Quelle surprise - no WMD in Iraq

[BadCompany]

As stated by the head of the US weapons inspection team, in Iraq, David Kay. Kay essentially had the same job as UN weapons inspector Hans Blix, only Kay operated under the "proper" flag.

www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/25/sprj.nirq.kay/index.html

I once asked whether the weapons of mass destruction theory, and the subsequent lack of any such things, was a result of willful deception, or spectacular incomptence. Kay blames the intelligence community, lending support to the latter theory. The Wolfowitz doctrine, first published in the early 1990s, would seem to support the former. Given the failure of the intelligence community with regards to 9/11, the Taliban, North Korea, India and Pakistan, its quite possible Kay is right. Either way, I don't get a warm and fuzzy feeling inside, and contrary to Bush rhetoric, I feel the world is a much more dangerous place now. Much more dangerous.

The fuse for the time bombs that will go off in 5-10 years have been lit. Can they be stamped out? This is one of the most important presidential elections in recent memory, in my opinion, though most probably won't realize it. For our own safety, and for the safety of our children, I sincerely hope Bush wins...

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Bush and his cronies lied in a vain attempt to turn Iraq into an American corporate subsidiary. Je suis étonné !

[roke]

Looks like Britain will be getting a new Prime Minister soon...

[PTH]

You know, I don't think Bush lied outright - he made others lie, simply by telling them what to find.

Saddam is evil and must be trying to be getting WMD, so Bush asks them to find the worst he could have gotten - and of course, since Saddam is evil, Bush was sure that all that and more would be in Irak.

The conclusion was decided right from the start, so that's what people told him - and he just passed the message onwards.

[FormerLurker]

Roke said:

Looks like Britain will be getting a new Prime Minister soon...

Nope, but we will be getting a new BBC chairman.

[patate]

I'm reading " Dude where's my country " by Michael Moore right now and there some interressing stuff you should know. Unocal ( energy enterprise ) invited the Taliban, yes those evil people, in Texas and around the country ( USA ) in 1997. The goverment WAS AWARE of it, so uncle George basically let cruel barbarians do a little trip in his state. The goal of the trip : Unocal wanted to build a pipeline in Afghanistan, an oil and natural gas richcountry. The Taliban were already known to be savages at the time. Guess who help in the deal too, ah yes Dicky Cheney himself with Halliburton. Of course with 9/11, the deal was sort of broken but wait here, there's more. Hamid Karzaï, the actuel US imposed leader of Afghans actually worked for Halliburton at a high administrative position. So people knew that the US troops were in IRAK for oil but now I know that they were in Afghanistan for the same reason. It almost sickens me to realise that army men from Canada are in there right now ( because US troops will not do peace mission, guess why ), to protect futur profit for already dirty rich texan who control the US goverment.

[PTH]

patate said:

I'm reading " Dude where's my country " by Michael Moore right now and there some interressing stuff you should know. Unocal ( energy enterprise ) invited the Taliban, yes those evil people, in Texas and around the country ( USA ) in 1997. The goverment WAS AWARE of it, so uncle George basically let cruel barbarians do a little trip in his state. The goal of the trip : Unocal wanted to build a pipeline in Afghanistan, an oil and natural gas richcountry. The Taliban were already known to be savages at the time. Guess who help in the deal too, ah yes dick=Dicky Cheney himself with Halliburton. Of course with 9/11, the deal was sort of broken but wait here, there's more. Hamid Karzaï, the actuel US imposed leader of Afghans actually worked for Halliburton at a high administrative position. So people knew that the US troops were in IRAK for oil but now I know that they were in Afghanistan for the same reason. It almost sickens me to realise that army men from Canada are in there right now ( because US troops will not do peace mission, guess why ), to protect futur profit for already dirty rich texan who control the US goverment.

Which explains why there are some who think the US might have let 9/11 happen, in some way - because of the massive benefits for the US.

Kinda like Pearl Harbor theories - they come largely because it served the purposes of their presidents so well, it got the country united against the bad guys.

I don't believe the theories in either case, but they're worth listening to. You just never know. And you can never underestimate what people might do for money.

[seventeen]

You can also not underestimate the damage a less than competent person with immense power can cause.

[The New Guy]

patate said:

I'm reading " Dude where's my country " by Michael Moore right now and there some interressing stuff you should know. Unocal ( energy enterprise ) invited the Taliban, yes those evil people, in Texas and around the country ( USA ) in 1997. The goverment WAS AWARE of it, so uncle George basically let cruel barbarians do a little trip in his state. The goal of the trip : Unocal wanted to build a pipeline in Afghanistan, an oil and natural gas richcountry. The Taliban were already known to be savages at the time. Guess who help in the deal too, ah yes dick=Dicky Cheney himself with Halliburton. Of course with 9/11, the deal was sort of broken but wait here, there's more. Hamid Karzaï, the actuel US imposed leader of Afghans actually worked for Halliburton at a high administrative position. So people knew that the US troops were in IRAK for oil but now I know that they were in Afghanistan for the same reason. It almost sickens me to realise that army men from Canada are in there right now ( because US troops will not do peace mission, guess why ), to protect futur profit for already dirty rich texan who control the US goverment.

