US is all about? Democracy? So why do they seem to be putting so much effort into making themselves the singular and unopposed leaders of this world? And as for having the right to destroy a body just because you provide a majority of the funding, thats... stupid. It comes back to the whole point about a US dictatorship and also ignores the fact that 25% is a long way shy of a majority, which is generally required before you make executive, unilateral decisions about a body. And the UN has done a lot for maintaining stability and peace, even if all people have been focussing on is the occasions when the clashes of interests in different countries led to strife. The shit always floats to the top, remember that.

    You speak of the UN as if it was easily dismantled and forgotten. I don't even want to think about the humanitarian chaos that would ensue if UNICEF, UNESCO, UNHCR and the WHO were all disbanded. But I guess thats probably ok, because very few of the millions upon millions of people affected by that will be American.

    You also seem to put a lot of effort into bashing countries that opposed the war because they provided food/aid/information to Iraq in contravention of UN implemented, but US maintained sanctions. Lets not forget that Iraq was America's baby up until they became less useful in the early 90's, plying Hussein with aid, weapons, information and support. And also that those sanctions, even with countries violating them, led to a strengthening of Hussein's domestic position and an estimated 1.5 million casualties from starvation and preventable disease. No country is perfect here.

    Libya may be chair of the human rights committee, but that doesn't mean that all countries automatically follow it. It just takes meetings. Remember the UN is a democracy, not a dictatorship as some countries may want. Same goes for the Iraq Disarmament deal. I'm pretty sure a lot of countries with very dangerous weapons have been on that committee, including the US.

    Just some quick thoughts.
    "This is the most exciting thing to happen since Halley's Comet hit the moon" - Homer J. Simpson
    [ Parent ]

    So... (4.00 / 1) (#347)
    by regeya on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 09:18:26 AM EST

    ...finding these weapons is more important than rooting out the last old-regime holdouts and establishing rule to fill the void there now?

    Jesus, has everone's brains been turned to mush by Internet and TV? Did everyone expect this to be done in a month (or two, in case it was a near-complete failure?) The searching has just begun. The fighting isn't even over yet.

    Get a grip, people. Such a search may take years, not weeks. My prediction is that, if asked, most European nations who were totally against an invasion of Iraq had both the unwillingness to invade, due to the amount of time it would take, and a conflict of interest, due to Iraq's alleged dealings with various entities in Europe.

    [ yokelpunk | kuro5hin diary ]
    [ Parent ]

    I think the point is... (5.00 / 1) (#352)
    by xria on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 09:39:27 AM EST

    Many people/countries in the world dont trust the US or organisations directly backed the US to search for these weapons, and would rather see that now the searches for the weapons are due to start in the near future that they are done by someone that actually has the appearance of being independant as a minimum.

    [ Parent ]
    European interest (5.00 / 1) (#354)
    by Space on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 10:00:42 AM EST

    Perhaps most European nations have simply realised from their own experiences that colonialism and empirialism is unsustainable and that war only escalates conflict and aggression.
    <recycle your pets>
    [ Parent ]
    No (none / 0) (#382)
    by godspeed on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 11:28:06 AM EST

    Establishing some form of control is definitely the most important task in Iraq, I don't think anybody disagrees with that. However, there are international concerns about the actual existence and veracity of eventual proof of WMD's. At no point did I say this was the most important task. But it IS an important one, simply in terms of international legitimacy. We can quibble about the necessity of maintaining some semblance of international coherency but, as it stands, it scares the shit out of me that we could have a country striding forth completely heedless of the concerns of others, no matter how noble their own concerns may be.
    "This is the most exciting thing to happen since Halley's Comet hit the moon" - Homer J. Simpson
    [ Parent ]
    The International Community was weak. (1.00 / 1) (#384)
    by StrifeZ on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 11:34:21 AM EST

    The International Community was too weak, too afraid of risk, to free the Iraqi people.

    These are the kinds of people that are suppose to safeguard Iraq's future?

    Hell no. Its a US/UK show. If anyone has a proble, with that, feel free to file a complaint with the League of Nations UN Security Council. They don't have much to discuss.

    I frankly don't see why we just don't declare "old Iraq" dead and this "new Iraq" and thus, the UN sactions only applied to "old Iraq", so we can just ignore UN Sanctions now.


    KITTENS@(_%&@%@_($&@(_$&^@$()&@%@+(&%
    [ Parent ]
    But it Still Exists (none / 0) (#500)
    by godspeed on Thu Apr 24, 2003 at 01:40:45 AM EST

    This isn't about the sanctions, of course they're a moot point now that Saddam is gone (I know theres some debate about them being linked into WMD's disposal, but that will probably be sidestepped and they are two separate issues). This is about actually showing the world that the reasons they supposedly went to war with Iraq for are valid.  You may speak all you want of there being no reason at all for the US to give a shit about the world, but I daresay theres probably only a certain limit to those kind of ideas before it explodes in their, and the entire world's, faces. The human rights result is fantastic, but that debate didn't even crop up until the rhetoric went into overdrive just prior to the attack. And as great as it was, if thats the main reason for the invasion, then the US has a long slog ahead of it, as it takes on every country guilty of consistent human rights violation. And by fuck theres a lot of them.

    Because you are willing to completely divorce America from any semblance of real world considerations, everything that is/was important to maintaining global peace/order is no longer valid. So the considerations of other countries don't matter, international law doesn't matter, treaties don't matter. Maybe every country will just act in its own interests, but if there is absolutely no framework or concept of good international citizenship even vaguely governing it, then I have very little hope for the future existence of mankind.

    "This is the most exciting thing to happen since Halley's Comet hit the moon" - Homer J. Simpson
    [ Parent ]

    not trusting a broken system (3.00 / 4) (#373)
    by StrifeZ on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 11:01:19 AM EST

    I just want to point out, I believed in the UN for years. I thought until last year that we should be more involved in it. But then as I found out how it worked, I became incredibly disenfranchised with it. Let me ask you this. What kind of screwed up organization allows Libya to chair the Human Rights commission when the US wasnt even on it in 2002 for the first time in 50 years? Only a broken one. I am not a right wing republican (heck, they are scary as left wing democrats). I am a very centrist, very nationalistic and have zero problems with putting the good of America over the good of everyone else. Why? Because by asking us to dance with the UN, the "international community" was looking out for their own individual interests under a false pretense. They really don't care about a "stronger international community", they just want to maintain fading influence (i'm refering to the treasonous trio most specifically). What was even worse was that the Security council, unable to budge on either side, left the call to war in the hands of the 9 undecided temporary nations. Thats incredible immature for the UN to do. Those countries are to provide a voice while the permanent members dictate policy. By doing what it did, the Security council (including the US, but also including the others) failed the world community.

    Now I dont believe in the UN anymore. Quite frankly, I'm tired of my country playing nice with the scum of the earth just for the sake of faux peace and international stability. The people living under the scum of the earth deserve the freedom that is the right of all humans. To deny them that because there is a fear of risk signals a country in decline and an international system that is clearly broken. The UN was constructed to promote freedom and stop genocide. Instead, it became a monsters (Saddam's) cheif supplier of arms money.

    The US is now going to be switching to NATO most likley as our primary place of international legitimacy. As a military alliance, despite France's recent hijinks, there is a lot less room for fooling around. Moreover, every nation in NATO is a democracy. That is what we need to be dealing with: other free and open nations: not surrounding ourselves with countries like Libya and Sudan. It wasnt reported widley in the news, but NATO is taking over for the UN's ISAF in Afghanistan soon for security and will spread to cities other than Kabul. This is the first deployment of NATO outside of Europe. The US has been pushing for this and everyone agreed. There is a concerted movement to try to get NATO to be peacekeepers in Iraq with Russia troops, instead of the UN: a movement that is gaining momentum. This won't occur for at least a year. Until then, its a coalition show.

    The UN has a role, you are right, with things like UNICEF and WHO. But it ends there. They cannot be allowed to have a say in international affairs ever again. They have dropped the ball time and time and time again.

    The US was the principal supplier of food/aid to Iraq under the oil for food program. We maintained sanctions because Saddam would have gotten more of what he was getting anyway: night vision goggles, new French rockets, new guns and ammo, including a gold plated AK-47 (some use of funds, no?)

    The falling out with Iraq wasnt that simple as a "falling out". The US knew Saddam was a monster when they started dealing with him, but we were more concerned with the spreading of Shia fundimentalism, so we arranged a little war. We were hoping that our influence on Saddam would change him. By 1989 it became apparent that it wasnt. In 1989, a younger Dr. Hans Blix gave Iraq a clean bill of health on WMDs, saying it had none. By 1991, it was clear that Saddam was within 6-8 months of a nuclear weapon. Thats another UN failure. We knew what we were dealing with with Saddam, but just like in the Cold War, we had to choose the lesser of two evils to try to minimize the destabilizing damage of extremism. Saddam was a monster from the start. We made a bad bet hoping he would change. When it became apparent he wouldnt, we became enemies.

    The UN is not a democracy because it has no soverinigty. The UN is an international organization where nations talk. It has no legitimacy on its own, only the legitimacy of the most powerful members that give it. The US does like multilaterial, but we are ready to go on our own when we have to if the world is too afraid of risk to take the leap. I think its worth noting, exactly how afraid of risk this planet is. The war nightmare scenarios didnt even come remotley close to being true and relied upon false pretenses that an infomred person would have laughed at (like the Israeli Arrow or the US PAC-3 not being able to catch a WMD on its way to israel, which it would have easily). The US currently provides more than 50% of the world's research and development on a yearly basis. The US is #2 of the world's most Information technology strong nations, only a decimal point after sweden. Our friend, Progressive France, is more than 2 whole points below the US out of a possible 10, at #14. Any self respecting nation from the North America or Europe should be within .5 of each other, but France is more than 4 times that. What I'm trying to illustrate is just a societal penetration in the rest of the world of fear of taking chances. I mean, the EU doesnt even have its own manned space program, relying on US and Russian ships: a private firm in the US is about to do that themselves for mere millions. Like wise, it will be Americans who first step foot on Mars and Americans who build the first nuclear fission based ion drive for space travel (Project Prometheus). This world is afraid of risk. We aren't. It is a big disconnect, but we wont play patsy with the most cowardly nations of the world to make them feel important. Is that unilateralism? In a sense, yes. But unilateralism when the world is too weak to make the hard choices is ok. Does anyone really regret going to war with Iraq now? The Iraqis are free and loving it. Theres a long road ahead and the challenges will be great, but just because it is hard, doesnt mean we shouldnt do it. The US lives to do things that are hard, and more often than not, we do it successfully. The UN... the UN couldnt even run little East Timor properly.

