US Ends Search for WMD

[Disgruntled70sHab]

According to CNN guys.

U.S. ends search for WMD in Iraq

Wednesday, January 12, 2005 Posted: 1559 GMT (2359 HKT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. inspectors have ended their search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in recent weeks, a U.S. intelligence official told CNN.

edition.cnn.com/2005/US/01/12/wmd.search/index.htmlTEXT

From day-one it's always been disarm, disarm, disarm. Well I guess they did.

It will be interesting to see how this is preceived elsewhere.

Cheers.

[blaise]

George W. Bullsh long ago abandoned WMD as the rationale for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. He doesn't even mention al-Qaeda anymore. For some time his slogan of choice has been bringing democracy to Iraq (what's left of it) and the Middle East.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

WMD = Weak Means of Deception

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

They did find some firecrackers and box cutters!



Iraq is the place where ordinary people have more guns than the bloods and cripts in South Central LA, more than the hells Angels in Point St. Charles and more mines and bombs than the killing fields of Cambodia. It's a den of thieves run by warring gangs that committed the worst atrocities of the last 100 years, Duvalier in haiti included. Iraq invaded Kuwait, slaughtered, raped, pillaged and burned it on the way out.
I'm satisfied that taking out Saddam was justified and I think the removal of his remaining henchmen is justified. If the US army is erring, they are being too nice.

[Montrealer]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

They did find some firecrackers and box cutters!



Iraq is the place where ordinary people have more guns than the bloods and cripts in South Central LA, more than the hells Angels in Point St. Charles and more mines and bombs than the killing fields of Cambodia. It's a den of thieves run by warring gangs that committed the worst atrocities of the last 100 years, Duvalier in haiti included. Iraq invaded Kuwait, slaughtered, raped, pillaged and burned it on the way out.
I'm satisfied that taking out Saddam was justified and I think the removal of his remaining henchmen is justified. If the US army is erring, they are being too nice.

Another bunch of drivel.

www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm

So, according to your logic, should the United States be invaded for it's utter incapability to enforce regulations and train it's citizenry to properly use weaponry?

[blaise]

Some Americans (including some relative newcomers) tend to be apologists for right wing criminals in the US and elsewhere.

It would be helpful to know something about the genocide the US did nothing to stop (Cambodia, Ruanda, Darfur, among others). Why target Iraq? BECAUSE IT HAS OIL, something every Texan relates to. BECAUSE SADDAM DIRECTED AN ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT AGAINST PAPPY BUSH. ALSO BECAUSE THE NEOCON LOBBY IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WANTED TO REMOVE SADDAM'S THREAT AGAINST ISRAEL (Who are these Neocons? Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, et al).

Why not the brutal and backward regime in Saudi Arabia? Most of the 9/11 crew were Saudis, and rich Saudis continue to back al-Qaeda. Of course, the long ties between the Texas oil men and Riyadh immunize them.

Why not Pakistan? It seethes with Islamist anti-American hatred and has nuclear weapons that could fall into their hands.

Why not North Korea? Brutal regime headed by an insane dictator, that killed millions, has nuclear weapons.

[MC Habber]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

It's a den of thieves run by warring gangs that committed the worst atrocities of the last 100 years, Duvalier in haiti included.

I'm not even going to bother refuting that, but if the US based its decision on the relative magnitude of the atrocities, then why did it respond so slowly to the recent tsunamis - the worst natural disaster anywhere in a long time?

[franko]

MC said:

why did it respond so slowly to the recent tsunamis - the worst natural disaster anywhere in a long time?

No arms sales resulting.

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

Iraq invaded Kuwait, slaughtered, raped, pillaged and burned it on the way out.
I'm satisfied that taking out Saddam was justified and I think the removal of his remaining henchmen is justified. If the US army is erring, they are being too nice.

How many years ago was that, anyway? And I thought that action was taken last "century"!

The most Christian thing that George Bush and the American public could have done after 9-11 would have been to walk away. It would not have been the most nationalistic thing, it would not have been the most accepted thing, but it would have been the most prudent thing and the most Christian thing.

People might have talked about being walked on by the Islamic fundamentalists, and about the US having no backbone, but support from the world community would have been immense, and a non-US lead coalition would have had greater impact on the world situation.

Yet another example of ill-advised intervention.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

The said:

No arms sales resulting.


How many years ago was that, anyway? And I thought that action was taken last "century"!