Not to nitpick or anything, but I would advise you to take everything Michael Moore says with a grain of salt. He tends to... bend the truth to make good story telling, ignoring certain facts in favour of plot twists like - oh, say that the Taliban were previously trying to deal with American oil companies or whatever other half truths you've take from the book.

Don't believe me, look at his award winning 'documentary':

(1) The title comes from the theory that the killers in Columbine went bowling the morning before they did the deed. This is perhaps the most excusable of his errors, as it's entirely possible that this theory was still being investigated when he named the movie, and as it's so catchy he neglected to rename it when the theory was discredited.

(2) Michael drops into a Boeing (I think it's Boeing... one of the big air industry companies) plant and accosts one of the technicians present about the weapons they produce and put on rockets (prominently displayed in the background). Turns out that yes - this plant does produce rockets and rocket payload - for weather technology. In other words, not weapons.

(3) Michael goes into a bank somewhere in the south (again, my memory fails me) and documents (or whines about, or something) the fact that the bank offers a gun to anyone who opens an account at the bank. He claims it's irresponsible as he opens an account and walks out with a gun in his hands. While it is true that the bank is giving away free guns (shotguns, I believe), they don't hand them out as they did to Micheal - Micheal paid off the teller, brought in the gun and had the teller present Micheal with the weapon. The bank typically sends the requests to whatever company handles the background checks in the US and presents the weapon only after the background check is cleared.

(4) Moore raves on in the 'documentary' (which should by now be looking more like a flight into fantasy based on 'loose' interpretations of the facts) about how the NRA (led by Charlie Heston) refused to reschedule their annual general meeting which had been scheduled for 11 days after the shootings in Denver (a date set years in advance). The 'Cold Dead Hands' speech, which Michael purports happened in Denver actually took place a year later in Charlotte. And Michael severely edits the speech that Charlie makes in Denver to make it more inflamatory (for a comparison of the two speeches, go to: www.hardylaw.net/Bowlingtranscript.html). The truth of the matter is that the NRA did cancel all their activities except the Annual Members Voting Meeting (which under state law for a NPO requires ten days notice to all voting members (4,000,000+ in the case of the NRA) - ten days advance notice when Columbine took place eleven days before the event).

For the record, most of the NRA stuff that Michael goes after in juxtaposed in just such a way so as to blur the true facts in favour of anti-NRA rhetoric.

(5) Moore states that the NRA was formed the same year the KKK were made illegal by Presidential order (not quite true, as the KKK were illegal long before this, but survived by the connivance of local law enforcement, but surprisingly factual). Moore, however, ignored that the NRA was actually formed in New York by former Union Officers. Want more proof of the disassociation of the NRA and the KKK - Grant, the president who signed into law the anti-KKK laws, became president of the NRA after leaving the White House.

(6) Moore portrays the shooter of Kayla Rolland in Michigan as a sympathetic, innocent youngster from a struggling family who found the gun in his uncles house and just brought it to school. Fact of the matter is that the shooter had already been suspended for stabbing a classmate with a pencil, had fought with Kayla the day before, and has since stabbed another child with a knife. And his uncles house also served as the family business - the local crack house.

(7) His murder numbers (with the exception of the numbers for Canada surprisingly - which were accurate for 1999) are way off.

(8) Moore buying ammo in Ontario is false, or illegal - take your pick. Canadian law requires ammo buyers to present proper ID, and forigeners to present a Canadian firearms permit.

+++

There's probably more than this in the way of flasehoods and lies in the movie, not to mention the books (there's likely a few sites out there that will point out their falsehoods - I myself haven't read the books so I can't comment for certain) but I think you can take it from here. Moore likes tearing down America and being famous himself, but in reality, he's little more than a half-assed liar.

One final irony to consider - for all the railing Moore does against GWB, he probably caused the election to fall in juniors favour (ignoring the conspiracy theories that say that Jeb won the vote for George with skewed vote returns). Moore was a vocal supporter of Ralph Nader, and actually personally campaigned for him in Florida. How many left votes did he take away from Gore and give to Nader? Likely enough to cost Al the election.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

I tried but couldn't find the story I was looking for. The guys at work made this a particularly contentious issue as well. Apparently, one of Bush's aides has already come forward and stated that Bush already had a plan in place to invade Iraq prior to taking office. Like I was saying I can't find it, but it generated a lot of discussion.

The primary platforms for the war was "disarm," "WMD," Bush would often mention the evil one in his rallying speeches, but he seemed to focus on those two buzz words more. The optimum words, "disarm," "WMD," just rings out when he told the UN to "get a backbone."

I certainly have no problem with the removal of an oppressive regime. However, why ignore the UN? Why tell them that "we'll go in with or without you."

Finding and apprehending Saddam was a prize, granted. But, it certainly didn't have the distracting effect they thought it would.

I'm one of the guys who originally supported the war. But, I feel somewhat misled now.