    The US has not developed a new nuclear weapon since 1980. We have procured new chemical and biological weapons (as recently as last year) since then from outside sources so that we can develop defenses, but the weaponization and deployment of chemical and biological weapons is expressly forbidden under US law and in bi-latteral deals with Russia (the USSR at the time). In 1990, between the USSR and the US, there were 60,000 nuclear weapons. Today, its 20,000, with the US having 10,400. In May, President Bush will travel to Moscow to sign another arms accord. By 2013, the US and Russia will be limited to 2500 to 3500 each. All tactical nuclear weapons (nuclear depth charges, land mines, artillery shells, torpeados) have been recalled and destroyed. Currently, the US and Russia have none of these in stock or in the field.

    Even you have to say that is impressive...

    In light of its many failures, i do not trust the UN. I do not trust an organization where people drive around in limos and wear Gucci when their civilians at home are starving or being raped by the military or worse. Protecting a broken international system must stop... because we're just lying to ourselves that its works, in this manner...

    ... "I am not an alcoholic. I am not an alcoholic. I am not an alcoholic..."


    KITTENS@(_%&@%@_($&@(_$&^@$()&@%@+(&%
    [ Parent ]
    Quit bitching (none / 0) (#330)
    by meadows_p on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 07:04:10 AM EST

    "You know, the ability of any moron to bitch online is getting really out of control".
    Well quit yer bitching then.

    [ Parent ]
    Or, it could be that we won't find them... (5.00 / 1) (#365)
    by DDS3 on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 10:33:16 AM EST

    They ARE somewhere and we will find them.

    It doesn't have to play out like that.  Think about it.  If he had directly use NBC, the world would of destroyed the whole country and he would NEVER had a place to hide, assuming he would of survived, which would of been a highly questionable proposition.  So, what do you do?  Hire a crew to dig a hole in the middle of no where, drop stuff, cover it up.  Kill the workers and soldiers that were there.  They are now deaths at the hand of the U.S. (whos ganna know) invasion.  Now, who's left to tell you where they are?  Remember, the soldiers that killed the others, were only told to kill and didn't know about the burial.  If you can't use them, why not embarrass your enemy in the eyes of the world?

    Certainly I have no proof that this happened, but think about it.  What are the odds that this isn't at least a very plausible scenario?  I consider this type of action much more plausable than dismissing that he had NBC stores in the first place.


    [ Parent ]

    Really ? (none / 0) (#378)
    by ConsoleCowboy on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 11:19:28 AM EST

    Some quick facts about the UN that the author of this article felt to ignore:

    • Libya is chair of the human rigths comittee and the comitte introduced a bill to investigate American War crimes in Iraq.
    • Iraq was the chair of the disarmnament comitee.
    • Germany helped Iraqi intelligence as recent as March 2003.
    • France sold Iraq brand new missiles in 2002 despite UN sanctions. They got in since then, despite UN Sactions and disarmnament.
    • Chineese Silk Worm missles were sold to Iraq since '91 and used in the war.They got in since then, despite UN Sactions and disarmnament.
    • Much has been said about russian anti tank missles and night vision goggles and GPS jammes. That stuff didnt exist in '91. They got in since then, despite UN Sactions and disarmnament.
    • An oil pipeline from Iraq to Syria has been in existance since Gulf War I and pumped in 30% of Syria's oil . THis pipe line, which was just shut down, was not listed under the open piplines in the oilf or food program.

    Interesting stuff. I knew about the first point. I suppose the third point refer to the german company that had been building bunker for Saddam. For the rest, this is totally new to me. Would you care about backing up these claim with links to news site (or any other reliable source) ?


    :wq
    [ Parent ]
    Just quickly... (none / 0) (#383)
    by StrifeZ on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 11:30:04 AM EST

    I'll get some links later (so check back later, im too tired to look now).

    But there was news this week that German Intelligence was helping Iraqi Intelligence sort out the chances of war and the capabilities of the US as early as right after 9/11. They were concerned we would invade after that. The Iraqi Intelligence and the German Intelligence wanted to build a relationship after that. As recently as March 2003, the Germans were giving Iraq information as to the chances for war and US capabilities.

    Isn't it a bit depressing that a NATO member was conspiring with an enemy against another NATO member. The International Community is so broken, and it isnt the US's fault either.


    KITTENS@(_%&@%@_($&@(_$&^@$()&@%@+(&%
    [ Parent ]
    Still waiting ... (none / 0) (#515)
    by ConsoleCowboy on Thu Apr 24, 2003 at 09:11:50 AM EST

    <sarcasm>You know, the ability of any moron to bitch online is getting really out of control. Any loonie can spread non-sense and his word are taken at face value ...</sarcasm>

    Maybe my Google skillz are lacking, but I have been searching a little about these Silkworm missile and I did not find reference to shipment of Silkworm from China to Iraq post-1991. Granted, I have not spend much time on the subject either but this really smell like hearsay and conspiracy theory to me.


    :wq
    [ Parent ]
    Special Pleading... (none / 0) (#406)
    by i3spanky on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 01:11:12 PM EST

    ...Is the technical term for the kind of argument you've decried in your comment.  

    Nearly every day I have a conversation with a co-worker who builds nearly all of his arguments in this way.  Historically, I've just shot them down one by one, but this process is getting very tiresome.  Instead, I'm now considering simply saying, "Special pleading." every time he comes up with one of these.

    The world would be a much better place if more people understood and could recognize all of the fallacious forms of argument.

    [ Parent ]

    'investment'? since when is the UN for sale? [NT] (none / 0) (#449)
    by zzzeek on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 04:44:15 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    What were you thinking? (none / 0) (#465)
    by broter on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 06:30:40 PM EST

    You know, the ability of any moron to bitch online is getting really out of control.

    I agree whole heartedly, hence the 2. Your grasp of international law and politics is sparse and flawed.

    [ Parent ]

    That is not the point really. (2.53 / 13) (#292)
    by Rationalist on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 12:51:53 AM EST

    We did not start a new war. Our conditions for leaving Iraq after the first war were never met. They broke their parole and now their time is up. This would have been Clinton's problem if he had had a foreign policy. I guess being a white trash train wreck of a human took up all his free time.

    well (none / 0) (#303)
    by jdube on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 03:19:44 AM EST

    I don't know much about why he didn't do anything or why we screwed with Iraq in the first place, but that's beside the point.  If you were Clinton, which would you choose: a) War or... b) sit around getting hummers.

    I like hummers.


    -------
    Invicem Cedund Dolors et Volutpas
    [ Parent ]

    parole officer? (5.00 / 1) (#305)
    by Space on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 03:55:38 AM EST

    Well now the US is no longer the self-appointed police/parole officer of the world but the self-appointed vigalante of the world!
    <recycle your pets>
    [ Parent ]
    Clinton's foreign policy. (4.50 / 4) (#338)
    by ChaosD on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 08:18:20 AM EST

    Speaking from the UK I would say the President Clinton's foreign policy was effective but subtle. He, and his administration actually did something about the troubles - more than most English governments in recent memory have done (either of the two we've had for the past few decades anyway).
    Ok, President Clinton had his faults, and as an outsider I'm certainly missing the impact of his domnestic policy, but my current crop of top-5 world leaders (that I know or have heard of/about) is:
    1. Ghandi
    2. Clinton
    3. N/A
    4. N/A
    5. N/A
    This includes leaders from the UK.
    -----------------------------
    There are no stupid questions
    [ Parent ]
    Clinton did have a foreign policy... (2.33 / 3) (#362)
    by DDS3 on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 10:22:41 AM EST

    ...it was to ignore problems as long as possible so that it could become another administration's problem.  Guess what, it worked.

    Clinton was not a leader in any way...


    [ Parent ]

    Clinton was an utter failure (none / 0) (#624)
    by RyoCokey on Fri Apr 25, 2003 at 02:30:27 AM EST

    Negotiations with North Korea? All he did was build them nuclear plants to make weapons with.

    Middle East peace? Some of the worst violence on record was when he was trying to broker this. Still no results.

    Somalia? Ended in disaster, in spite of no real military defeats.

    Kosovo? The Serbs did pull back, but only after most of the slaughtering was already done.

    Uganda? Thousands died, and he didn't even notice.

    Sudan? Certainly didn't look like a terrorist chemical plant to the rest of the world.

    Kyoto? Couldn't get it even close to ratified during his tenure... left it to die with Bush without a real push for it's passage.

    Bin Laden? Well, he thought about attacking him. A little.

    Saddam Hussein? He gets caught sending an assassin team to kill Bush, an act of war, and all Clinton does is pull out inspectors and shoot a few missiles his direction.

    China? They certainly appreciated all the military technology that got sold to them as "dual-use" during his tenure.

    Clinton was an utter failure. I wouldn't deign to piss on him if he was on fire.



    "Seems to me the whole world has lost a basic virute, that of patients." - travlight
    [ Parent ]
    Parole... (4.00 / 1) (#419)
    by divinus on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 01:49:28 PM EST

    You know, its not so good when a man is executed for violating his parole, and then after the fact it's noticed that he didn't actually violate the parole in the first place.

    American Foreign policy is the belief that non-Americans should be treated differently than Americans. All men are created equal, but some more equal than others.

    Clinton has been the best president we've had in decades, and his time in office showed the greatest amount of progress this country has seen in decades as well. No one can rationally argue that America is actually worse off because of him. Of course, the improvements Clinton made over 8 years were all but destroyed by Bush in the first year, but still.

    [ Parent ]

    Face it (none / 0) (#700)
    by Rationalist on Sun Apr 27, 2003 at 03:23:10 AM EST

    Clinton was a handsome charmer. I liked him and I realized at the time that he was a dirty filthy muderous bastard. But I liked him because the fucker had more style than any 3 people have the right to have. Those of you who support him just can't admit that he is smarter than you and duped you.

    [ Parent ]
    The important issue is (1.66 / 3) (#298)
    by michaelp on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 02:40:50 AM EST

    what is president Bush really?