The most Christian thing that George Bush and the American public could have done after 9-11 would have been to walk away. It would not have been the most nationalistic thing, it would not have been the most accepted thing, but it would have been the most prudent thing and the most Christian thing.

People might have talked about being walked on by the Islamic fundamentalists, and about the US having no backbone, but support from the world community would have been immense, and a non-US lead coalition would have had greater impact on the world situation.

Yet another example of ill-advised intervention.

Ghandi was successful against the British, but he would have failed against Saddam or Osama. The US is safer when the fighting is done in Mosul than when we defend ourselves in NYC.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

MC said:

I'm not even going to bother refuting that, but if the US based its decision on the relative magnitude of the atrocities, then why did it respond so slowly to the recent tsunamis - the worst natural disaster anywhere in a long time?

I am very slow to give money to thieves in the UN hoping for a trickle down effect to the peasants. Is there any accounting of where the aid is going and who is profiting? How much of the money is going to the rebel forces? Why are they expelling reporters who are noticing the pilfering from the peasants by gangs? Rape and kidnapping of victims. Flying over the countryside and dropping dollar bills out of the back of an aircraft is not the answer. How many countries sent money to the US victims of mudslides in California.
No matter what we do, we will be criticized that it was too little, too late.

[blaise]

Sounds like HFLA has been brainwashed. Get rid of the absurd idea that Saddam Hussein was going to attack the US. How and why? He isn't insane enough to think he (and Iraq) wouldn't be pulverized, and he had nothing to gain by it. Accept the reality that Bush made a horrible mistake. By the end of the year a large percentage of the American people will not only think the invasion was unnecessary but they will wish mightily for the US to get out, mission accomplished or not.

[MC Habber]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

I am very slow to give money to thieves in the UN hoping for a trickle down effect to the peasants.

Yes, the US is known for not paying its UN membership fees.

Is there any accounting of where the aid is going and who is profiting? How much of the money is going to the rebel forces? Why are they expelling reporters who are noticing the pilfering from the peasants by gangs? Rape and kidnapping of victims. Flying over the countryside and dropping dollar bills out of the back of an aircraft is not the answer.

Wait, wait, wait. Are you suggesting that foreign policy decisions should never be based on something as simplistic as "they committed the worst atrocities of the last 100 years"??

How many countries sent money to the US victims of mudslides in California.
No matter what we do, we will be criticized that it was too little, too late.

I love how you are able to equate something that has claimed the lives of over one hundred and fifty thousand people with mudslides in California.

[franko]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

Ghandi was successful against the British, but he would have failed against Saddam or Osama. The US is safer when the fighting is done in Mosul than when we defend ourselves in NYC.

Had Osama been a colonial figurehead in the United States your example would have worked much better.

Ghandi would not have gone into Iraq with an armed force, nor would he have gone into Afghanistan. He would have used diplomacy instead of just blasting away . . . something that Mr. Bush could learn.

The horror of 9-11 swept the world to the side of the US, but aggressive policy killed (am I sounding appropriately war-mongerish?) all most support and did nothing to show that Bush is anything but a lackey of the arms lobby.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

Iraq is the place where ordinary people have more guns than the bloods and cripts in South Central LA, more than the hells Angels in Point St. Charles and more mines and bombs than the killing fields of Cambodia.

Don't tell Charlton Heston

I'm satisfied that taking out Saddam was justified and I think the removal of his remaining henchmen is justified.

Possibly, but as Blaise pointed out (and Bad Company before him), why Iraq and why now? If this is a precedence, then there are several other brutal dictatorships around the world that must be removed as well.

If the US army is erring, they are being too nice.

I've worked with the American military. Like us, they have their good and bad eggs. But for the most part I thought the majority of US soldiers I worked with thought they had some "Hollywood" image to live up to. Even if they were subordinate in rank they felt their way to be the only way and the routine wore out right away. The it's "Gunny's-way-or-the-Highway," image doesn't do the US military any favours. It even came down to the way they spoke at times.

Now, this certainly is not a reflection on the entire American military, but the perception is out there and like your reference to "erring," it doesn't do them any favours.

Cheers.

[BadCompany]

The said:

The most Christian thing that George Bush and the American public could have done after 9-11 would have been to walk away. It would not have been the most nationalistic thing, it would not have been the most accepted thing, but it would have been the most prudent thing and the most Christian thing.

People might have talked about being walked on by the Islamic fundamentalists, and about the US having no backbone, but support from the world community would have been immense, and a non-US lead coalition would have had greater impact on the world situation.