So, if the war was about removing an oppressive regime, who's next? I'm not trying to be smart, but the precedence has been set.

Cheers.

[Rimmer]

Disgruntled70sHab said:

I certainly have no problem with the removal of an oppressive regime.

most people, including myself, don't, but the selective nature of USA's involvement and their ignoring of UN makes it hard to believe that their actions are motivated only by their genuine altruism.

R.

[BadCompany]

Disgruntled70sHab said:

I tried but couldn't find the story I was looking for. The guys at work made this a particularly contentious issue as well. Apparently, one of Bush's aides has already come forward and stated that Bush already had a plan in place to invade Iraq prior to taking office. Like I was saying I can't find it, but it generated a lot of discussion.

The primary platforms for the war was "disarm," "WMD," Bush would often mention the evil one in his rallying speeches, but he seemed to focus on those two buzz words more. The optimum words, "disarm," "WMD," just rings out when he told the UN to "get a backbone."

I certainly have no problem with the removal of an oppressive regime. However, why ignore the UN? Why tell them that "we'll go in with or without you."

Finding and apprehending Saddam was a prize, granted. But, it certainly didn't have the distracting effect they thought it would.

I'm one of the guys who originally supported the war. But, I feel somewhat misled now.

So, if the war was about removing an oppressive regime, who's next? I'm not trying to be smart, but the precedence has been set.

Cheers.

The aide you and your buddies are referring to is one Paul O'Neill, the former Treasury Secretary. Treasury Secretary, I am sure you will agree, is a rather significant post in a government cabinet, and thus O'Neill would be a man in the know. O'Neill was fired from his job in December of 2002. Here is an article:

www.sundayherald.com/39221

As for the plan to invade Iraq, I think it is pretty much well established that Iraq was going to be invaded, regardless. To quote from the above article:

The Sunday Herald previously uncovered how a think-tank – run by vice-president Dick Cheney; defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld; Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld’s deputy; Bush’s younger brother Jeb, the governor of Florida; and Lewis Libby, Cheney’s deputy – wrote a blueprint for regime change as early as September 2000.

The think-tank, the Project for the New American Century, said, in the document Rebuilding America’s Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, that: “The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein”.

My favorite line from that document is "...transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." In other words, "we're going in, and it don't matter who is in charge." Sort of kills the whole "get rid of the oppressive regime" theory.

But that's not all. As far back as 1992, current Bush adminstration officials were drawing up plans for an invasion of Iraq. Current Deputy Defense Minister Paul Wolfowitz drew up a plan, now known as the "Wolfowitz Doctrine" that called for a military intervention in Iraq, to, and I quote, assure access to vital raw material, primarily Persian Gulf oil and to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and threats from terrorism.

As one can imagine, the perception in the Arab world (where it matters most) and in many other parts of the world, is that since there are no WMD, and no links to terrorism, and because the need for an American presence in Iraq "transcends the regime of Saddam Hussein" the only remaining reason for invading is, as outlined in the Wolfowitz doctrine, the oil. Given that the Polish Foreign Minister has already publicly stated that "gaining access to the Iraqi oilfields" is the primary reason for Polish participation in the war, you can see why this perception lingers.

Here is an article outlining the steps towards the invasion of Iraq:

www.ceip.org/files/nonprolif/templates/Publications.asp?p=8&PublicationID=1214

The US has been building up to this for over a decade now, before 9/11 even. In fact, Wolfowitz wanted to invade Iraq right after 9/11, to lay the blame at their feet (even though they had nothing to do with it). This lends credence to some of those crackpot theories that the US let 9/11 happen, to further their global interests. To his credit though, Bush refused to invade Iraq (at that time) and instead concentrated on punishing the actual perpetuators of the crime (the Taliban).

We debated this rather heatedly on this board, back before it all happened. I never supported this war, because I never felt the stated reasons for it were truthful. There were too many discrepancies between the facts, and the Bush rhetoric, and given that the plans to invade Iraq have been around since the early 1990's, it just didn't seem logical.

"Why here, why now?" I kept asking. Unfortunately, the official government answers just don't seem to add up...

[Disgruntled70sHab]

I just read the O'Neil article. Thanks.

There's no doubt that if what O'Neil suggests is true then Jr was planning this for quite some time before his election.

Now, I don't want to read too much into this, especially if it isn't in print. But, it's almost as if Jr might be able to use the veil of **disarm** as a veil for removing Saddam. But, that would be just too hard to believe at this point.

You're right about Arab perceptions. They matter the utmost in this scenario. However, I think the USA has it's foothold in the Middle East through Israel. They routinely use Israeli ports and American currency is as plentiful and as well used as the New Israeli Sheckle.

Also, Bush made perfectly clear that he was going in with or without UN support. He basically re-emphasized what farce the UN really is by pushing them out of the way.

What would have happened had the UN used the brass nuts to say, "NO." They would have had to mobilize a force to prevent the coalition from entering Iraq. And it's entirely possible that Canada would have been there.

Now Bush wants the UN into Iraq immediately. And, dictating to them which countries will participate at that. Again, the UN is spineless. "... if you want our help, ask for it. But, don't tell us how to do it."