    Because if these folks are right, then we know why He likes it HOT.


    "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

    man you mods are stone cold humorless sobs |nt (none / 0) (#497)
    by michaelp on Thu Apr 24, 2003 at 01:25:17 AM EST



    "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

    [ Parent ]
    Conspiracy theory (4.42 / 7) (#304)
    by svSHiFT on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 03:47:10 AM EST

    If someone still does not know the reasons of the Iraq war, i invite them to get aquainted with The New American Century Project oragnisation -- wich seems to be the main source of guidelines for current US administration.

    by taking over the iraq, american administration kills two rabits by one shot: to promote itself as the true world leader (for a case if someone still doubted in it), and to provide a stable base for its own financial pyramid called "US dollar" as the iraqi oil -- the previous base of this pyramid was "IT and the New Economics", before that there was "International Currency Fund & the dept pitch for poor African countries". When the iraqi ioil will be exhausted, the new base for the dollar pyramid will apper -- most likely it will be "bio-tech" or "nano-tech" -- it will happen just when Democrates will rule again.

    BTW: for a case if someone still doubts in "true american leadership" after reading The New American Century Project statements, and still thinks that the american state will collaps into 52 independent states soon -- here is a very educative article about why it wont ever happen (in English)

    A typo ;-) (none / 0) (#386)
    by jeti on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 11:36:42 AM EST

    When the iraqi ioil...

    If Iraqi oil should stabilize the dollar instead of the "New Economy", you should capitalize it:

    iOil

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks for the link (none / 0) (#430)
    by kableh on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 03:12:55 PM EST

    The second one. Just finished the job my typically fatalist outlook started.

    [ Parent ]
    Things are returning to normal in Iraq (4.25 / 4) (#319)
    by otmar on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 06:06:06 AM EST

    At least according to Tom Toles.

    /ol

    pro-american? (5.00 / 3) (#327)
    by drquick on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 06:42:31 AM EST

    So if Iraq is becoming "normal". Does that mean they are not anti-american? I think normality is not what the USA is looking for.

    [ Parent ]
    I think you missed the point (none / 0) (#348)
    by Jack McCoy on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 09:20:03 AM EST

    In the cartoon, Uncle Sam is shown stopping the UN inspectors from coming into Iraq, which was "normal" under Saddam's government. Pro- or anti-americanism didn't even enter the equation.
    -- Jack
    [ Parent ]

    Let better U.N. inspectors back in (3.11 / 9) (#326)
    by Quila on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 06:27:34 AM EST

    Through Russia, Saddam had veto power over any inspectors. Two more qualified, more bloodhound-like, inspectors were disapproved by Saddam because they might find something. He approved Blix because he knew Blix would be controllable and too incompetent to find anything. This is the same Blix that received an honorary doctorate from the University of Moscow in 1987 after his work appraising the sarcophagus at Chernobyl, saying it'll last something like 40 years. Yes, that's the one that's leaking radiation all over the place right now. So, let's send in one of the first choices, but not the incompetent Blix.

    Hans Blix was their last choice. (5.00 / 1) (#376)
    by StrifeZ on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 11:07:19 AM EST

    I heard on the news that when the security council was debating who would lead UNMOVIC, they had a list of 21 names, in order that they wanted to debate. They couldnt agree on the first 20. Hans Blix was #21, their last choice...


    KITTENS@(_%&@%@_($&@(_$&^@$()&@%@+(&%
    [ Parent ]
    They couldn't agree (none / 0) (#385)
    by Quila on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 11:34:49 AM EST

    Because Russia (and France to some extent) would not allow any inspector that didn't have Saddam's seal of approval.

    Another Swede, Rolf Ekeus, was an excellent choice for the position and high on the list, but Russia blocked his appointment on orders from Saddam. Apparently Ekeus was a little too good, and had a habit of not falling for Saddam's BS.

    And people thought the inspections could actually work while Saddam was holding all the high cards. Of course, due to the financial windfall for the U.N. through the Oil-for-Food program, I don't think the U.N. had much incentive to ever clear the matter up.

    [ Parent ]

    "on orders from Saddam" (none / 0) (#703)
    by Meatbomb on Sun Apr 27, 2003 at 03:57:38 AM EST

    Putin: Saddam, sir, we have the list of possible inspectors. Who shall we vote for? Blix? Yes sir, Saddam sir! Any other orders? No? Chirac apologizes for not being on this conference call, sir, he promises to report in tomorrow morning.

    _______________

    Good News for Liberal Democracy!

    [ Parent ]
    That sounds about right (none / 0) (#712)
    by Quila on Mon Apr 28, 2003 at 04:15:22 AM EST

    Except it's more like "Who on this list is acceptable to you?  Blix?  Okay, we'll veto the rest."

    [ Parent ]
    Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs (4.77 / 18) (#336)
    by Hornblower on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 07:55:47 AM EST

    The CIA publication "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs" was to a large extent the basis for the Bush administrations rush to war. It is often very specific. Some highlights:

  • Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles [...]
  • Iraq largely has rebuilt missile and biological weapons facilities damaged during Operation Desert Fox [...]
  • Iraq probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons (MT) and possibly as much as 500 MT of CW agents.
  • Thousands of tons of chemical precursors [...] remain unaccounted for.

    It seems as if they really know what they are talking about, dont it? Yet, when the CIA actually are in Iraq, they are unable to locate even one of these "biological weapons facilities" or procure a single barrel of the several hundred metric tons (!) that they are talking about. Funny.


    Make tea, not war.

  • Knowing what != knowing where (none / 0) (#752)
    by ThoughtMachine on Wed Apr 30, 2003 at 04:14:26 PM EST

    I read an interesting article a while ago (I'm afraid I forget where, ironically) that pointed out that the CIA probably has very solid evidence about what has been imported into Iraq. But they may not have any idea what happened once the cargo leaves the ship. Thus, they probably have very little to tell them where it went inside Iraq and they can only guess what Iraq used it for based on what the cargo was.

    The CIA saw chemical precursors, alluminum tubes, etc., etc., that are on the no-import list go into Iraq. Now that the CIA is in Iraq, finding these items and figuring out what they were used for is going to be a challenge, and it is going to take time.


    Rate low? Why so? It's bad form to rate low and run.
    [ Parent ]
    Excuse me? (3.12 / 8) (#345)
    by regeya on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 09:09:22 AM EST

    Four weeks, three false alarms, and one nearly successful military campaign later, the US has found no conclusive evidence of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

    Where's your proof? Lack of reporting on discovered WMDs does not constitute a lack of WMDs.

    The U.S. is currently declining to identify this man and refusing to even give the branch of the Iraqi government that he previously worked for. The military claims that they could jeapordize this man's life by giving out any incriminating information including what chemicals were found at the site he led them to. The U.S. also won't let anybody interview this man. This sort of vague fractional information gives semblance to the Bush Administration's behavior three months ago, offering "irrefutable proof" of the existance of WMD's in grainy photos of unidentifiable buildings and badly translated random phone calls in Arabic between two unknown people. (emphasis mine.)

    I think you solved the problem yourself. Am I just an idiot for finding that reason plausible? Since it probably constitutes spouting the party line, the average anti-war protester will probably say "yes," though they've likely not put much thought into it.

    As others have said, it's likely that Hans Blix was chosen for his incompetence, and while he was bumbling about, Iraq was busy moving their WMDs. If you're not hearing about WMDs on your local news, it's probably because a.) troops haven't located the new place yet or b.) they're just not revealing that yet.

    The great fear is that Saddam was busy producing large quantities of chemical/biological weapons, IIRC. It s not as if they haven't used them before, so we know they've at least had chemical weapons in the past.

    [ yokelpunk | kuro5hin diary ]

    Can't we all just get along? (none / 0) (#349)
    by synaesthesia on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 09:23:19 AM EST

    Ironic sig, seeing as the answer to your question is that the burden of proof is self-evidently on the ones who started the war in the first place.


    Sausages or cheese?
    [ Parent ]
    Just wait! (none / 0) (#351)
    by regeya on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 09:37:12 AM EST

    I think the U.S. is waiting until Sweeps Week to provide your proof!

    The ratings should be through the roof!

    In case you don't get the humor: I'm referring to the rather short-attention-span mentality that, because the U.S. hasn't wrapped this thing up yet, the whole thing is a dismal failure. I mean, major fighting ended, what, two weeks ago, and they haven't managed to find WMDs in a country the size of California yet?

    Get a grip, people; they're not just fishing over there.

    [ yokelpunk | kuro5hin diary ]
    [ Parent ]

    Oh, what? (none / 0) (#360)
    by synaesthesia on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 10:18:32 AM EST

    They managed to take a country of that size by force in a fortnight, but they can't find in the same amount of time WMDs the whereabouts of which they already knew, or perhaps they can't be bothered because after all, international opinion is that such things don't matter?

    Get a grip, indeed.


    Sausages or cheese?
    [ Parent ]

    Stop it. (none / 0) (#443)
    by regeya on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 04:39:42 PM EST

    They managed to take a country of that size by force in a fortnight

    That's a pretty simplistic view; are you sure you're not an American?

    Since you've not been paying attention, I suggest you catch up on this week's news, and I mean real news, before you spout off any more idiotic comments. Like, find out what troops are supposedly up to (as if you're going to get a straight story out of a war zone; again, get a grip) and find out what the priorities supposedly are this moment.

    [ yokelpunk | kuro5hin diary ]
    [ Parent ]

    Fair enough. (none / 0) (#459)
    by synaesthesia on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 05:47:01 PM EST

    Good point, well made.

    Incidentally, I am not an American, and it seems to me that finding WMDs has been a priority throughout this conflict, even before the Coalition declared 'victory'.


    Sausages or cheese?
    [ Parent ]

    Rational agents... (none / 0) (#357)
    by pr0t0plasm on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 10:09:15 AM EST

    ...is a good description of what people aren't. It doesn't matter that you can't prove a negative, that the time frame expected by the world public is for the discovery of any WMD is mayfly-short, or that the UN team may not be the best people for the job. What many governments and their populaces seem to want as justification for this war is UN-verified undeclared WMD sites; the Bush administration courts a backlash if it can't deliver this, however unreasonable that may be.