I'll disagree on that. The coalition that invaded Afghanistan was extremely well supported, even by traditional US enemies. Every nation has the right to defend itself, and by pasting Afghanistan the US sent a very clear message that defend itself it will, and the rest of the world will support it.

Where they went wrong was in then, a) not rebuilding Afghanistan into a stable country, and b) invading Iraq, a move that only right-wingers in the US believe was even remotely close to self-defense.

The truth is, Iraq:

* had no WMD
* had no WMD program
* had no involvement in 9/11
* had no ties to Al Quaeda
* had no navy
* had no air force
* had only a conscripted peasant army, half the size and not nearly as well equipped as the one that got pasted in Gulf War I
* was crippled by sanctions and was trying to get them lifted because that was the only way they were going to rebuild their military (imagine that, sanctions worked!)

They posed no threat to anyone. Maybe they're own people, but they'd have to get in a very long line if that is the only requirement to being invaded. By invading Iraq, the US destroyed the coalition they had in Afghanistan, and re-inforced world opinion that they re nothing more than a bunch of bullies. Everybody hates bullies, and the weak tend to unite against them. Watch any number of after-school specials for proof. While our good friend in LA believes that it is better to fight your enemies in Mosul than in New York, I fear he is sadly mistaken if he believes that will be the case for much longer. Within the next few years, the thousands of recruits terrorists organizations around the world suddenly found themselves inundated with following the invasion, will begin making their way into US territory, dreams of revenge and virgins dancing in their eyes. It took ten years for Saudis angered at the presence of US troops on their land to hijack and crash a few American planes, what will happen 10 years from now?

In a bizarre twist, it might be better for the US if Iraq remains the quagmire it is (not much comfort to the "liberated" Iraqis mind you). That way, terrorists will continue to flood that country, to battle the infidel. In much the same way Lebanon became a convienient battlefield for dozens of wannabe armies and despotic dictators. If Iraq ever becomes somewhat pacified, those terrorists will be looking for new battlegrounds to wage their wars.

[blaise]

I don't think I'll be able to convert the West Coast Offense (to borrow an NFL term) to a clear straightahead strategy but at least I can point out that it's Gandhi, not Ghandi.

[franko]

BadCompany said:

The coalition that invaded Afghanistan was extremely well supported, even by traditional US enemies. Every nation has the right to defend itself, and by pasting Afghanistan the US sent a very clear message that defend itself it will, and the rest of the world will support it.

I agree: support from the world community was high after the shock of the 9-11 attacks (Michael Moore’s comments, notwithstanding). The pasting of Afghanistan did not meet the objective; while it saved the Afghans from the Taliban it left the country unstable, and Osama is still on the loose.

The US calls itself a Christian nation; the leader calls himself a Christian and says that as such he is guided by Christian principles. However, a Christian response is not the same as a nationalistic response (even though many people in the US – and some in Canada – equate the two).

Where they went wrong was in then, a) not rebuilding Afghanistan into a stable country, and b) invading Iraq, a move that only right-wingers in the US believe was even remotely close to self-defense.

and c) stubbornly continuing to suggest that all they are trying to do is to bring democracy to Iraq.

The truth is, Iraq:

* had only a conscripted peasant army, half the size and not nearly as well equipped as the one that got pasted in Gulf War I

Quite a rag-tag band it is, not that it matters. You’d think that the US brain trust would have learned from history . . . say, the American Revolution or Viet Nam . . . that the best trained troops don’t always win, but that sometimes home field advantage makes a big difference.

They posed no threat to anyone. Maybe they're own people, but they'd have to get in a very long line if that is the only requirement to being invaded. By invading Iraq, the US destroyed the coalition they had in Afghanistan, and re-inforced world opinion that they re nothing more than a bunch of bullies. Everybody hates bullies, and the weak tend to unite against them. Watch any number of after-school specials for proof. While our good friend in LA believes that it is better to fight your enemies in Mosul than in New York, I fear he is sadly mistaken if he believes that will be the case for much longer. Within the next few years, the thousands of recruits terrorists organizations around the world suddenly found themselves inundated with following the invasion, will begin making their way into US territory, dreams of revenge and virgins dancing in their eyes. It took ten years for Saudis angered at the presence of US troops on their land to hijack and crash a few American planes, what will happen 10 years from now?

Well said.

In a bizarre twist, it might be better for the US if Iraq remains the quagmire it is (not much comfort to the "liberated" Iraqis mind you). That way, terrorists will continue to flood that country, to battle the infidel. In much the same way Lebanon became a convienient battlefield for dozens of wannabe armies and despotic dictators. If Iraq ever becomes somewhat pacified, those terrorists will be looking for new battlegrounds to wage their wars.

Make a mess, run away, come back in a dozen years with a new plan, make another mess, run away again . . .

An article in today’s National Post talks about the US being the world’s defender of last resort, the fire department of the planet, and says that it had the international policing duty thrust upon the nation by virtue of its status as the world’s sole superpower. Maybe they have an overdeveloped sense of what is necessary (the Spiderman thing: with great power comes great responsibility). Maybe it is an ego thing. And this whole we really don’t care about what you think, we’re right attitude has got to go.

I will say that the international community will look down on them regardless of what they do: if they sit back and wait they are rebuked for being too passive in the midst of problems; if they move in they are rebuked for being to aggressive.

[Skilly]

The said:

The most Christian thing that George Bush and the American public could have done after 9-11 would have been to walk away. It would not have been the most nationalistic thing, it would not have been the most accepted thing, but it would have been the most prudent thing and the most Christian thing.

Actually, the most Christian thing George Bush could have done was let them fly another 2 planes into the Sears Tower.

"If your brother hits you in the cheek, turn and let him hit you in the other cheek"

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Skilly said:

Actually, the most Christian thing George Bush could have done was let them fly another 2 planes into the Sears Tower.

"If your brother hits you in the cheek, turn and let him hit you in the other cheek"

Osama and George W are brothers? Seems the Texas-Saudi Arabia connection goes deeper than the reports would have us believe..

[Disgruntled70sHab]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

r. How many countries sent money to the US victims of mudslides in California.

Actually, HFLA, from personal experience, I found the USA perfers to handle their own internal emergencies. Case in point; after 9/11 the DART when on full standby the very next day. Those communicators not only came from the signals regiment here in Kingston, but the majority of them were right from my troop. The US refused their assistance perferring to keep the borders closed and the airspace clear for an extended period of time.

However, to be fair, I remember both Canadian and American tradesmen having to cross the borders at different times in order to assist with less-serious problems; restoration of power, stuff like that.

No matter what we do, we will be criticized that it was too little, too late.

The USA is NOT the only country perceived this way. Ask Tony Blair.

In fact, just about every week now the Canadian government gives the public another reason to think this about them as well. It's turning into a comedy of sorts now.

It's not just about the US, HFLA.

Cheers.

[franko]

Skilly said:

Actually, the most Christian thing George Bush could have done was let them fly another 2 planes into the Sears Tower.

"If your brother hits you in the cheek, turn and let him hit you in the other cheek"

One plane, one cheek; second plane, second cheek. You are wanting the US to turn the other cheeks?

OK, this is getting ridiculous. We are stretching things to the absurd. Can we have hockey, Mr. Buttman?

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

The said:

One plane, one cheek; second plane, second cheek. You are wanting the US to turn the other cheeks?

OK, this is getting ridiculous. We are stretching things to the absurd. Can we have hockey, Mr. Buttman?

Joe Williams, vocalist

"I remember being in the White House with him on his 70th birthday, and at the time the president was Richard Nixon. When Duke [Ellington] was introduced by the president, he walked up on the stage, took Nixon in his arms, kissed him four times on his cheeks and whispered in his ear.

"Now those of us who knew Ellington very, very well collapsed because Nixon turned puce. We collapsed because we knew what Ellington had whispered to him. He would take you in his arms, kiss you four times on the cheek and say, `That's one for each cheek, baby.' He was unbelievable.

- To Love Him Madly - jazz legend Duke Ellington - includes related article on planned events pay tribute to Ellington

[blaise]

The said:

An article in today’s National Post talks about the US being the world’s defender of last resort, the fire department of the planet, and says that it had the international policing duty thrust upon the nation by virtue of its status as the world’s sole superpower. Maybe they have an overdeveloped sense of what is necessary (the Spiderman thing: with great power comes great responsibility). Maybe it is an ego thing. And this whole we really don’t care about what you think, we’re right attitude has got to go.

I will say that the international community will look down on them regardless of what they do: if they sit back and wait they are rebuked for being too passive in the midst of problems; if they move in they are rebuked for being to aggressive.

They're a selective fire department that specializes in putting out oil fires in Kuwait and Iraq.

[blaise]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

How many countries sent money to the US victims of mudslides in California.

Who told these geniuses to live in areas known to be geologically unstable, constantly subject to mudslides? Maybe it's because they know that Uncle Sam will make good their losses so that they rebuild in the same or other precarious locations on the seacoast. The public pays for their willful decisions. They are welfare cheats on the grandest possible scale.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Blaise said:

Who told these geniuses to live in areas known to be geologically unstable, constantly subject to mudslides? Maybe it's because they know that Uncle Sam will make good their losses so that they rebuild in the same or other precarious locations on the seacoast. The public pays for their willful decisions. They are welfare cheats on the grandest possible scale.

Who told those Sri lankans to build on lowland beaches vulnerable to tidal waves?

At least you are objective and not one sided against G "W" Bush or the US.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

Blaise said:

They're a selective fire department that specializes in putting out oil fires in Kuwait and Iraq.

Not as well as Canadian companies, Blaise

Oh, right ... I got you now

Cheers.

[Montrealer]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

Who told those Sri lankans to build on lowland beaches vulnerable to tidal waves?

At least you are objective and not one sided against G "W" Bush or the US.

California mudslide deathtoll: 10
Indian Ocean earthquake/tsunami deathtoll: Over 163,000

You made the inane comparison yourself earlier - expect people to get angered by it.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Montrealer said:

California mudslide deathtoll: 10
Indian Ocean earthquake/tsunami deathtoll: Over 163,000

You made the inane comparison yourself earlier - expect people to get angered by it.

There is clearly a lack of understanding of the relevance.

Somebody in Palestine straps a bomb on his body and detonates it killing 5 persons in some obscure location in Israel. Terrible, but doesn't really change my day. A Big Mac is still $1.98 and supersize is still $0.79.
My own child is involved in an automobile accident, and my day is ruined. Rushing to the hospital is my top priority. If that angers you, get angry!
I'm not debating the relative merits of my son vs somebody elses son in Sri Lanka. One event personally impacts me deeply while the other is a statistic on CNN. We were more interested in the one individual engulfed by the Tsunami on the beach shot in a video from a restaurant than in numbers in the hundreds of thousands. We watched it over and over.
You personally may not mind giving your children thousands of dollars to pay for their entire education, but you object to seeing your UIC contributions shared with needy people in Nfld. It's a matter of personal choice. You spend money on your family while millions starve in Ethiopia. Nothing wrong with that!?
The rain, mudslides, floods and debris on the beaches in California impacts me in a way that the events thousands of miles away in the Indian Ocean doesn't. I don't feel responsible for everything bad that happens to innocent people in the entire world.

[blaise]

The tsunami had tragic consequences. However, since it did occur, I would have preferred that it swept through Texas clear to the Oklahoma border and also hit Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and the Florida panhandle. It would have favorably impinged upon the next redistribution of electoral college votes.

[Montrealer]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

There is clearly a lack of understanding of the relevance.

Somebody in Palestine straps a bomb on his body and detonates it killing 5 persons in some obscure location in Israel. Terrible, but doesn't really change my day. A Big Mac is still $1.98 and supersize is still $0.79.
My own child is involved in an automobile accident, and my day is ruined. Rushing to the hospital is my top priority. If that angers you, get angry!
I'm not debating the relative merits of my son vs somebody elses son in Sri Lanka. One event personally impacts me deeply while the other is a statistic on CNN. We were more interested in the one individual engulfed by the Tsunami on the beach shot in a video from a restaurant than in numbers in the hundreds of thousands. We watched it over and over.
You personally may not mind giving your children thousands of dollars to pay for their entire education, but you object to seeing your UIC contributions shared with needy people in Nfld. It's a matter of personal choice. You spend money on your family while millions starve in Ethiopia. Nothing wrong with that!?
The rain, mudslides, floods and debris on the beaches in California impacts me in a way that the events thousands of miles away in the Indian Ocean doesn't. I don't feel responsible for everything bad that happens to innocent people in the entire world.

Of course you shouldn't feel responsible for the innocents across the world, but you can feel sympathy for them.

It's all a matter of perspective - I feel sad for the 150 or so killed by guns right here in Canada, but I can easily understand that the 15,000 killed by guns in the United States is a much bigger problem.

You seemed to make the point that no one is contributing aid to California because everyone is concentrating on the Indian Ocean catastrophe - even though the death rate is 16,000 times higher there than in California. And that total is only going to rise.