And why the UN should straighten out this mess is beyond me. It's a coalition mess and they should be accountable for it. The UN might save a smiggen of credibility by citing this as fact. But, what of the Iraqi people?

Cheers.

[BadCompany]

Disgruntled70sHab said:

There's no doubt that if what O'Neil suggests is true then Jr was planning this for quite some time before his election.

Now, I don't want to read too much into this, especially if it isn't in print. But, it's almost as if Jr might be able to use the veil of **disarm** as a veil for removing Saddam. But, that would be just too hard to believe at this point.

If you get a chance, read the second article (if you haven't done so already). I think its pretty clear, and pretty much accepted, that Bush/Cheney/Wolfowitz had this invasion planned for years and years, as far back as the end of Gulf War I. Any pretense would do. Its been confirmed that Wolfowitz wanted to attack Iraq right after 9/11, but Colin Powell argued against it. Wolfowitz thought that would be the perfect excuse to invade, but Powell wanted to do the right thing instead. So the Bush administration, or perhaps more correctly, the hawks in the Bush administration, needed to come up with another reason. Hence, the " disarm" rallying cry. Strange, that after so much time, Iraq "suddenly" became a threat to world security. But I digress.

I think most people really and truly believed Saddam Hussein had WMD. Even Hans Blix once said "it would be uncharacteristic of him not to have them." So any shred of evidence that even so much as hinted that Iraq had them was trumpeted as being the gospel truth, and used as an argument to support the invasion. Any dissenting evidence, evidence that suggested Iraq didn't have WMD, was dismissed as naive, or unlikely.

There is an interesting psychological phenomena that could explain how we ended up where we are, called "group think." Defined as The tendency for members of a cohesive group to reach decisions without weighing all the facts, especially those contradicting the majority opinion. Some "symptoms" if you will, include the following:

1) group think - antecedent conditions
* high cohesiveness
* insulation of the group
* lack of methodical search and appraisal
* directive leadership
* high stress, low hope for a better solution than the one offered by group leaders

2) group think - psychology
* illusion of invulnerability
* rationalization of past decisions
* unquestioned belief in the group's morality
* stereotyped view of opponent
* conformity pressure
* self-censorship
* illusion of unanimity
* mindguards

3) group think - behavioral consequences
* incomplete survey of alternatives
* incomplete suvey of objectives
* failure to examine risks of preferred choice
* poor information search
* selective bias in processing information at hand
* failure to reappraise alternatives
* failure to work out contingency plans

I didn't make this up, it comes from a psychology web site. Sounds pretty much like the Bush administration, no? "Group think" theory was originally proposed as an explanation to the Bay of Pigs of invasion - how, psychologists asked, could a group of such intelligent men, including John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Robert McNamara, and so on, come up with such a distrastrous, and ultimately, stupid plan? The reasons are listed above.

I think the exact same reasons can be applied to the plan to invade Iraq. It seemed like such a good idea - topple an oppressive regime, eliminate WMD, cut off terrorism, spread democracy and freedom. Who wouldn't want that?? But then they got caught up in group think. The same members of the current administration who pushed for the invasion of Iraq, are the exact same guys who first came up with the idea a decade ago - Cheney, Wolfowitz, Bush Jr., Jeb Bush. They have had 10 years to convince themselves it was a good idea, and with no "fresh thinking" to challenge their ideas, they simply got stuck in group think. "We think it will work, and nobody says otherwise." They spent 10 years coming up with the idea, they weren't going to throw it away that easily. Look at the above list of group think characteristics, and tell me that doesn't apply, 100%, to the Bush administration?

[Disgruntled70sHab]

Without the advantage of fresh ideas to challenge the pack mentality, there's little reason for jr, et al, to think that their way of thinking was passé. Then again, they may not want to hear what an honest broker, or devil's advocate may have to offer.

"It's my way or the highway (to Baghdad) ... what are you doing here?"

Yet, when I read your, "group think - behavioral consequences " reference, the "we-have-to-support-the-President-unlike-Vietnam," mindset comes to the forefront. Just that one belief might be a cause for the lack of peripheral vision and thought, or the unwillingness to entertain another's perspective from outside the fold.

All that aside, I still feel somewhat let down, but also torn a tad inside. I still believe we should have publicly supported our friends and if you look hard enough, you'll see there was indeed Canadian involvement, albeit small. On the other hand, I'm sure I'd have felt more than just betrayal had we lost just one soldier now that new information is being brought to the surface.

Terrible.

[seventeen]

BadCompany said:

There is an interesting psychological phenomena that could explain how we ended up where we are, called "group think." Defined as The tendency for members of a cohesive group to reach decisions without weighing all the facts, especially those contradicting the majority opinion. Some "symptoms" if you will, include the following:

1) group think - antecedent conditions


2) group think - psychology


3) group think - behavioral consequences

I didn't make this up, it comes from a psychology web site. Sounds pretty much like the Bush administration, no? "Group think" theory was originally proposed as an explanation to the Bay of Pigs of invasion - how, psychologists asked, could a group of such intelligent men, including John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Robert McNamara, and so on, come up with such a distrastrous, and ultimately, stupid plan? The reasons are listed above.