    - - - - - Patent applied for and deliver us from evil.
    [ Parent ]

    Burden of Proof (3.66 / 3) (#394)
    by randinah on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 12:18:22 PM EST

    The burden of Proof to find WMD's in Iraq is squarely on the US. (and hopefully the U.N., but right now that looks like wishfull thinking).

    The only proof I have to offer of the lack of WMD's in Iraq is the fact that the US hasn't found any, and quite frankly, is starting to sweat a little.

    And that scientist they found..that was two days ago and i haven't seen any new headlines. The building where they found the "building blocks" of chemical weapons - that headline has also mysteriously disappeared. You'd think a smoking gun would be dominating the headlines by now.

    Unless the US is trying to downplay another false alarm..


    "Why waste time learning when ignorance is instantaneous?"
    [ Parent ]
    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#448)
    by dafranimal on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 04:43:37 PM EST

    The U.N. resolutions placed the burden of proof on Iraq. Since Iraq provided no proof that their weapons had been destroyed and on several occasions lied about what weapons they did have the U.S. has a case that Iraq was in material breach of the resolutions. This case was never argued to any decision in the U.N. and I doubt it ever will be.

    The U.N. resolutions don't say: "If Iraq doesn't prove that they have no weapons and someone attacks them that someone must provide proof that Iraq has the weapons." The fact that Iraq has weapons is assumed. So you see, there is no burden of proof on the U.S. to find WMD. It is of no bearing other than international image.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree (none / 0) (#451)
    by randinah on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 04:55:52 PM EST

    You have a point on a global scale. But I responded to the parent comment because he asked me where the proof was that Iraq didn't have these WMD's.

    For my purposes, it's up to the United States to prove that this war was justified, and that Iraq was a threat to American and International safety. In a court of internation law, things would be different.


    "Why waste time learning when ignorance is instantaneous?"
    [ Parent ]
    Ahhh (none / 0) (#458)
    by dafranimal on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 05:43:41 PM EST

    In that case ... sorry for jumping to conclusions. I semi-agree with you. I think WMD is one of the things that the U.S. would do well to show the world: WMD, terrorism, torture, mass murder, and the like.

    Torture and mass muder have already been shown. But, I don't think it's anything the world didn't all ready know. What they do require to be convinced (if it is even possible) is WMD. Even some links to terrorism won't be enough (unless they bear the correct name, Al Qeda).

    For my purposes, I've really already weighed the pros and the cons and made my decision on the war in Iraq. However, it would be helpful to have some WMD to further support my position that it was the right thing to do. Namely that Saddam had already proven himself to be a threat and refused to prove that he was now a much smaller threat.

    [ Parent ]

    Of course Iraq had them at one point... (4.00 / 1) (#417)
    by divinus on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 01:37:43 PM EST

    Plenty of US companies have reciepts as proof. =)


    [ Parent ]
    what is it with you liberals? (1.72 / 11) (#350)
    by turmeric on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 09:33:09 AM EST

    SADDAM HUSSEIN GASSED HIS OWN PEOPLE. why dont you go whine about WMD in the workers paradise of north korea?

    SO DID PUTIN! (2.50 / 2) (#355)
    by michaelp on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 10:03:23 AM EST

    less go gitim!

    "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

    [ Parent ]
    Hypocrit (3.40 / 5) (#359)
    by Space on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 10:16:49 AM EST

    The US starved 500,000 Iraqi children to death through sanctions against Iraq. The UN director responsible for administering the sanctions resigned in protest calling the sanctions "genocide". Neither side of this conflict appears to have much respect for human life.
    <recycle your pets>
    [ Parent ]
    Blah Blah Blah. (3.00 / 2) (#529)
    by biggeezer on Thu Apr 24, 2003 at 10:43:32 AM EST

    Its funny how the US starved these 500,000 Iraqi children to death when they found 600+ million dollars hidden in a wall in Iraq. Why not put the blame where it belongs. On SH.. who didn't spend what money he got to help his people, spent it on Palaces and other ornaments of self grandure and took the money for himself. Grow up.. the US didn't starve them... SH did.



    [ Parent ]
    Medicines (1.00 / 1) (#656)
    by drquick on Fri Apr 25, 2003 at 11:45:13 AM EST

    They acutually - for the most part - didn't die from starvation. They died from dirty water and lack of medicines.

    Just funny there was import restrictions on chlorine - that's used in a water purification plant - and on medicines. Money doesn't buy what is not for sale.

    On a side note: The Iraqis decision to not fight in the cities seems aimed to protect civilians. Isn't it stange that Baghdad or any Iraqi city was not fortified. No positions prepared for anti-tank missiles, no dug in tanks or artillery, not even anti-tank mines. This was a great surpise. On the country side we saw masses of Iraqi anti-tank mines. This unwillingness to fight in cities shows a strange concern for civilians. I don't quite buy the deamonisation of Saddam.

    [ Parent ]

    My ass... (none / 0) (#719)
    by biggeezer on Mon Apr 28, 2003 at 02:34:52 PM EST

    You apparently didn't notice that he had almost all his major divisions protecting baghdad and I don't know.. I remeber watching some al-jazerra footage of some nice little fortifications that a bradley fighting vehicle destroyed and the iraqi troops running and shedding there clothes, one guy all the way to his underware. His troops where also fighting from mosques and hospitals. I guess you missed that part, instead of hitting almost all the other new's sources.

    Nothing he did was for his country it was for him. Any person with a eyeball and a brain could see and know that.



    [ Parent ]
    You are serious? (none / 0) (#745)
    by drquick on Wed Apr 30, 2003 at 05:58:10 AM EST

    Be the reason for it what it may: There was no fignting in the cities. That's an undisputable fact. Some sandom rifle fire doesn't count.

    Obviosly you don't realise what a fortified city looks like. Iron poles embedded into the street as tank barriers. Deep trenches that tanks cannot pass without a mobile bridge. Anti tank mines. Hidden positions for anti tank missiles. Barbed wire to stop infantery to clear way for tanks. None of this was found in Baghdad. I don't know why. I can only speculate that Saddam knew he would loose and wanted to protect the civilians. There are other theories on the net. Such as a financial agreement with the republican guard. Indeed, no republican guard generals are wanted or arrested - strange that too. Even if the republican guards had been destroyed there should be some fortifications. None were found. Pictures of a bunker does not count as anti tank barriers.

    [ Parent ]

    You are completely clueless.. (none / 0) (#748)
    by biggeezer on Wed Apr 30, 2003 at 12:25:51 PM EST

    I guess you didn't here how the marines used there amphibouse vehicles to cross the rivers on the east side of baghdad to get across because the bridges where blown. You are completely wrong.. they where fortified, just the iraq soldier has no real will to fight. Just the fight for the airport alone took over 300 iraqi lives the night they counter attacked. And that 10 US soldiers where killed in the first forway into the capital.

    And I guess you also missed all the footage from the Hotel of 2 tanks pounding the other side where there was resistance, (one being a supposely tank round hitting the hotel.)

    And if you have looked at a nice deck of cards that are getting real popular now days, there is quit a few of RG's wanted.

    There was and still is.. alot of fighting in the cities.. But, when you pound the will out of a fighting force, that fighting force isn't going to fight very hard for very long at all, and that is exactly what happened. The biggest battles of the war happened within 3 miles from the downing of the statue that you see all over the news.

    Now I am in total aggreement with you in saying that SH know he would lose. But to say he was not "fighting" in the city to protect the citizens is ridiculous(sp?). Especially when his soldiers where using civilians as protection.

    Although you bring up a few points.. such as barbed wire and such.. I got a answer for that. It is something we work on alot in the military, it's called breaching.. no matter how many barriers they through up, be it trenches or barbed wire, it isn't a problem, Never has never will be. In my 12 years of military service and 3 combat zones, not once did I ever see barbed wire stop a infrantry soldier. Tatics like that are used to funnel the enemy into what is called a kill sack so your forces can concentrate there fire. And if you do it right, and pound the other side before you breach, then no matter what they had, the breaching operation would go smooth with little to no loses.

    Just because you didn't see it or hear it.. which I did.. every time soldiers came close to a town or a bridge thats where we lost most of our troops.



    [ Parent ]
    with US help (nt) (5.00 / 2) (#364)
    by LQ on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 10:29:41 AM EST



    [ Parent ]
    Again.. (3.00 / 1) (#372)
    by biggeezer on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 10:59:41 AM EST

    Not only US's help.. but help from Germany as well.. Don't put all the blame on the US..

    [ Parent ]
    Looking askew (4.20 / 5) (#366)
    by John Bayko on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 10:35:34 AM EST

    Here's a devil's advocate view.

    What to Halabja and Nagasaki have in common? Justification.

    When Iraq declared war on Iran, it became America's ally in the region - for no particular reason. American foreign policy has always been fairly adolescent - when Iranians captured the U.S embassy and held workers there hostage, Iran became "the enemy", and any enemy of Iran was therefore a friend of America. Without actually bothering to figure out the why's and wherefores of what actually happened.

    The U.S supported Iraq, sold them top-line weapons, gave them military and intelligence support, as well as weapons technology, including for chemical weapons. They did this with full knowledge that they were to be used, and U.S intelligence reports gave Iraq the location of Iranian troops to target the gas attacks against them.

    After the war ended, Iraq faced the problems of Kurdish rebellion. They were a strong and concentrated ethnic group, with the potential to flare into a civil war, with the covert support support of Iran - it could have been as long and bloody as the Iran-Iraq war, leaving possibly millions dead. The Iraqi military decided that something decisive must be done, so it was decided that the Kurdish town of Halabja would be used to make the point that resistance was futile, and it was gassed.

    The U.S administration under Ronald Reagan knew about this, of course, but had already given Iraq support for the use of chemical weapons. Chemical weapons were used against Kurds since in World War II, when British troops gassed Kurdish villages. They kept this information a state secret, but when reporters uncovered the slaughter, they and Iraq concocted a cover story that it was actually Iran that gassed the Kurds, and stuck to the story until diplomatic relations broke down with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

    There's a point to remember when deciding whether the U.S government is telling the truth, or bald-faced lies - lies are the staple of U.S foreign policy.

    But it's important to realise that the gassing of the Kurds wasn't just barbarity - it was to prevent an even greater loss of life if the civil war had taken place and consumed the country. This was, in fact, the justification the U.S used for dropping Nuclear weapons on civilian targets in order to bring World War II to an earlier end. And as such, it had the full support of the United States.



