Which is worse?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Oklahoma, May 10, 2004.

  1. showmet

    showmet olen tomppeli

    Messages:
    3,322
    Likes Received:
    1
    This is wrong. UNSCOM and UNMOVIC had proven that Iraq was 95% disarmed of weapons banned under resolution 687. If you read what turned out to be Hans Blix's final UNMOVIC report, there were a couple of hundred remaining issues which consisted of "grey areas". UNMOVIC was basically a big audit trail - the remaining unresolved issues were where they did not have documentary proof that certain materials had been destroyed. The existence of the materials these issues referred to was often itself only inferred. Inferred from calculations about how much of a certain chemical agent could have been produced from the quantities of materials listed on a certain invoice or receipt. Etcetera. So many of the materials may not have ever existed, many of them may have been destroyed and their destruction not properly documented. This is what Saddam consistently claimed - all banned materials have been destroyed.

    There are also good reasons why Saddam had a history of not fully co-operating with the UN inspectors. During the first years of inspection, UNSCOM were discovering hidden weapons - they discovered and destroyed pretty much everything that was ever there. But the US played dirty tricks by infiltrating the UN inspection team with CIA agents, there solely for the purposes of military spying, totally contrary to the UN's purpose in Iraq. Saddam knew this. This strongly undermined the co-operation he was prepared to offer and increased his suspicions that the UN inspectors were all US stooges - some of them were. Effectively, the USA repeatedly sabotaged the inspection process in this way. Despite this, UNSCOM succeeded in totally disarming Iraq - a fact later all but proved by UNMOVIC under Blix.

    We were right to be cautious about believing Saddam's claims that Iraq had no remaining banned weapons. But the work done by UNMOVIC was so thorough and so very nearly complete that there was simply no call for an immediate war to rid the country of a small number of possibly remaining banned materials, which probably did not exist in any usable form, if at all. The intelligence agencies knew this. The pro-war governments spun the information contained in Blix's reports to suggest that Iraq was defying the will of the UN. In fact, if you read his reports, he repeatedly stated just how helpful the regime was being in facilitating the inspection process during the time UNMOVIC was in the country. The diplomatic pressure was really working. The world community cried out to let the inspectors finish the work they were doing - to let UNMOVIC complete its task, as Blix requested.

    As we now know, it seems almost certain that Saddam was telling the truth. That UNSCOM and UNMOVIC had succeeded in their task. There were no banned weapons.

    The war was fought for quite other reasons than those given. The "crisis" of the threat from Iraq was engineered during 2002 for political reasons, using 9/11 as a figleaf.
     
  2. Changeyourlatitude

    Changeyourlatitude Banned

    Messages:
    213
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well that is a clinical position of lawyer perfection. UNSCOM and UNMOVIC said it so it must be true!

    I worked security at an Army Depot in Korea in the 70’s and every year a highly acclaimed team like UNSCOM and UNMOVIC inspection team would inspect the facility and award high acclaims to the 1100 Korean Civil workforce. All Army regulations were followed precisely! The problem was nine million dollars of materials came up missing each year. The Depot Commander appointed a team of Supply Specialist and a team of Security Specialist to investigate the flaws of the “highly acclaimed” team. I was the Non Commissioned Officer In Charge of Security. I violated the hell out of these civil servants rights and in the first year saved the government seven million dollars. The next year’s savings rose to nine million dollars in comparison to the former decade.

    Brainacks of science can’t see an elephant in front of them if the data findings say the elephant isn’t there. Common sense sees through the smoke and mirrors and proves the shit was really stolen and how it happened.
    Changeyourlatitude
     
  3. Incubus

    Incubus Banned

    Messages:
    104
    Likes Received:
    1
    Survival requires somebody sacrificed, its either us or them. I hate bush but I hate "arabs" alot more.
     
  4. showmet

    showmet olen tomppeli

    Messages:
    3,322
    Likes Received:
    1
    Riiiiight, so the only basis for thinking that Iraq might have had massive stockpiles of hidden weapons banned under resolution 687 is that "common sense" tells you they did? That since the UN inspection teams were scientists and bureaucrats, they must have been mistaken?

    And where are these stockpiles now?