The above list fails to include a group IQ (excluding Powell) of 77.

Dis, I really respect your opinion regarding backing up your friends and I agree with that philosophy most of the time, but not when your friends are exhibiting extreme foolishness or downright pigheadedness. At that time good friends tell each other to stop being silly. It's very dangerous to follow that kind of leadership. For all my criticisms of Chretien (my list is too long), I am pleased he stayed out of Iraq. It just doesn't stop. Not only does Dubbya charge in where angels fear to tread, once he finds out he's in way over his head, he wants his 'allies' who warned him off to start with, to help solve the problem. Sorry Dubbya, there are consequences in the world. Accept yours.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

(seen wandering in desert, from in front, above)

I warned them it would turn out this way. Would they listen? No, they argued instead.

(seen entering wilderness, from behind, above)

[Disgruntled70sHab]

seventeen said:

The above list fails to include a group IQ (excluding Powell) of 77.

Dis, I really respect your opinion regarding backing up your friends and I agree with that philosophy most of the time, but not when your friends are exhibiting extreme foolishness or downright pigheadedness. At that time good friends tell each other to stop being silly. It's very dangerous to follow that kind of leadership. For all my criticisms of Chretien (my list is too long), I am pleased he stayed out of Iraq. It just doesn't stop. Not only does Dubbya charge in where angels fear to tread, once he finds out he's in way over his head, he wants his 'allies' who warned him off to start with, to help solve the problem. Sorry Dubbya, there are consequences in the world. Accept yours.

Well, I'm also pleased that Chretien stayed out as well. He cited his main reason as the UN not sanctioning it, but that was a crutch by any other name; the UN is useless in these types of situations.

I always maintained that I didn't like the way this war was engaged. Basically it was an American/British initiative with Jr telling the UN we'll go in with, or without you; either you're with us or against us ... a freakin' farse by any other name.

But, more and more is coming out about this conflict now. I really did think we should have backed up big brother, but as more information comes to the surface, I wish Chretien would have done more to talk them out of it. Not that, that would have done any good at all. But, it takes a lot of courage to stand up to your enemies and even more courage to stand up to your friends.

Having said that, it seems their minds were made up well before the election. Any such efforts to change direction would have been futile.

Cheers.

[Cranky]

I quess I am still the only one that thinks that getting rid of a mass murderer is worth the cost of some lives.

I just wonder about something......

Have any of you had the police and military personal "visit" you at two in the morning looking for weapons? Exactly what threat was there to a dictatorship from a 12 year old boy and his mother?

Have any of you had a close reletive taken to jail and beaten because he was a "cafe communist"? Have you ever seen a broken man after he was tortured? Have you?

Have any of you lived under a dictatorship where the "political correct" or should I say "junta correct" people reviewed your political affiliations before they allowed you to get a job?

Have any of you protested in the streets to get rid of a junta and actaully came face to face with the business end of a M48?

Have any of you lived under a dictatorship? Have you?

Isn't it so convinient to stand on your pricncipals when others stood naked and tortured..............or lay dead.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is what fighting dictatorships look like, up close and personal.





~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And if you really want me to spoil your "he lied and I have principals" party, I will post images of my uncle after he was tortured. They are only black and whites so one tends to miss the fun of looking at open lesions and pools of blood in their pretty red colors. Just don't protest the horrors of the images.

And don't forget.......

The Greek junta was a "mild and civilized" affair....on the other hand, my buddy Saddam was really, really good at it.

[patate]

Yes, Saddam was a cruel dictator, and did tortured people on occasion. But don't forget we are on the USA side of information, so almost everything we hear on TV ( CNN ) is biased. I remember in the first Gulf war, they ( american military ) invented a story where they said that the iraquis were trowing newborn babies out of their incubators. A women was telling that tale to medias crying and showing pictures of dead infant. Later on, in 1995, we learned that it was all a setup, that event never happened, the women in question was actually the daughter of a high ranked US officer. My point is that all we heard on Saddam was probably half true, he did not have perfect control of this country, we all know the north was hold by kurds.

Now that Saddam is behind bars, the US-led coaliton still have the difficult task to bring democracy to Irak. What I'm afraid will happen is some kind of theocratic " pseudo " democraticaly elected leader will hold power. Don't forget that under Saddam, the practice of religion had regress, but since April people are back to a more fundamentalist way of life, women returning to the scarf. The only way that won't happen is if the US dictate who can and who can't present himsefl in the election, or a good old shoot the candidate, CIA style ( remember Chile, Panama and Guatamala ).

I think the best solution for Irak and the rest of the world would be that the UN take charge but the US pay all the bills. Cause in the present situation, America is in a dead-end : UN won't help cause they feel betrayed, other country ( Canada, France, Germany ) won't help mainly cause they don't want to give a single dime to this. American are screwed by their own bad choices, it's like looking at a giant elephant drowning in his own defecations.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

I believe the discussion in this thread was focused on American political duplicity in setting up their agenda for invading Iraq; not whether or not Saddam is a sick individual or whether or not he should have been deposed.