    [ Parent ]

    Even more fun than that! (4.00 / 1) (#374)
    by it certainly is on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 11:02:42 AM EST

    The British Government is one up the US for sheer bald-faced lies.

    The Tory Government of the 1980s had a special dual policy on selling weapons to Iraq. Externally, in public, it was not on either side of the Iran-Iraq war and supported the later arms embargo on Iraq.

    Privately, to UK arms dealers, it encouraned sales of weapons to both Iran and Iraq, but especially Iraq -- it offered vastly increased Export Credit Guarantees (where the UK government would pay the arms dealer if Saddam stiffed them) to Iraq.

    Unfortunately, UK Customs officers (who weren't aware of the secret policy) caught arms dealers shipping publically prohibited weapons and prosecuted them. The arms dealers then publically announced that they had the full (secret) approval of the Government. Shit on fan time.

    kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

    Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
    [ Parent ]

    Here's what's wrong with us liberals... (3.33 / 3) (#409)
    by Chubs on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 01:22:31 PM EST

    We actually like to form our own independant ideas based on facts we gather from multiple sources instead of getting all of our information by sucking on teat of the Republican propaganda machine.

    [ Parent ]
    So has the United States... (2.00 / 4) (#413)
    by divinus on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 01:32:03 PM EST

    We've gassed our own people lots of times, especially when our own people are trying to do something stupid, like practice free speech.

    Hell, we've set our own people on fire. (see also: Waco)

    We've used biological weapons on our own people as well. Infectious agents were released into the NY subway system to test their viability as a vector for biological weapon dissemination.

    We've even used nuclear weapons on our own people. 100% of the people in the United States are irradiated right now, and have been since the 60s.

    So... in retrospect, 5000 casualties gassed with an OK from the US using weapons that the US sold them specifcally so that they could gas them doesn't seem so bad now... does it?

    [ Parent ]

    Nice. (2.66 / 3) (#519)
    by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Apr 24, 2003 at 09:49:16 AM EST

    I love it how you've decided that spreading a benign germ to monitor it's spread and the use of tear gas to quell violence without fatalities are the moral equivalent of mustard gas, sarin and anthrax.


    --
    Fishing for Men, Trolling for Newbies, what's the difference?


    [ Parent ]
    How moronic.. (3.00 / 2) (#526)
    by biggeezer on Thu Apr 24, 2003 at 10:35:39 AM EST

    You might want to do some more reading.. it was actually the German's that helped them develop the weapons that where used on the Kurds.. not the US.

    And if your going to equate CS gas, almost 99% harmless, with Mustard and VX, you might want to know how stupid you sound.

    And the 100% of people irradiated right now.. are actually from the TV's and Microwaves.. that the people bought themselves.

    So in other words.. your just plain clueless.



    [ Parent ]
    bring it. (none / 0) (#659)
    by divinus on Fri Apr 25, 2003 at 12:56:27 PM EST

    <mock>"Well, actually, bananas is red, moron! Your stupid!"</mock>

    okay, whatever. Point for point time.

    "You might want to do some more reading.. it was actually the German's that helped them develop the weapons that where used on the Kurds.. not the US." [sic]

    "From 1985 to 1990, the United States Government approved 771 licenses for the export to Iraq of $1.5 billion worth of biological agents and high-tech equipment with military application."

    "Most Americans listening to the President did not know that the United States supplied Iraq with much of the raw material for creating a chemical and biological warfare program. Nor did the media report that U.S. companies sold Iraq more than $1 billion worth of the components needed to build nuclear weapons and diverse types of missiles, including the infamous Scud."

    "When Iraq engaged in chemical and biological warfare in the 1980s, barely a peep of moral outrage could be heard from Washington, as it kept supplying Saddam with the materials he needed to build weapons."

    "The exports continued to at least November 28, 1989, despite evidence that Iraq was engaging in chemical and biological warfare against Iranians and Kurds since as early as 1984."

    (Blum, William. "Anthrax for Export." The Progressive Apr. 1998 / archive here.)

    Although the Iraq Declaration of Arms did id German suppliers, it also ided US suppliers. (although the US felt it should censor that before letting the US have the declaration)

    "And if your going to equate CS gas, almost 99% harmless, with Mustard and VX, you might want to know how stupid you sound." [sic]

    You mean "how stupidly I read", dr. ad hominem?

    As for CS gas...

    "There have been at least 61 deaths by pepper spray in the US since 1990. Risks include gene mutation, cancer, toxicity of the major body organs and possible human fatalities."

    ( "CS Gas vs Pepper Spray." Schnews Apr. 4, 1997 / archive here)

    CS gas can be fatal to people with a wide variety of health problems and can cause complicate existing respiratory conditions, some as common  as asthma.

    You ignored the mention of setting our own people on fire, so i guess you either agree with that, or don't think it's as bad as chemical/biological/nuclear attacks.

    "And the 100% of people irradiated right now.. are actually from the TV's and Microwaves.. that the people bought themselves." [sic]

    "Radiation from cosmic sources; naturally occurring radioactive materials, including radon (except as a decay product of source or special nuclear material) and global fallout as it exists in the environment from the testing of nuclear explosive devices. It does not include radiation from source, byproduct, or special nuclear materials regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The typically quoted average individual exposure from background radiation is 360 millirems per year."
    [emphasis added]

    (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Archive here)

    "Estimated percentage of the inhabitants of the contiguous United States who have been exposed to nuclear fallout : 100
    Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Atlanta)"

    ("Harper's Index." Harpers Magazine Jun. 2002 / Archive here)

    X-Ray Radiation does occur from Teles and Microwaves, but that is very different than radioactive particle fallout. Needless to say, they do not contribute much to background radiation.

    "So in other words.. your just plain clueless." [sic]

    I guess I am.

    If you have any credible information to bring to the discussion, feel free. You'll not that I specifically selected a pre-GWII source (pre 911 even) before terrorism and WMD were commonplace discussion, insuring that the article was purely academic. If you can do the same, I'd love to see it. Furthermore, if your arguments can consist of something more than spouting statements without reference or explanation, couple with completely useless and unbased insults, then it would be appreciated.

    [ Parent ]

    I love your point to point.. Now.. (none / 0) (#709)
    by biggeezer on Sun Apr 27, 2003 at 06:35:56 PM EST

    Here's Mine..

    Link showing the Germans actively encouraged the use and actually developed the weapons used on the Kurds. It also states that the US pretty much stopped at that time. A point you failed to include.

    Again.. Even in your own words you state that CS can cause injury and death. From my personal dealings with CS, it is actually only dangerouse in inclosed area's. VX, Mustard and Other WMD, you seldom ever hear of "can" you hear "will" cause death. With CS causing death maybe in 1% of the cases, and I am willing to bet that VX and Mustard are closer to 80 to 90% percent in the cases if not more.

    And another point you failed to mention was that before any law enforcement officer can use pepper spray he has to be sprayed with it himself. And 61 people dieing in over 13 years of the estamated millions of sprayings of pepper spray to me is a pretty low number. Not to mention that almost all the current pepper spray in use is made with organic materal.

    Link Pepper Spray

    Pepper spray's active ingredient is OC or oleoresin capsicum. The OC is derived from Cayenne peppers these are some of the hottest peppers in the world. So I guess that is why everytime I eat hot BQ, I feel my little toe twitch from the gene mutation.

    And since you brought it up.. I think you where refering to the Waco thing, Setting them on fire was a little over stated and most likely a accident because of a breaking of a gase pipe, Who knows if he didn't do it himself, How many self proclaimed massiahs(sp?) have killed there own, quit a few. Yet another conspiracy theory. And again you failed to mention the killings of the ATF agents from the people inside(fact and displayed live on TV) and that they had illegaly produced and bought automatic weapons another fact.

    And on the radiation kick.. your body naturally produces 25 to 35 mrems a year on its own which by the way every living organism on the planet produces mrems. And the Average natural background radiation including the human body is is exactly what you stated except living in Denver will make it higher. Hell.. even watching tv 4 hours a day for a year produces 2 mrems, radaition is naturally accuring all around you to. Hell.. Living in a brick house instead of a frame house will give you an additional 50 millirems of radiation per year. A visit to Trinity Site, where the first atomic bomb was exploded, will give you less than one millirem, less than a plane flight. I guess we can also blame every other country in the world that has shot off nuclear weapons for the fallout exposure as well which includes the US's tests 1030 USSRs 715 and Frances 210 tests China's 43 and UK's 45. and india's 1. Numbers are total. Actually atmospheric tests numbers are 215 for the US and 206 for USSR.

    Again, I say you are clueless and to busy in casparicy theories and never really stating the whole facts and the facts you do state other countries on this planet had a hand in as well.



    [ Parent ]
    Sharon killed his own people (1.00 / 1) (#654)
    by drquick on Fri Apr 25, 2003 at 11:28:30 AM EST

    Sharon killed his own people too, in Sabra and Shatila. And just how do you make Kurds Saddam's own people. Not that it makes it any better to kill others.

    [ Parent ]
    It so sad that so many Americans are so unwilling- (4.07 / 14) (#363)
    by poopi on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 10:24:21 AM EST

    -to do some critical thinking. There seems to be a national blidness. No matter how many conflict of interest stories come up with regards to the administration, how many of the Iraq "proofs" are dubunked, how many laws are passed that errode that freedom that they so proudly proclaim to the rest of the world - there is nothing wrong. Surely each of these issues on its own can be overlooked - but assemble them together - and, well, " There is something rotten in the state of Denmark". I'm not sure what exactly - but man, there are so many things that have been exposed, that at least should give a reasonable person pause for thought. Unfortunately based on everything I've seen, including the comments on this site, most Americans have not thought. What's scarier, is that a nation which prides itself about it's scepticism of government and the its inalienable right to free speech - muzzles those who'd dare to disagree. These are sad times that we live in.

    -----

    "It's always nice to see USA set the edgy standards. First for freedom, then for the police state." -

    I love this mentality.... (3.42 / 7) (#432)
    by Yanks Rule on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 03:20:44 PM EST

    Let me guess: the only Americans willing to do some critical thinking are those who agree with you right? Because that's what you are implying. Isn't it possible that there are critical thinkers who have come to different conlclusions than you?