    With the greatest respect, you're talking bollocks, friend.:)
     
  5. Changeyourlatitude

    Changeyourlatitude Banned

    Messages:
    213
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is not over yet! A few envelopes of dust closed the government down in the US. Postal workers still litigate. Why did the government have satellite video of small planes flying in circles in Iraq? A hobby for Sadam or his sons? What could these planes be used for? Ask your elders about the buzz from Germany that caused the rush to bomb shelters in WWII. Don't be so sure! Your "facts" are based on assumptions that you desire to be true.

    Changeyourlatitude
     
  6. showmet

    showmet olen tomppeli

    Messages:
    3,322
    Likes Received:
    1
    No, those would be your "facts"! Even the Bush administration has practically admitted it was wrong about the existence of WMD in Iraq... you are probably the only person in the world who still believes the propaganda you have been fed...
     
  7. Incubus

    Incubus Banned

    Messages:
    104
    Likes Received:
    1
    Did they REALLY "practically" admit, that sounds like an opinion based statement, show me facts. I belive you to be using elaborated statements the administration has made in order to get your point across 'showmet'
     
  8. showmet

    showmet olen tomppeli

    Messages:
    3,322
    Likes Received:
    1
    Reproduction of an article from the Independent (well-respected British newspaper) from nearly a year ago which quotes Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz on this issue:
    http://dupagepeace.home.att.net/wmd14.html

    I'll try and find more evidence to support this assertion of mine later, if you like. It would however be hard to deny that the focus has been shifted away from WMD as a primary justification for war over the past year. For one thing, the glaring lack of evidence of the existence of WMD sort of speaks for itself.
     
  9. Changeyourlatitude

    Changeyourlatitude Banned

    Messages:
    213
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm paitent and I'll wait and see. I have doubts about a leader willing to lose everything for the ability to not show to the civilized world he absolutly has nothing to hide.

    Changeyourlatitude
     
  10. showmet

    showmet olen tomppeli

    Messages:
    3,322
    Likes Received:
    1
    "Wait and see" is the only position you can sensibly adopt, though most of the searching has already been called off.

    Saddam Hussein was an absolute madman. From past experience, we can assume he would have been calculating to do anything he possibly could to keep himself in power.

    It seems likely he was totally disarmed. It is possible he was bluffing by not revealing unequivocally to UNMOVIC that he was totally disarmed. (By any standard, he came close to such an admission, though.) It's possible the intelligence agencies might have thought, in good faith, that he was still hiding something. Unquestionably though, this doubt, this vague possiblity was spun for political purposes. There was no case for immediate military action on the grounds of WMD. So much is clear.

    Even if the governments of Britain and the US were acting in good faith upon the intelligence agencies' accurately reported belief that Iraq posed a threat in terms of WMD, this belief has turned out to be wrong.

    At the very least we're talking criminal negligence in failing to accurately interpret the situation. At worst, deliberate deceit.
     
  11. booshnoogs

    booshnoogs loves you

    Messages:
    7,100
    Likes Received:
    5
    Iraqi WMDs, Now in Syria

    By Larry Elder
    Townhall.com | May 6, 2004

    "Week after week after week after week," said Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., about President Bush's rationale for going to war with Iraq, "we were told lie after lie after lie after lie." Were we?

    Jordan recently seized 20 tons of chemicals trucked in by confessed al-Qaeda members who brought the stuff in from Syria. The chemicals included VX, Sarin and 70 others. But the media seems curiously incurious about whether one could reasonably trace this stuff back to Iraq. Had the terrorists released a "toxic cloud," Jordanian officials say 80,000 would have died!

    So, I interviewed terrorism expert John Loftus, who once held some of the highest security clearances in the world. Loftus, a former Army officer, served as a Justice Department prosecutor. He investigated CIA cases of Nazi war criminals for the U.S. attorney general. Author of several books, Loftus once received a Pulitzer Prize nomination.

    John Loftus: There's a lot of reason to think (the source of the chemicals) might be Iraq. We captured Iraqi members of al-Qaeda, who've been trained in Iraq, planned for the mission in Iraq, and now they're in Jordan with nerve gas. That's not the kind of thing you buy in a grocery store. You have to have obtained it from someplace.