No one can prevent you from posting pictures of your uncle if you choose to do so, but it is the machinery and motivation of American foreign policy and intervention that is being examined here.

[BadCompany]

So I guess the US tanks will be rolling through Saudi Arabia any day now, right? I mean, at least 50% of that population will be beaten by the state police if they dare to walk outside without a male relative, surely that is oppression no? And doesn't Saudia Arabia lead the world in summary executions? Aren't they the most oppressive regime in the world, now that the Taliban is gone?

Or how about Nigeria, where a single mother can be stoned to death for daring to be, well, a single mother? And god forbid you oppose the oil barons in that country, as Ken Saro Wiwa can tell you. Actually, he can't, as they hung him (took them eight tries before they finally managed to kill him).

And I am assuming that the US is amassing what little troops they have left for an imminent invasion of North Korea? I mean, they, unlike Iraq, actually have WMD, and their certifiably insane "Great Leader" is in the process of literally starving over a million of his people to death. Surely that is a good enough reason to invade?

China? Indonesia? Sudan? Syria? Cuba? Ethiopia? Burundi? Burma? The list goes on, and on, and on, and on...

Nobody doubts that Saddam Hussein is an evil man. Nobody. But the question, as it always does, still remains. Why Iraq? Why now? Hussein, despite the rhetoric, was not the most oppressive dictator in the world. He just wasn't. And if he was, why weren't we told this? Why didn't the Bush administration say "Saddam Hussein is a violator of human rights, and we are going to execute a regime change? That is the reason, the only reason, we are invading." Because, they knew it wouldn't fly with the American public. And they knew that wasn't the reason. Donald Rumsfeld himself, in Vanity Fair, said that human rights violations alone wouldn't have been enough to warrant an invasion. They NEEDED another reason. So they came up with a whole bunch of them; weapons of mass destruction, links to terrorists, an imminent and huge threat to AMERICA. They made it personal to the American people. None of which were true. In the end, they either deliberately mislead the public, or they were spectacularily incompetent. And THAT is what the issue is.

Personally, I think the extent of this collossal failure is only just beginning, and it has nothing to do with the failure to establish a reliable power grid in Baghdad, or the fact that one US GI a day is coming home in a body bag, or that oil is not flowing, and will not be flowing, for years to come. The true failure of this campaign will come in 5-10 years, when today's children of Iraq reach young adulthood. The children whose daddies were killed fending off the American invasion. They won't care that their daddies were forced to fight by Saddam Hussein, or even that there daddies would have otherwise welcomed the invasion, all they will care about is that an American gun shot their father. With 5-10 years of cleric propoganda tellling them their miserable lives are all the fault of the big, bad, US, they will be more than willing to blow themselves up on New York city subways. THAT'S where the failure will come. The world is NOT a safer place right now. The US, and by extension, Canada, is NOT a safer place now. Cynically, I don't give rats patatootie about the welfare of the Iraqi people, as un-politically correct as that may sound. Neither does anybody else, any more than we care about the millions of people who have died in Sudan's civil war. We just don't care. Sucks to be them. You can argue that you do care, and that having lived through oppressive regimes you feel their pain, but in the end you don't really care. If you did, you would be calling for an invasion of the Congo, and I don't see too many Americans calling for that. Didn't see to many Americans all that willing to die for the people of Rwanda either, or any other god-foresaken hole in the world.

What we have done though, is changed the bad guy in Iraq. Before, the Iraqi people blamed Saddam Hussein. Now, who are they going to blame? Who did Mohammed Atta blame for his sad, little life? Now, WE have become the target. THAT's where the failure is going to come. Ask the Moscow metro riders wiping off pieces of dead flesh from their faces this morning what they think of the whole thing. Because that's a sight we are going to become very familiar with over the next decade or so...

[Cranky]

BadCompany said:

So I guess the US tanks will be rolling through Saudi Arabia any day now, right? I mean, at least 50% of that population will be beaten by the state police if they dare to walk outside without a male relative, surely that is oppression no? And doesn't Saudia Arabia lead the world in summary executions? Aren't they the most oppressive regime in the world, now that the Taliban is gone?

Or how about Nigeria, where a single mother can be stoned to death for daring to be, well, a single mother? And god forbid you oppose the oil barons in that country, as Ken Saro Wiwa can tell you. Actually, he can't, as they hung him (took them eight tries before they finally managed to kill him).

And I am assuming that the US is amassing what little troops they have left for an imminent invasion of North Korea? I mean, they, unlike Iraq, actually have WMD, and their certifiably insane "Great Leader" is in the process of literally starving over a million of his people to death. Surely that is a good enough reason to invade?

China? Indonesia? Sudan? Syria? Cuba? Ethiopia? Burundi? Burma? The list goes on, and on, and on, and on...