    "No matter how many conflict of interest stories come up with regards to the administration..." Honestly, why does this even matter? In regards to Iraq Russia and France have their own conflicts of interest (but of course for them its not about oil!), in fact most governments probably have conflicts of interest in EVERY action they take.

    "...how many laws are passed that errode...freedom..." Sorry, but these supposed limits to freedom of all Americans affect such a small portion of the people in this country that it's statistically insignificant. That may be a harsh way of puting it, but it's the truth. These "limits" affect gray areas of the law and technology. People in the US have more freedom than most in their daily lives.

    "What's scarier, is that a nation which prides itself about it's scepticism of government and the its inalienable right to free speech - muzzles those who'd dare to disagree." Maybe you haven't noticed, but there are plenty of people who voice their skepticism in this country. But free speech doesn't mean people have to listen and agree. You are free to say whatever you want, and I am free to drown out your voice by yelling. THAT is freedom. Freedom has responsibilities and consequences.

    I'm not trying to flame here....It's just there are no absolutes. Nothing is black and white, so why pretend it is? Is every other government perfect? Well, why not? And why should America's be perfect?

    "I do think we live in dangerous times, and anybody who looks at the world and says this is the time to be a wuss--I can't buy that anymore. " -- Dennis Miller
    [ Parent ]

    I love this mentality too.... (none / 0) (#579)
    by EXTomar on Thu Apr 24, 2003 at 03:31:11 PM EST

    Everyone has alterior motives including the US. Most people failed to realize the reason why the CIA is sure that Iraq had weapons was because we sold or gave it to them. Wouldn't it be just as interesting to find French nuclear reactor parts sitting next to a package of smallbox from the US CDC in a bunker in Iraq? Heck I would be happy if this happened. If we are going to hold the French and the Russians accountable for the stuff they sold to Iraq lets line up too.

    The Patriot Act is a horrible horrible thing. Don't you feel a whole lot safer when any government entity can wisk people away without stating a good reason? People get stuck on "lists" for nothing more than voicing their opinion. Yeah that will only effect everyone only a tiny part of the population. It fosters the whole "arrest them now, we'll thing of a charge later" thing that is supposed to make us safer.

    I said it awhile back: something stinks about how we are dealing with Iraq. The smell still hasn't gone away. Get rid of them now, we'll think of an excuse later is a poor reason to abandon diplomacy.



    [ Parent ]
    Question (none / 0) (#676)
    by Yanks Rule on Fri Apr 25, 2003 at 07:34:22 PM EST

    "Don't you feel a whole lot safer when any government entity can wisk people away without stating a good reason? People get stuck on "lists" for nothing more than voicing their opinion. " Haven't these types of things been happening for years? Hollywood blacklists, testimony before Congress of suspected communists. JE Hoover keeping secret tabs on MLK (or something like that anyways)?

    These kinds of events, which is what most people are refferring to when talking about how freedom is eroding in the US, are not recent phenomena. So why is the US now turning into a police state (as some would argue) if this isn't a new phenomenon? Better yet, why does everyone assume a police state is where we are headed, when nothing remotely close to that happened before?

    I think people tend to look at recent events without any perspective and imagine all kinds of disaterous consequences, when in fact the reality is much more benign. And while considering all possible outcomes isn't really a bad thing, crying wolf every time is.

    "I do think we live in dangerous times, and anybody who looks at the world and says this is the time to be a wuss--I can't buy that anymore. " -- Dennis Miller
    [ Parent ]

    Sorry, but I have to chime in... (none / 0) (#714)
    by poopi on Mon Apr 28, 2003 at 08:58:43 AM EST

    ... So why is the US now turning into a police state (as some would argue) if this isn't a new phenomenon?

    Two things:

    1)If it wasn't for the people who spoke out against the blacklists and the Homeland security acts - then these things would never go away and be "benign".

    2)You obviously have never been the target of your "benign" police state and likely have never lived or visted one (I was born in the USSR) so who here is speaking without perspective? The soviet union was formed out of the highest ideals - only to become one of the most (if not the most) murderous states in history.

    To use a quotation that you feel is much overused here at K5:

    "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." --- Thomas Jefferson.

    -----

    "It's always nice to see USA set the edgy standards. First for freedom, then for the police state." - Parent ]

    Reply... (5.00 / 1) (#584)
    by poopi on Thu Apr 24, 2003 at 04:01:52 PM EST

    Just a brief reply to your points...

    1)"No matter how many conflict of interest stories come up with regards to the administration..." Honestly, why does this even matter? Because wrong is wrong even if "everybody" is doing it.

    2)"...how many laws are passed that errode...freedom..." Sorry, but these supposed limits to freedom of all Americans affect such a small portion of the people in this country that it's statistically insignificant."In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came for me -- and by that time there was nobody left to speak up."-Martin Niemoller

    3)"What's scarier, is that a nation which prides itself about it's scepticism of government and the its inalienable right to free speech - muzzles those who'd dare to disagree." Maybe you haven't noticed, but there are plenty of people who voice their skepticism in this country. But free speech doesn't mean people have to listen and agree. You are free to say whatever you want, and I am free to drown out your voice by yelling.I'd much rather you'd disgree with me through a debate of the facts, that is the mature, intelligent way to disgaree. If you have the preponderance of evidence - I may even change my mind and join you. Drowning out the voice of dissent is not proof of right it is merely proof of might, and unless you subscribe to the "Might is Right" philosophy then you would still be wrong. And if you do believe that "Might is Right" then I would posit that you do not uphold American ideals and are in fact - unamerican.

    -----

    "It's always nice to see USA set the edgy standards. First for freedom, then for the police state." - Parent ]

    Some Counterpoints... (none / 0) (#592)
    by Yanks Rule on Thu Apr 24, 2003 at 05:11:19 PM EST

    Because wrong is wrong even if "everybody" is doing it. Excellent point. EXCEPT only the U.S. gets criticized. Many people on this site act like the US is the only country with conflicts of interests, that they are the only guilty ones. No country is innocent. So if you are going to hold the US to the highest standards, do the same for every other country. That's all I'm saying.

    [Martin Niemoller quote] This might be the single most overused quote on K5 next to Ben Franklins liberty quote. Is the U.S. currently rounding up entire groups of people based soley on race/religion, or planning to do so? Yes or no. The fact is "They" are never coming for you, and "They" are never coming for me. End of story. The arrests of a handlful of people with links to shady organizations is completely different from the systematic execution of people whose only crime was being different.

    "Drowning out the voice of dissent is not proof of right it is merely proof of might, and unless you subscribe to the "Might is Right" philosophy then you would still be wrong. Well, technically a democracy is ALWAYS "might is right" because decisions are made by a majority of those involved. You are probably correct that drowning people out is not the "right" way to do things (so my analogy from before is incorrect), but somehow i don't think the Dixie Chicks are being drowned out.

    Look, people can disagree with the war, and I don't care. But they shouldn't expect there to be no consquences for what they say. If a person can't handle the criticism then that's their problem, not society's. So I say let the DCs say whatever they want, as long as they don't bitch about not getting radio airplay, or how unfairly people are treating them.

    "I do think we live in dangerous times, and anybody who looks at the world and says this is the time to be a wuss--I can't buy that anymore. " -- Dennis Miller
    [ Parent ]

    Thanks... (none / 0) (#634)
    by poopi on Fri Apr 25, 2003 at 09:23:58 AM EST

    ...for engaging me in this "debate". I won't further defend my position or try to attack yours - it seems silly to devote that much energy in this forum (perhaps we'll spar again somewhere in the comments section of another story). Suffice it to say what happened between you and I doesn't seem to be happening much in your country at least not without name calling and character assasination (the "unamerican" label for example - I used it in the previous post as an illustration). I realize that I am generalizing and certainly "both" sides are guilty but it seems to me that "tolerance" is really taking a beating in the USA and violence seems to have gained favour. I just wanted to encourage more people to debate the facts and not simply to hide behind the flag or the placard and hurl invectives at each other.

    -----

    "It's always nice to see USA set the edgy standards. First for freedom, then for the police state." - Parent ]

    National Myths (5.00 / 5) (#463)
    by czolgosz on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 06:11:33 PM EST

    There seems to be a national blidness. No matter how many conflict of interest stories come up with regards to the administration, how many of the Iraq "proofs" are dubunked, how many laws are passed that errode that freedom that they so proudly proclaim to the rest of the world - there is nothing wrong. Surely each of these issues on its own can be overlooked - but assemble them together - and, well, " There is something rotten in the state of Denmark".
    Indeed there is something rotten, and here's another symptom: this is a nation that prides itself on its individualism and self-reliance, yet unquestioningly swallows whatever lies are fed to it by its government, and where the "rugged individualists" cower like skittish sheep, while Ashcroft and his power-mad flunkies round up scapegoats.

    That's because in reality Americans are NOT individualists, they're wage-slave conformists who are used to meekly doing what they're told and trying their best to make the payments on the SUV without incurring late fees. They have little in common with Jefferson's ideal of a nation of self-sufficient farmers. It's more a nation of cringing subordinates and dependents. Don't believe me? Look at how many people at your workplace really talk back to the boss. I've worked all over the US, and one of the biggest problems I've seen at almost every firm has been the inability to question orders that make no sense. Know anyone first-hand who has ever quit on a matter of principle?

    Learn submission at work, then leave the office and say "screw you" to your political masters? Not likely. These people WANT to be bossed around, and that's why they don't reject authoritarianism and petty repression.
    Why should I let the toad work squat on my life? --Larkin
    [ Parent ]
    Heh (none / 0) (#599)
    by pyramid termite on Thu Apr 24, 2003 at 07:32:15 PM EST

    Look at how many people at your workplace really talk back to the boss.

    I guess you've never worked in a factory, right? Where I work, it's a close race between obvious passive/agressiveness and in your face insubordination. Those who never question anything are a small minority there.

    On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
    [ Parent ]
    Yeah (none / 0) (#678)
    by czolgosz on Fri Apr 25, 2003 at 08:24:53 PM EST

    I guess you've never worked in a factory, right? Where I work, it's a close race between obvious passive/agressiveness and in your face insubordination. Those who never question anything are a small minority there.
    You're right, I was referring to office workers. And I should have known better, since I spent a few happy but poorly-compensated years in my youth doing factory jobs and driving a truck. Learned a lot, too, besides new ways of telling the boss to eat my shorts. Why forklifts and cannabis are a dangerous combination, for one thing.
    Why should I let the toad work squat on my life? --Larkin
    [ Parent ]
    Its payback time. (1.00 / 12) (#380)
    by StrifeZ on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 11:24:43 AM EST

    The US is going to penalize France.

    Maybe we should lift some of our agriculture quotas. Since France is already breaking EU law when it comes to agriculture, this will effect them more than anyone else. The US produces the most surplus grains in the entire world. If we flood the market with it from what we have in our storage silos, it could effectivly kick a leg out from under their chair.

    Or we could limit their ability to import American technology, much like we do China. By preventing American companies from doing buisness with Ariannespace, we could crash their fledging commerical space industry.

    Or the US Treasury could widhold some American dollars in the market, putting less Dollars in the marketplace and dramatically raising its strength against the Euro.

    Ah the ways we can screw the traitor. Hopefully, it'll be lasting mark. As for Germany and France, well Germany cant mess itself up any worse (11% old West German unemployment, 21% old East German), and the US and Russia are too busy getting rich off eachother off the new oil pipelines build built. But France... hoooboy is that miserable little Eurotrash nation in for it.

    Its payback time.


    KITTENS@(_%&@%@_($&@(_$&^@$()&@%@+(&%
    Ridiculous (4.66 / 3) (#392)
    by Space on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 12:04:32 PM EST

    All those suggestions are ridiculous and are more likely to hurt the US economy and It's coalition allies than France. The grain option would hurt both US and Australian grain growers. The technology option would hurt the US technology sector. The currency option would be catastrophic because it would disadvantage US exporters, scare US creditors and stengthen the Euro's trading power. Any of these moves would not only be shamelesly vindictive but further damage US foreign relations.
    <recycle your pets>
    [ Parent ]
    Retalatory actions and monetary policy (1.83 / 6) (#405)
    by StrifeZ on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 01:06:19 PM EST

    Uh, the point is to be shamlessly vindictive. France, our ally, betrayed us to a miserable little Arab regieme in the form of political support, money, intelligence and, worst of all weapons (as recent as 2002). The point is to remind them who holds the leash. When a dog poops on the carpet, you have to house break it before giving it love. We're going to house break France. Hopefully, that with their hilarious crime rate, and corruption charges brings the Chirac Government crashing down. Make no mistake about it. The war is over. We won, now we're going for the jugular with our so called friends who betrayed us at every corner and put the UN above NATO.

    The US Government Approved some $650 billion in new farm subsidies in 2002, I think it was. We already produce far too much, and if we release low cost grain into the market place, we'll eat up market share and reap the benefits while undercutting other nations, who would have to sell at a loss just to keep up.

    US tech sector already doesnt do a heck of a lot of buisness with France (they are very slow adpoting new technology). By putting in place China like restrictions, it wouldn't really damage the tech sector while sort of showing france how we regard them.

    There is some rediculous idea on this site, fabricated by Anti-Americanism here, that the Euro is some how close to replacing the Dollar because of its strength. we'll, heres the thing. Its not that the Euro is strong, its that the dollar is purposfulyl devalued.

    This "Euro is the next world currency" thing is a little figment imagined up on messageboards net wide (sorta like how Linux will eventually replace windows in homes).

    Let me put it this way...

    During the Clinton Administration, there was a policy of a very strong dollar. Basically, the treasury took steps to keep the dollar rediculously strong. While a strong currency could be seen as a matter of national pride, it is really an issue in disguise.

    The problem arises from how economies work: exports and imports. If the dollar is very strong, it means that other countries have to pay more to pay more to get American exports. While the strong dollar is good for a consumerist economy, America is intentionally desigend to be half consumerist, half corporate. Basically, by having a super strong dollar, the US monetary policy was handicapping half of the US economy.

    So what does that say about the Dollar today? The Bush Administration has more savvy economists and buisness men than the Clinton Administration. At the end of the Clinton Administration, there were moves to intentionally weaken the dollar against other currencies becase 8 years of strong dollar monetary policy was hurting the corporate sector by limiting exports. When the Bush Administrationt took over, they made the CHOICE to strike more of a balance of a stable, fairly strong dollar, but a dollar that is not over inflacted that it is 1 dollar to 2 euros like it was originally.

    While some of the dollar devaluation has to do with the recession and increased government spending (meaning more dollars in the market), much of its current position is intentional. It is meant to make American products (like technology and high performance composite metals) more affordable to other nations. It will gradually kick start more rapid growth than we're seeing. The Feds have done this before (in the 70s and 80s) and its worked great. It just takes several quarters.

    So basically, what you're seeing is a dollar that is intentionally weakened to strengthen the US economy, not a Euro that has grown in strength.

    I'll remind you, in Germany, the worlds 4th largest economy (after china and japan), and Euro's real muscle, they have 11% unemployment, 20% unemployment on the old East Germany side, and flat growth or negative growth for nearly 10 years straight. I dont think Germany has broken 1% quarter over quarter growth in 5 years.

    By contrast, the US ecnomy has 5.8% unemployment and stable growth of the 2.5-5% range over the last 5 years.

    Another signal of the US Dollars strength? China. China's economy is built wholly on a massive (almost unfairly massive) consumer base and influx of American dollars. The chineese currency is practically worthless and all the major economic projects, from urban revitalization to American investment is done in dollars, mostly by American companies. It is dollars and American corporations that are keeping China's growing because they see it as a massive, unexploited market base.

    So stop this nonsense about an economic shift in the world. It is simply not true. To quote Chairman Greenspan "It is foolish to consider the Stock Market an indicator of economic strength". Seeing the numbers on the evening news than using it to judge how well the american economy is doing is a very amaturish, and frankly, nonsensical way to judge the economy.


    KITTENS@(_%&@%@_($&@(_$&^@$()&@%@+(&%
    [ Parent ]
    Yea (3.00 / 2) (#421)
    by kableh on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 02:21:17 PM EST

    Those brilliant economists in the Bush administration. I mean, tax cuts for the rich while we're laying off teachers across the nation, tapping the Social Security surplus that was going to pay for the Baby Boomers, etc., brilliant!

    What really pisses me off is that when Bush loses the next election miserably (he'd better, or I'm headed north), the next president is going to catch flak for not fixing the enormous mess Bush has created.

    As for your comment about France "siding with a dictator" over us, well, I refuse to debate that issue with someone who can polarize it so.

    [ Parent ]
    Tax cuts (2.00 / 4) (#438)
    by StrifeZ on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 04:05:16 PM EST

    The dirty little secret of taxes is that the top 20% pay 2/3rds of the country's taxes. The people who democrats want to give tax cuts to, the lower middle class, pay very little, and its also the democrats voter base.

    Tax cuts for the top 20% are real tax cuts. Otherwise, its just playing with numbers.

    Personally, im against all tax cuts. We have have wars to fight and deficits to cut. But as a measure of GDP, the deficit is nothing, so I wont whine about it.


    KITTENS@(_%&@%@_($&@(_$&^@$()&@%@+(&%
    [ Parent ]
    Tax cuts.. (none / 0) (#469)
    by sramkrishna on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 06:52:50 PM EST

    I never really agreed with tax cuts for the upper rich. Yes, I believe that a person who earns his wealth should not be punished for being smart and resourceful and being successful. They should be able to keep as much as fair. Although there are times I'd like to see them cut especially with executives giving themselves golden parachutes (money they didnt' earn IMHO)

    I just can't believe that the top percentage would fuel growth on a bear market. I think if you take in the buying power of the middle class I think it's much larger than the upper class. For instance, when we have more money in our pockets the number of sales of high end geek stuff goes up. Moviie attendance goes up. THere is an immediate effect on the economy.

    The contribution the higher class would give is investments. IInvestments take time, sometimes years. It doesn't help the old lady down the street pay her medicare or prescription bills. It doesn't help the disadvantaged.

    I think a more balanced tax benefit is needed. Successful companies need to have tax breaks, so that they can invest more in the future, create more exciting products.

    The middle income needs some relief so that they can spend today, and energize our economy. I don't see the proper diversification.

    Taxcuts to a particular class of society isn't the answer.

    The answer is directed tax cuts at particular income levels in the middle class, tax cuts to successful companies, reduce government spenditure etc. None of which I'm seeing from the govt. I would think that a Republican congress/president would be doing these things. But I'm seeing just as much bloat as ever.

    Schools should be teaching the important subjects like chemistry, math, not photography or even foreign language. Give these people the right tools to succeed.

    They can take most of that stuff in college, it's not appropriate in high school. (or send them to private school if thats what they want)

    So in that vein, I think Bush's fiscal policy has been utter crap, and I don't think much thought has been put into it. I think it could have been done smarter. Clearly, he needs better economic advisors. His greatest contribution I thought was the fact that combined income families have to pay less taxes. We need more of that.

    sri

    [ Parent ]

    Taxes and Schools (4.00 / 3) (#482)
    by StrifeZ on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 10:30:33 PM EST

    I agree with you 100%, especially about schools.

    The American School system is pathetic. I live in a pretty affluent community in the North East with one of the Strongest Public School systems in the state. In 3rd grade, kids were learning about the wonders of the universe by playing with bubbles and playing with colored rods.

    Meanwhile, over in Hong Kong...

    3rd graders are learning pre-algebra... in their 3rd language (English, after Chineese and some other language).

    School, especially elementry and middle school, have become too soft... too much focus on child hood development and self esteem and not enough cold hard science and math. Text books? forget about it. Same with middle school. Photography and "Spanish" is taking up room where Math and Physics should be.

    New Scientists maturing are based on mastery of these fundamentals at an early age, and just as importantly, sparking their interest. Right now, too many kids are wasting their time in "soft school". This weakness lasts all the way through to college, where, just by judging by the number of liberal arts majors, you can see that many Americans just had bad school years and going into things like Spanish and Classics. Meanwhile, the 12th grader in Hong Kong is learning Multivariable Calculus. In the US, the problem stems from a few things: lac of funds for schools, protection of bad teachers by the teachers union (where job security of 29 year old bimbos is more important than educating the next generation), and short school days.

    Bush's fiscal policy is sort of lame, but the effects of it can be dealt with it. Although no one says this, I think that the Iraq war will help generate jobs, especially as it comes to hiring workers to help rebuild Iraq and bring in revenue to some of the nation's largest companies so that they can hire workers. Tax cuts, im not for them and i think $1.3 trillion and $750 billion are far too big. It should be $0, but $350 billion is livable.

    But this country's problems with education are much bigger and will have more dire efects.


    KITTENS@(_%&@%@_($&@(_$&^@$()&@%@+(&%
    [ Parent ]
    Yep.. (none / 0) (#538)
    by sramkrishna on Thu Apr 24, 2003 at 11:35:30 AM EST

    Yes, education has been lacking.  However, one comment on Asian schools.  I happened to have one year of school in India and I can tell you that what Asian countries don't do is foster creative thinking.  This is where the American school system has the edge.  I found at least the indian education system to be all about memorization and wrote.  Creative thinking is not encouraged.  So thats the flip side of education there.  Thats also why you see the U.S./ West being able to take technology i n different directions than it's Asian counterparts who are mostly refining defined processes already.

    Yes, the war on Iraq probably will generate some jobs in the U.S.   War was what got us out of the Depression.  I'm sure this has probably occurred to a lot of people both inside and outside the U.S.  Reactions differ according to your political spectrum and of course what country your from.  I'm taking a middle road.  I see myself as a libertarian(the nonwacko type) with liberal tendencies. (ie socially liberall, fiscally conservative)

    sri

    [ Parent ]

    I agree (none / 0) (#539)
    by kableh on Thu Apr 24, 2003 at 11:40:37 AM EST

    About the school thing. That is what irks me. I'm middle class I guess, though a bit young, but I've been paying taxes since I was 16. I've come to accept that there are some services worth paying the government for. And when our school system is suffering the way it is, I think pushing for a tax cut is repulsive. Sure, I'd like more money back come the end of the year, but I'd also like my little brother to get a decent education.

    So please don't interprete my feelings as some sort of envy towards the rich. It is more that I am disgusted that Dick Cheney's dividends are more important than educating our youth.

    If I wanted to suspect the worst, well, the prez put it best himself: " And that's why I say, if you're broke and horny and get all knocked up - especially by some relative or stranger in the park because you were just asking for it in that little hooker outfit - well tough tittie: keep contributing to my wealth, you cheap slut. And while you're at it, don't forget to teach your Oreo Cookie kid how to steam my wife's Mocha Cappuccino."

    [ Parent ]
    Hmmm... (none / 0) (#553)
    by cr8dle2grave on Thu Apr 24, 2003 at 01:04:52 PM EST

    This weakness lasts all the way through to college, where, just by judging by the number of liberal arts majors, you can see that many Americans just had bad school years and going into things like Spanish and Classics.

    That's mighty presumptuous of you. Do you see no place in society for the study of history, language, and culture? And how is it that the study of Spanish and Classics necessarily deprives one of the opportunity to study mathematics and the applied sciences? Must we all become scientists and mathematicians?

    ---
    Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


    [ Parent ]
    There is a place of course (5.00 / 1) (#605)
    by StrifeZ on Thu Apr 24, 2003 at 09:01:51 PM EST

    Not that theres no place, but its very unbalanced. Some people just aren't attuned to mathematics and science like they are writing. Thats okay. Everyone has their unique skills and talents.

    But the population of liberal arts versus sciences (not including medicine) is so heavily skewed towards liberal arts that many scholariships are being created to get kids away from Liberal Arts and towards sciences, especially minoritiy students.

    Of course there is a place for language and classics, but scientific research moves society forward... reading Virgil in the original Latin is looking towards the past.

    to be clear, its not that everyone must become scientsits and mathematicians, its just that more people must, and it has to start at an early age.


    KITTENS@(_%&@%@_($&@(_$&^@$()&@%@+(&%
    [ Parent ]
    Fair Enough... (none / 0) (#613)
    by cr8dle2grave on Fri Apr 25, 2003 at 12:04:39 AM EST

    to be clear, its not that everyone must become scientsits and mathematicians, its just that more people must, and it has to start at an early age.

    I've got no complaints with drastically improving science and math education, but I believe it can be done without slighting study of the humanities and social sciences (which could also do with a drastic improvement in early age instruction).

    ---
    Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


    [ Parent ]
    need not greed (2.00 / 1) (#485)
    by Space on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 10:57:30 PM EST

    Have you considered that perhaps the lower middle class need more money while the top 20% simply greed more money? All the reforms throughout the US economy such as the defeat of organised labour, decline in public services and financial deregulation have hurt the lower-middle class most and benefit the top 20%. To claim that the top 20% are paying too much tax is just increasing inequality along a progressive trend.
    <recycle your pets>
    [ Parent ]
    traitor? (4.80 / 5) (#407)
    by Amesha Spentas on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 01:11:28 PM EST

    "Ah the ways we can screw the traitor."

    Since when is a sovereign country acting in it's own best interests a "traitor?"
    Has the United States suddenly annexed the rest of the world without notifying anyone, or do you just believe that the rest of the world needs to do anything and everything the US demands?

    Registered to die for the government at 18, and had to pay postage on the registration form - AnalogBoy
    [ Parent ]

    Military help to Iraq (1.00 / 3) (#408)
    by StrifeZ on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 01:22:03 PM EST

    They are traitors - traitors to NATO, when they put the UN above the military alliance and common defense of a NATO member (Turkey). When they traded a fellow free democratic nation in for a ruthless dictator when they provided Saddam with political cover, intelligence against the US, money, support, and worst of all, weapons that would be used to kill American Soldiers. As recent as late 2002, Iraq recieved new French rockets for use in their version of the MRLS. They provided weapons to an enemy that an alliance member was fighting. Theres even been talk of French Generals helping Iraq on strategy.

    If that doesnt constitute treason, I don't know what does. The US should seek to expel France from NATO for this treasonous act. They broke the very foundation of the alliance by helping a member nation's enemy.

    On a more philisophical level, France betrayed the principles of Democracy by siding with a dictator instead of its people.

    Its time for France to know the true nature of economic and political devastation for their treason.


    KITTENS@(_%&@%@_($&@(_$&^@$()&@%@+(&%
    [ Parent ]
    Treason? (4.75 / 4) (#435)
    by Richard Henry Lee on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 03:54:28 PM EST

    above the military alliance and common defense of a NATO member (Turkey). When they traded a fellow free democratic nation in for a ruthless dictator when they provided Saddam with political cover, intelligence against the US IRAN, money, support, and worst of all, weapons that would be used to kill American Soldiers.

    Rewind to 1985 and which NATO member am I describing with your words? Be careful with your charges of treason. Only the lily-white dare sit in judgement and the US is not.


    Let this happy day give birth to an American republic. Let her arise, not to devastate and to conquer, but to reestablish the reign of peace and of law. - June 7, 1776

    [ Parent ]
    On traitors (5.00 / 4) (#456)
    by Amesha Spentas on Wed Apr 23, 2003 at 05:41:39 PM EST

    Well let's just look at your arguments shall we?

    "They are traitors - traitors to NATO, when they put the UN above the military alliance and common defense of a NATO member (Turkey). "

    Turkey was never threatened by Iraq. During the entire (brief) war turkey was never attacked by Iraqi troops. If Iraq had attacked Turkey, turkey could have then requested assistance from NATO. Under the NATO treaty neither France nor any other NATO country is required to supply troops if a member nation is not under direct threat and that did not happen.

    Second, "When they traded a fellow free democratic nation in for a ruthless dictator when they provided Saddam with political cover, intelligence against the US, money, support, and worst of all, weapons that would be used to kill American Soldiers."

    Well let's look at this argument shall we? The US sold the majority of WMD to Iraq during its war with Iran. We "provided Saddam with political cover, intelligence", ... "money, support, and worst of all, weapons that would be used to kill American Soldiers."
    The whole threat from Iraq wasn't the conventional weapons they were purchasing from other countries (the majority of them were Russian.) Those weapons have proven to be useless against the military force of the United States military might. The reasoning given was that Iraq was trying to possess WMD. Weapons that would provide Iraq with an asymmetrical advantage out of proportion to it's military might. Those weapons were never sold to Iraq from France. The only known and confirmed sales to Iraq of WMD were from the US. The UN embargo did not prohibit sales of conventional weapons to Iraq it prevented the sales of WMD. Unless you can prove that France sold WMD to Iraq then you have no arguments of Treason against France on these grounds.

    "They provided weapons to an enemy that an alliance member was fighting."

    Actually no they did not. In 2002 the United States was not at war with Iraq. By the time war with Iraq became a serious possibility France had stopped selling any weapons to Iraq.
    Unless you are faulting the French on not being able to foresee which countries the United States will go to war with and which will become our allies. This clairvoyance is an ability that most American policymakers lack. I don't see how the French could possibly possess such knowledge. Throughout 2002 Bush claimed that he hoped that diplomacy would prevail. (Yea right.) France tried to prevent the countries from engaging in war. They did try to allow diplomacy to prevail, preventing those American Soldiers to enter into harms way. It was the bull headed desire of Bush to have this little war that placed those solders in danger.
    Not any act of the French.

    Theres even been talk of French Generals helping Iraq on strategy.

    Once again you would have to prove that France was advising Iraq on strategy when war with Iraq was imminent or ongoing, not before, and why do I think that this talk is mostly coming from the US?

    If that doesnt constitute treason, I don't know what does.

    It doesn't and you don't. If you did you would not be using words like treason, which do not apply to countries. Iraq was never a threat to NATO. NATO never passed any resolution to go to war with Iraq. The United States never tried to involve NATO in its war with Iraq. This was a war that a member of NATO started. Just like when England (A NATO member) went to war with Argentina, did England have the right to demand that the United States sever all economic ties to Argentina during the Falkland war? No. Did the Unites States have any right to demand that France sever all economic ties with Iraq? No.
    NATO is a mutual defense pact. For it to come into any relevance with regards to Iraq a NATO member must have been threatened and Turkey never was. If Turkey came under attack they could request the support of NATO. Not before. If you want to make the argument that France denied the request to provide NATO troops to defend Turkey, you must realize that Turkey would not have been under any threat if another NATO member (The US) was not threatening war with Iraq. (And since Turkey did not allow American troops to cross their boarder on the ground, they never came under attack.)