    Larry Elder: They couldn't have obtained it from Syria?

    Loftus: Syria does have the ability to produce certain kinds of nerve gasses, but in small quantities. The large stockpiles were known to be in Iraq. The best U.S. and allied intelligence say that in the 10 weeks before the Iraq war, Saddam's Russian adviser told him to get rid of all the nerve gas. It would be useless against U.S. troops; the rubber suits were immune to it. So they shipped it across the border to Syria and Lebanon and buried it. Now, in the last few weeks, there's a controversy that Syria has been trying to get rid of this stuff.

    They're selling it to al-Qaeda is one supposition. We know the Sudanese government demanded that the Syrian government empty its warehouse in Khartoum where they've been hiding illegal missiles along with components of Weapons of Mass Destruction. But there's no doubt these guys confessed on Jordanian television that they received the training for this mission in Iraq. . . And from the description it appears this is the form of nerve gas known as VX. It's very rare, and very tough to manufacture . . . one of the most destructive chemical mass-production weapons that you can use. . . They wanted to build three clouds, a mile across, of toxic gas. A whole witch's brew of nasty chemicals that were going to go into this poison cloud, and this would have gone over shopping malls, hospitals . . . .

    Elder: You said that the Russians told Saddam, "There is going to be an invasion. Get rid of your chemical and biological weapons."

    Loftus: Sure. It would only bring the United Nations down on their heads if they were shown to really have Weapons of Mass Destruction. It's not generally known, but the CIA has found 41 different material breaches where Saddam did have a weapons of mass destruction program of various types. It was completely illegal. But no one could find the stockpiles. And the liberal press seems to be focusing on that.

    Elder: It seems to me that this is a huge, huge story.

    Loftus: It's embarrassing to the (press). They've staked their reputations that this stuff wasn't there. And now all of a sudden we have al Qaeda agents from Iraq showing up with Weapons of Mass Destruction.

    Elder: David Kay said, in an interim report, that there was a possibility that WMD components were shipped to Syria.

    Loftus: A possibility? We had a Syrian journalist who defected to Paris in January. The guy is dying of cancer, and he said, "Look, my friends in Syrian intelligence told me exactly where the stuff is buried." He named three sites in Syria, and the Israelis have confirmed the three sites. They know where the stuff is, but the problem is that the United States can't just go around invading Arab countries. . . We know from Israeli and defectors' intelligence that the son of the Syrian defense minister was paid 50 million bucks to bring the stuff across the border and bury it.

    Elder: Why would al-Qaeda attack Jordan?

    Loftus: Jordan is an ally of the United States. It's at peace with Israel. And Jordan has a long history of trying to prosecute terrorists. . . There are a lot of reasons. . . They want to make an example of them. They want to terrorize as many of the Arab states as possible. This is sort of a political dream for the president. The worst nightmare is al-Qaeda gets Weapons of Mass Destruction from Iraq. And it looks like it's coming true.

    A Syria/Iraq/al Qaeda/WMD connection? Why, this calls for a congressional investigation.
     
  12. Changeyourlatitude

    Changeyourlatitude Banned

    Messages:
    213
    Likes Received:
    0
    What were the BUZZ airplanes for? Maybe automated crop dusting?

    Changeyourlatitude
     
  13. showmet

    showmet olen tomppeli

    Messages:
    3,322
    Likes Received:
    1
    Show me your evidence...

    And bushnoogs... smells like propaganda to me! In fact, stinks of it...
     
  14. Incubus

    Incubus Banned

    Messages:
    104
    Likes Received:
    1
    showmet u are pathetic dude, you refuse to listen to anything, so I suggest to people who would normally try and argue with you, to simply ignore anything you say as it always consists of irrelance and slander... There are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, its only a matter of time until Bush opens a can on the campaign and wins this election. I am not for bush but its going to happen. There has been many sugggesting hints from bush and his staff that they are withholding this information for political purposes. Wow atleast i can say something about the damn topic showmet...
     
  15. LuciferSam

    LuciferSam Member

    Messages:
    835
    Likes Received:
    0
    Where are these suggesting hints? Show me.

    I've heard similar rumors that Bush is only waiting till late in the election to capture Bin Laden. But just rumors.
     