Nobody doubts that Saddam Hussein is an evil man. Nobody. But the question, as it always does, still remains. Why Iraq? Why now? Hussein, despite the rhetoric, was not the most oppressive dictator in the world. He just wasn't. And if he was, why weren't we told this? Why didn't the Bush administration say "Saddam Hussein is a violator of human rights, and we are going to execute a regime change? That is the reason, the only reason, we are invading." Because, they knew it wouldn't fly with the American public. And they knew that wasn't the reason. Donald Rumsfeld himself, in Vanity Fair, said that human rights violations alone wouldn't have been enough to warrant an invasion. They NEEDED another reason. So they came up with a whole bunch of them; weapons of mass destruction, links to terrorists, an imminent and huge threat to AMERICA. They made it personal to the American people. None of which were true. In the end, they either deliberately mislead the public, or they were spectacularily incompetent. And THAT is what the issue is.

Personally, I think the extent of this collossal failure is only just beginning, and it has nothing to do with the failure to establish a reliable power grid in Baghdad, or the fact that one US GI a day is coming home in a body bag, or that oil is not flowing, and will not be flowing, for years to come. The true failure of this campaign will come in 5-10 years, when today's children of Iraq reach young adulthood. The children whose daddies were killed fending off the American invasion. They won't care that their daddies were forced to fight by Saddam Hussein, or even that there daddies would have otherwise welcomed the invasion, all they will care about is that an American gun shot their father. With 5-10 years of cleric propoganda tellling them their miserable lives are all the fault of the big, bad, US, they will be more than willing to blow themselves up on New York city subways. THAT'S where the failure will come. The world is NOT a safer place right now. The US, and by extension, Canada, is NOT a safer place now. Cynically, I don't give rats patatootie about the welfare of the Iraqi people, as un-politically correct as that may sound. Neither does anybody else, any more than we care about the millions of people who have died in Sudan's civil war. We just don't care. Sucks to be them. You can argue that you do care, and that having lived through oppressive regimes you feel their pain, but in the end you don't really care. If you did, you would be calling for an invasion of the Congo, and I don't see too many Americans calling for that. Didn't see to many Americans all that willing to die for the people of Rwanda either, or any other god-foresaken hole in the world.

What we have done though, is changed the bad guy in Iraq. Before, the Iraqi people blamed Saddam Hussein. Now, who are they going to blame? Who did Mohammed Atta blame for his sad, little life? Now, WE have become the target. THAT's where the failure is going to come. Ask the Moscow metro riders wiping off pieces of dead flesh from their faces this morning what they think of the whole thing. Because that's a sight we are going to become very familiar with over the next decade or so...

BC,

Why Iraq and "why now" is a much more complex question and you know and I know that the reasons go far beyond but include "oil" and "WMD's".

However.....

I have a pesronal and unforgiving hate for dictators and what they do to their own. Maybe it's the scar on top of my head that has something to do wtih it but or maybe a "anti dictator" hate that I was born with....

I would have no problem whatsoever if there was a UN force going around and eliminating dictators. Most of the misery in Africa is caused by these maggots.

[insomnius]

Habs Addict I respect everything you say about dictators and they do need to be done away with. But the actions of the US here almost give these very same dictators a "carte blanche" to invade others as they will as a means of "pre-empting" dissent or other forms of protest or social/societal unrest.

The US has ignored the plight so many different peoples for reasons that no-one can fully grasp but the IRAQ thing STINKS to high heaven for many reasons. The most heinous of all though (IMHO) is that Daddy wanted Jr to finish the job he started...and Dick CHeney being the link to both of them (served to both Bush presidents and closely) only obscures matters further.

Dictators need to be done with - but I challenge anyone here to deny that once the "Shrub" was elected that his behavior has also been "dictatorial" - an elected dictator in fact if not in name...

[Disgruntled70sHab]

BadCompany said:

So I guess the US tanks will be rolling through Saudi Arabia any day now, right? I mean, at least 50% of that population will be beaten by the state police if they dare to walk outside without a male relative, surely that is oppression no? And doesn't Saudia Arabia lead the world in summary executions? Aren't they the most oppressive regime in the world, now that the Taliban is gone?

I had a buddy who worked in Saudi Arabia for one year and he said that was enough. If you're on the street during prayers, there are persons appointed to direct you off the street until prayers are done. They do this by knocking your ankles with a cane until you're inside. You know yourself, SA is the world's number-1 producer of oil. But the USA has strategic military interests in Saudi Arabia. Where would they be without the airbases therein?

If you did, you would be calling for an invasion of the Congo, and I don't see too many Americans calling for that. Didn't see to many Americans all that willing to die for the people of Rwanda either, or any other god-foresaken hole in the world.

I'm not telling you anything new, but Romeo Delaire was one such person who gave hoot, BC. Delaire was close to the process of raiding a substantial weapons cache in Rwanda. The UN told him not to do it. He told the UN that all the signs of genocide were in place; they told him not to act on it. Honestly, you know yourself, buds, the USA did not interject, but neither did the international community, or the UN. No one cared at all, except the lads on the ground.

Belgium pushed and pushed to get a UN-Belgian-led mission into Rwanda; it used to be a Belgian colony after all and they were going it to protect the Tutsi manority who they left in charge of the country after they left. And of course, the French protected their interests, the Hutu majority, by sending in La Legion Etrangere. However, when the mission went sour Belguim pulled out immediately, blaming a Canadian, Delaire for their losses. I just found that rather convenient of the Belgian government to do that. And when they couldn't prosecute Delaire for the massacre of ten Belgian peacekeepers, they went after their own batallion colonel, Col. Luc Marchal. It wasn't until Delaire flew to Belguim that Marchal was acquitted.

Strange turn of events really. The USA, UN and the country that pushed for the mission, didn't give a hoot in the end either. How many Canadians came to their aid in '45 and never made it home? Conversely, how many Belgians stuck around when Delaire needed them the most? I haven't mentioned a few buddies of mine who ended up leaving the service because of their time in Rwanda. They cared enough to go over.

Hmpf!

Cheers.

[The New Guy]

An interesting thing I happened upon whilst surfing tonight that I thought might belong here, if for nothing more to stir the pot of controversy or whatever a bit:

www.snopes.com/photos/military/sandplanes.asp

Not the most up to date story (took place sometime last summer), but an interesting viewpoint for those who are convinced that because the US has not found WMD's in Iraq that there were none. These fighters were sitting buried in the sand (for what reasons only Saddam knows for sure) *next to* al Taqqadum where there was a military search and destroy operation for WMD's during the early months of the war.

If a massive fighter jet can go unnoticed in a well searched area for a couple months, how easy would it be to hide a small missle or bomb somewhere in the middle of the vast oceans of sand that make up Iraq?

Two things before I finish though, so I don't wind up arguing the same points that I've argued in previous threads.

(1) I know the absence of proof of the non-existance of WMD's does not mean that there are WMD's. I'm merely saying that - hey, is it really that surprising that these things haven't been found? Perhaps you are expecting a little two much, even from the evil empire of Bush.

(2) I also admit that this article lends credence to those thinkers who thought the UN Inspectors should've had more time to look around. This I counter with the argument that, if they are as well hidden as this plane was, the UN inspectors didn't stand a chance in the first place, and while the US doesn't stand much of a chance of finding them, they have a better chance of keeping it from falling into the wrong hands at least.

Toodles...

[PTH]

Interesting read.

But it changes nothing to the fact that Irak clearly wasn't a threat, much less an immediate one, and that this was clear to just about everyone but the neo-cons...

[BadCompany]

The_New_Guy said:

If a massive fighter jet can go unnoticed in a well searched area for a couple months, how easy would it be to hide a small missle or bomb somewhere in the middle of the vast oceans of sand that make up Iraq?

But that’s not what we were told, now is it? We weren’t told, or led to believe, that there are one or two small bombs hidden in the vast oceans of sand in Iraq, now were we?

No. What we were told was that there were huge stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. That Iraq had the ability to strike with chemical, biological, perhaps even nuclear weapons, with barely 45 minutes advance warning. That they were a threat to the world. That kind of striking ability isn’t confined to one or two small bombs carefully stashed away, their whereabouts closely guarded secrets that only a select few know about. That kind of striking ability requires a vast network of people, supplies, knowledge. An infrastructure. You need dozens of scientists in state-of-the-art facilities, researching, and designing these kinds of weapons. You need spies, negotiators and thieves, willing to beg, borrow and steal the ingredients, and get them across borders. You need manufacturing plants, workers, cafeteria employees, truck drivers to build the weapons. You need warehouses to store them. Remember, we were told their hundreds of thousands of tones of this stuff lying around. You need officers who know where they are, how to get them, and when they should be used. And finally, you need soldiers who know how to use them (i.e. don’t fire them into the wind).

The kind of infrastructure we were led to believe exists in Iraq requires thousands of people, plants, warehouses, trucks, trains. We know where the Iraqi’s built their fighter planes, because while you can hide a plane, you can’t really hide the process it takes to build one. Wouldn’t you think at least one of the thousands of people that are involved in this sort of thing would have stepped forward by now? Cooperated with coalition forces? Wouldn’t some soldier, a private or something, have stepped forward and said “I drove a truck full of stuff I wasn’t allowed to look at, to this spot in the desert?”

Never mind finding actual weapons, the fact that they can’t find even a hint of an infrastructure that is more recent than 1993 speaks volumes.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Those wacky Americans, where will they go next? We can only wait in awe, until they decide to bring "democracy" to the next culture they know nothing about.

God bless 'em. For it often seems that they do not know what they do. Or are they really more clever and Satanic (as a good part of the world believes them to be) than that? It is well worth remembering that the Devil is a gentleman; he doesn't tempt us with horrible and repulsive things, he tempts us with what appears to be pleasing and good.

Same as it ever was.#nosmileys

[patate]

Mr. said:

It is well worth remembering that the Devil is a gentleman; he doesn't tempt us with horrible and repulsive things, he tempts us with what appears to be pleasing and good.

You mean the guy who invite people to go in the Super Sex club with free passes?!? ;D