  16. Changeyourlatitude

    Changeyourlatitude Banned

    Messages:
    213
    Likes Received:
    0
    Picture a spring day with people out enjoying the end of winter...

    Picture a container ship coming into harbor between Paris and London and four guys on board take out and assemble three or four low flying buzz planes and launch them from the top of containers a couple hundred kilometers from shore toward Paris and London. In the planes is nerve agent, enough to kill all outside as they are downwind of the spray. Not thousands, millions of deaths.

    Why did Sadam have small planes programmed to fly 600 kilometers in a circle as captured by satellite? Imagine NY City, Philadelphia, Miami, and San Francisco. Los Angles, Houston, Seattle and Boston at the same time.

    Did he have motive? Was he shooting at American and British warplanes each day in the no fly zones?

    Hum? Why the buzz planes?

    Changeyourlatitude
     
  17. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    "There is nothing to fear but fear itself"

    Changeintowhat

    You are constantly writing scenarios that involve death and destruction. Of conspiracies and conspirators wishing to bring death and destruction. Well yes there is a threat and the policies pursued by the present US administration have only increased this threat. But your seemed so emotive (many involving the deaths of children) and grandiose (the death of millions). These works of fiction always seemed to be less about realistic risk assessment and more about instilling fear (the terrible acts seemed to be unstoppable) and since the direction of the attacks is plain also to instil hate.

    At first I thought this an unsophisticated way of presenting an argument. When someone has to constantly set up fictional scenarios that prove their point based on no proof, it is a fair guess that they have no facts. They are no different than the many conspiracy theorist, that tie dispirit facts to create a whole.

    Then from another of his post I got a clue, these stories are not meant to be arguments there purpose does seem to be simply to instil fear and hate.

    There have been many articles some posted here that basically argued ‘they’ the Muslims didn’t think like ‘us’ the Americans. ‘They’ had different values and outlook they don’t put such value on human life their own or others. This reminded me of what was said of ‘them’ the communists and the beginning of the cold war. The fear and hate that was instilled into the American people gave many US governments of the time to do much mischief in the world and the curtailment of many peoples freedom at home.

    It seems to Changeorgetyourasskicked that abroad these ‘others’ need to be conquered like Reagan’s communist ‘Evil Empire’ was ‘conquered’, because it seems from his tone that for him it is a matter of them or us, win or lose, conquer or be conquered. The US government needs to be strong which means rightwing and given free range to do what ‘needs’ to be done. And at home, well silly debate over the rights and wrongs of certain actions need to be curtailed, so what is to happen to those that continue to dissent? Well it’s a matter of ‘being with us or against us’.

    So how to bring that about well why not use the same methods that have worked before in America.

     
  18. showmet

    showmet olen tomppeli

    Messages:
    3,322
    Likes Received:
    1
    Change, article from the AP from last summer describing how the UAVs Saddam had were almost certainly aerial reconnaissance planes ... like the ones the US uses.
    http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/082503I.shtml

    There's no evidence these were capable of being fitted up for CBW. UAVs are themselves no breach of 687 or 1441, so do not present a prima facie case for war.
     
  19. Changeyourlatitude

    Changeyourlatitude Banned

    Messages:
    213
    Likes Received:
    0
    “You are constantly writing scenarios that involve death and destruction.” “These works of fiction…”

    If you have access to media news accounts you have probably heard the rumor of school children being blown up by terrorist in Iraq. Numerous time police stations were blown up or attacked. Numerous soldiers killed by roadside IED’s. Should I not mention these incidents since it instills fear? Is it politically incorrect? We are debating war.

    scenarios that prove their point based on no proof”

    One debater says no WMD. Do I instill fear or allege anything by asking what do you suppose those 600KLM range unmanned crop dusters were being tested for. It’s on video like the prison crap, I saw the pictures along with the UN…….”many conspiracy theorist, that tie dispirit facts to create a whole.”…….no conspiracy theory facts presented to the UN.

    One guy says no WMD can be found and I say I’ll wait and give reason why as being the buzz planes were to haul something…serve some purpose. I didn’t make it up? Do I jump to conclusions that the Iraq leadership had suddenly became interested in bugs eating farm crops as a reasonable explanation of why I should be assured the WMD don’t exist. That is a big assumption.

    “conquer or be conquered”

    That is the way I see it! The only reason Kerry and the rest searched in their guts to pull the YES lever to say “it’s a good idea to go to war with Iraq.” They had to feel the fear Iraq was a danger to America otherwise they would have voted NO!

    With us or against us is a good eye opening statement. In Congress and in the Presidency the American voters will make the decision of what “us” is! That is a phrase for the people to use in choosing who defines the leadership of the USA. And, the rest of the world will decide if they are either with us or against us.

    I’ve never implied Iraqis have less value for life than Americans. Some people there seem to want power at the cost of killing those they want power over. The kids, police and civilians were killed by either the ones who want to be in charge or by a foreign terrorist that support them. I don’t know if Bush and Kerry would react any different if the situation was reversed and the war were here in the US.

    Differing points of view make people think. Showmet does the best job of making me think on this board though. He is always correct and I tell him he is but remind him of the reality of human nature as it was laid out to me during Viet Nam era. Sometimes I write about kicking scum out the back of a plane to get info, that happens because of a couple rum and cokes and the memory of a soldier telling me how they interrogated in Hewey choppers in “the Nam!” The guy said it worked most times and the ones that didn’t talk screamed all the way to the ground.

    Changeyourlatitude
     
  20. showmet

    showmet olen tomppeli

    Messages:
    3,322
    Likes Received:
    1
    I can really feel the love. I don't despair of talking to you in quite the same way I despair of talking to some right-wing ideologues. I can see a mind struggling to cope with its innate prejudices and trying to justify these things, which seem like "common sense", coming from personal experience.

    Also, it seems that you're aware of just how barbaric and unacceptable some of the views you spout are - I think you're aware of it, anyway. It seems like your experiences have given you some ingrained prejudices and a real hatred of foreigners, to the extent that you can talk about people as bugs, insects or rabid dogs. Hate-filled attitudes like that mean that you will never understand the motivations of the people you disdain, and will never see the wider picture. Their motivations are really very similar to yours. It takes a brave mind to step outside of the fight and to look at the situation from the other side. It takes bravery to do that, and it's difficult - but unless you do so, you're destined to a cycle of hatred, anger and retribution.

    If you love America then you must love its founding principles of liberty and justice. You know that these principles give criminals rights, to protect against abuses of power. They limit the power of those in control, in favour of the freedom of the individual. They guard against the strong dominating the weak. I maintain that the fact you wish to overturn or dismiss these checks and balances which underpin liberty means that you trample over the very idea of America. If you think you are a patriot then you need to re-examine these ideas.

    Conversely, your unquestioning and uncritical support for US troops overseas seems to come from a kind of fanatically zealous patriotism based on a rigid "us" and "them" model, in which decisions about what is right and wrong come from spontaneous, anger-filled prejudice. You seem to experience notions of right and wrong as a paroxysm of emotion. The trouble is, there's no room for thought or consideration if you react to situations according an unreflective and instinctive "moral code". Difficult issues are reduced to caveman instincts. Calm reflection - which is what is needed - is entirely absent.

    And this model really doesn't work in the complex world of international relations. You demonise an entire people with a few blunt words. This is evidence of a poor understanding of certain complexities - you see things from one angle only. The truth is always far more complex when you step out from behind the gun and calmly and rationally evaluate the behaviour of both sides.

    Balbus is also right that the examples you use are very often dramatic hyperbole, and are presented in black and white. Things are never that simple. You're simplifying complicated issues down to questions of immediate life-and-death. The apparently systematic abuse in custody of Iraqi detainees is nothing like as a simple an issue as people making immediate decisions to protect their friends. It's clearly an abuse of power, and clearly cannot be justified.

    At the same time, condemning it does nothing to diminish from the atrocites committed by the other side. Quite the contrary, it proves that we are better than them. If you can't see this, I think you seriously need to evaluate and examine the reasons why you feel so strongly that abuses on your side of the fence should not be criticised, while you are prepared to condemn abuses on the other side. You seem like a person capable of thinking, so hopefully you can see what I'm getting at.

    I hope you don't mind these personally-directed comments, but you started it!
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice