George Bush is Right
Tom Keunich
If not for President Bush's brave actions, we would all have been
subjected to one of the greatest perils known to the history of
mankind.
This war isn't cheap, but Armageddon would have been infinitely more
expensive.
Tnank God for G.W. Bush and his neocons.
Christie B.
--
Christie J. Beegle
"Tom Keunich" <tom_k_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6722e108.04050...@posting.google.com...
Jay Hill
>
go troll somewhere else
curt
PLONK
"Tom Keunich" <tom_k_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6722e108.04050...@posting.google.com...
John Everett
wrote:
Good one. ;-)
My news server has already received three responses from people who
just haven't gotten it. There will probably be more.
jeverett3<AT>earthlink<DOT>net http://home.earthlink.net/~jeverett3
Kyle Legate
> This is a cycling group... keep your political antics to yourself.
>
Randy Walton
political stuff that's been going on for days. This guy trolls and everyone
wants to get righteous about it?
Don't get me wrong, I'd much rather read about cycling, the politics just
gives me a headache.
"John Everett" <jeve...@earthlink.DEFEAT.UCE.BOTS.net> wrote in message
news:2ssc90tfrbg6edf3e...@4ax.com...
TritonRider
>For crying out loud. There is a thread with 100 messages in it about
>political stuff that's been going on for days. This guy trolls and everyone
>wants to get righteous about it?
I'm one of the major contributing criminals to the political threads. If you
haven't noticed there is almost always one going here. It seems to keep all the
crap from infecting all the other threads. Wheteher anyone wants to admit it
there's more educated intelligence here than in half of the newsgroups combined
so it makes for some good discussion.
Besides Lance is a buddy of GW, and as we see Kerry rides a bike so bring it
on.
Bill C
Sam
has to be done before the threat is imminent.
If you wait until an attack is launched, you are going to lose people before
you can respond.
"Tom Keunich" <tom_k_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6722e108.04050...@posting.google.com...
Howard Kveck
"Sam" <marat...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Bush never said Hussein was an "imminent threat". He stated that something
> has to be done before the threat is imminent.
> If you wait until an attack is launched, you are going to lose people before
> you can respond.
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24970
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=6228
--
tanx,
Howard
"Moby Dick was a work of art, What the hell happened?"
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
JP
> Bush never said Hussein was an "imminent threat". He stated that something
> has to be done before the threat is imminent.
> If you wait until an attack is launched, you are going to lose people before
> you can respond.
There's actually quite a paradox in here that you've glossed over with
your misunderstanding of the English language.
"Imminent" means about to happen, not that an attack has already been
launched.
Now, here's the paradox: Under international law it is clearly
permissible to defend yourself if you are attacked by a foreign power
(obviously not applicable to this Iraq War). It is permissible to
launch a pre-emptive attack if the threat from the foreign power is
imminent. So, if Bush didn't use the word "imminent" (or equivalent)
in justifying the war on Iraq, he attacked Iraq illegally and is
therefore guilty of crimes against humanity and should be impeached
and sent to the Hague to stand trial. OTOH, if he did use the word
"imminent" (or equivalent) he is either a liar (about its imminence)
or just plain full of crap.
JP
Curtis L. Russell
wrote:
>So, if Bush didn't use the word "imminent" (or equivalent)
>in justifying the war on Iraq, he attacked Iraq illegally and is
>therefore guilty of crimes against humanity and should be impeached
>and sent to the Hague to stand trial.
International law is not that simple, nor does it have just one set of
reasons for starting a war. First of all, it would fail for the simple
reason that the declaration of war was a decade ago and for relatively
straight forward reasons. What has existed since is a cease fire that
was violated by Iraq on an ongoing basis. The Bush administration was
inept for not simply saying that Hussein had violated the cease fire
too many times and a state of hostilities has resumed.
That's largely the same reason the North Koreans didn't have to
explain hacking some U.S. servicemen to death in the demilitarized
zone some years ago.
Second of all, there is a basis for invading when a state refuses to
abide by the standards of international law and poses a continuing
threat to other nations. That is a rather badly abused basis that has
been used by the honest and the sanctimonius and those just looking
for a reason, but it remains a valid basis. Imminent has nothing to do
with it.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
Richard Adams
However you feel about it, it's best to look at the facts.
1) It was a hard sell, Saddam Hussein posed an immenent danger with
WMD
2) Weapons inspectors could find nothing, UN urged patience to let
them do their job.
3) The lack of WMD finds was characterized as evidence of how crafty
Saddam's people were.
4) Invasion
5) No weapons found, only old junk left to rust out in the desert.
6) Bush asked for more time, urging patience in finding WMD
7) Still no WMD, so other excuses are paraded for public approval:
Saddam evil, etc.
8) What pretty much everyone who had any sense could see happened, is
happening, the country is descending into chaos.
9) It's now a meatgrinder, slowly working its way through coalition
troups, exposing scandals, creating friction with the locals.
Consider this: If Bush really was a competent leader, would he want
to remain in charge of this mess or pass it off to some other schmuck?
Tom Kunich
news:c2352af0.04050...@posting.google.com...
Notice how cleverly you left out the steps between 3 and 5.
3a) UN Weapons inspectors in fact found plenty of evidence that there HAD
been WMD at inspection sights in including such ruses as being held at the
front gate while large trucks were hurriedly leaving the rear gate. Many,
many incidents of this type were recorded.
3b) UN Weapons inspectors were thrown out of Iraq when it looked like they
were closing in on something.
3c) Machinery and chemicals necessary for the production of WMD were in fact
sold illegally by companies in Germany to Iraq and delivered there. Strange
that these items were never found either.
3d) There was a threat of invasion that lasted many months. During this time
it was made plain to the staff of Saddam Hussein's military that should they
be found in possession of WMD they were all be liable for the death penalty
under UN regulations. More months passed. CIA and other intelligence
services noted a very large number of heavy trucks moving from the areas in
which it was believed that WMD were being produced or stored and the Syrian
border. Also Syria appeared to be getting altogether too much oil from Iraq
to pay for the "food for oil" programs that we now know included payoffs to
the controlling UN officials to the tune of some $6 billion!
> 4) Invasion
> 5) No weapons found, only old junk left to rust out in the desert.
5a) In fact, weapons inspectors have claimed that there was significant
evidence that there had been WMD experimentation and possibly large scale
production.
> 6) Bush asked for more time, urging patience in finding WMD
> 7) Still no WMD, so other excuses are paraded for public approval:
> Saddam evil, etc.
7a) US Liberals tell us that they only way they will believe that is if a
large scale biological attack is made on a major American city and hopefully
millions die since anything less couldn't possibly be considered "mass
destruction".
> 8) What pretty much everyone who had any sense could see happened, is
> happening, the country is descending into chaos.
8a) Since Liberals refuse to actually talk to the people on the ground in
Iraq they want to believe the news outlets as if they were trying to provide
a balanced outlook. It sort of reminds one of the Loma Prieta Earthquake in
California some 15 years ago. Almost the entire world believed that the bay
area was in ruins and that San Francisco was in flames. That the Bay Bridge
was destroyed and that thousands of people were killed.
In truth, one section of the upper level of the Bay Bridge was pulled off of
it's support beams because of faulty bolts that hadn't been upgraded as had
been recommended in an engineering report. This caused the death of one
idiot driver who paniced and drove over the break at a high rate of speed.
There were some fires and seriously damaged houses in the Marina district of
San Francisco due to people knocking out the support columns under their
houses in order to install garages in houses that were never designed to
have them. These structures collapsing broke gas pipes and led to some fires
that were controlled by the SFFD. One section of skyway freeway in Oakland
collapsed. What was ABSOLYUTELY hidden was the fact that these sections had
been put up by "construction" firms connected to organized crime and were
NOT designed to specification. Less than half of the steel specified was
present in the construction. The same union connected firms built similar
sections in San Francisco which were quietly torn down and no one ever
mentioned the corruption and the colussion of the media ever again.
But we're supposed to believe that Iraq is in total turmoil regardless of
what the majority of Iraqis are saying.
Richard Adams
Nope, left step 4 right where it ought to be.
> 3a) UN Weapons inspectors in fact found plenty of evidence that there HAD
> been WMD at inspection sights in including such ruses as being held at the
> front gate while large trucks were hurriedly leaving the rear gate. Many,
> many incidents of this type were recorded.
And when they did go around some of these very sites checking the soil
for traces of chemical weapons or those compounds which would be used in
the production of such weapons little was found and much of it was from
some time in the past.
> 3b) UN Weapons inspectors were thrown out of Iraq when it looked like they
> were closing in on something.
Was this the famous "being thrown out of Iraq because US members of the
team were caught spying" close to something? I remember that bit pretty
well and was pretty sore about it. Nothing like planting a few spooks
in the inspection team as a measure of good faith. It was like asking
for them to get the boot.
There was the matter of finding the boxes of nuclear research documents
hidden in one of the palaces, but still so much paper isn't quite the
same as a fully functional nuclear warhead on an Al-Hussein missile
aimed at Tel Aviv.
> 3c) Machinery and chemicals necessary for the production of WMD were in fact
> sold illegally by companies in Germany to Iraq and delivered there. Strange
> that these items were never found either.
Yes, the US gave Saddam lots of fun bugs to play with, too. All this
was a long time ago. When it was readily apparent that Saddam did use
chemicals on Iran the US heroically stood by and did nothing, then while
Saddam's army dumped chemical weapons on the Kurds, the US also
heroically stood by and did nothing. There were solid grounds for
pummeling Baghdad, and the world would have to have agreed it was
justified. Yet, all this stuff for making weapons was sold long ago and
what was left that could be found was junked, long before the invasion.
> 3d) There was a threat of invasion that lasted many months. During this time
> it was made plain to the staff of Saddam Hussein's military that should they
> be found in possession of WMD they were all be liable for the death penalty
> under UN regulations.
Yet they posessed none and said so, so they should have had nothing to fear.
> More months passed. CIA and other intelligence
> services noted a very large number of heavy trucks moving from the areas in
> which it was believed that WMD were being produced or stored and the Syrian
> border.
Large trucks could be transporting WMD, or Saddam's treasures or pretty
much anything. What could have been, what might have been, and the CIA
even admitted their intelligence from that area was spotty and they had
to rely on exiles with their own agendas. (So bad it was that the CIA
vented more than once that these people could even corroborate each
other's stories.)
> Also Syria appeared to be getting altogether too much oil from Iraq
> to pay for the "food for oil" programs that we now know included payoffs to
> the controlling UN officials to the tune of some $6 billion!
Well, that's good enough reason right there, a few bad apples condemn
the whole barrel. Kill em all and let God sort 'em out.
>>4) Invasion
>>5) No weapons found, only old junk left to rust out in the desert.
>
>
> 5a) In fact, weapons inspectors have claimed that there was significant
> evidence that there had been WMD experimentation and possibly large scale
> production.
Years ago. Best estimates to date are that all the stuff they had were
disposed of by the late 90's.
>>6) Bush asked for more time, urging patience in finding WMD
>>7) Still no WMD, so other excuses are paraded for public approval:
>>Saddam evil, etc.
>
> 7a) US Liberals tell us that they only way they will believe that is if a
> large scale biological attack is made on a major American city and hopefully
> millions die since anything less couldn't possibly be considered "mass
> destruction".
Blah blah rant liberals rave blah blah rant blah fume, etc. You should
read Clarke's book. Oh, wait, he's someone with more experience and
background on the subject than anyone else in the world, he must be
wrong too.
>>8) What pretty much everyone who had any sense could see happened, is
>>happening, the country is descending into chaos.
>
>
> 8a) Since Liberals refuse to actually
You don't appear to have a firm grasp of what a "liberal" is. With that
in mind, I doubt you even have a firm grasp of conservatism, or the
roots of either the Democratic or the Republican party. You just like
to throw the word out like some automatic qualifier of someone who
disagrees with your point as wrong, and not just wrong, but bad bad
naughty wrong. Cripes. Get a grip.
[large pointless harangue snipped]
> But we're supposed to believe that Iraq is in total turmoil regardless of
> what the majority of Iraqis are saying.
Yeah. It's unstable and getting more so. There are quiet spots, but
the problem is Saddam did leave one little gift, a large number of
stockpiles of small arms, RPGs, etc. hidden around the Sunni Triangle.
Today's mess is nothing compared to the civil war which will eventually
erupt. Some strong man or strong willed party (lead by someone like
Saddam or that Sadr cleric) will seize control and it'll be headaches
for decades to follow. And of course they'll hate us.
Stewart Fleming
Richard Adams wrote:
> Consider this: If Bush really was a competent leader, would he want
> to remain in charge of this mess or pass it off to some other schmuck?
Powell seems to have decided...
<http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/05-04-2004/0002166707&EDATE=>
Tom, this is what I was getting at in an earlier thread about how an
otherwise honorable man can lie for his country. There is a limit.
How much would it take for Ari Fleischer to write his memoirs, I wonder...?
Howard Kveck
"Tom Kunich" <cycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Richard Adams" <ack...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> news:c2352af0.04050...@posting.google.com...
> > However you feel about it, it's best to look at the facts.
> >
> > 1) It was a hard sell, Saddam Hussein posed an immenent danger with
> > WMD
> > 2) Weapons inspectors could find nothing, UN urged patience to let
> > them do their job.
> > 3) The lack of WMD finds was characterized as evidence of how crafty
> > Saddam's people were.
>
> Notice how cleverly you left out the steps between 3 and 5.
>
> 3a) UN Weapons inspectors in fact found plenty of evidence that there HAD
> been WMD at inspection sights in including such ruses as being held at the
> front gate while large trucks were hurriedly leaving the rear gate. Many,
> many incidents of this type were recorded.
So they were able to pack all their stuff up and move it "out the back
gate" - how long would this take, Tom? The inspections going on before the
invasion were surprise - they'd pick out a site and charge over to it, no
warning. The inspectors reported in the media that they felt they had full
cooperation. They had a mandate to go after any suspicious thing - they
would have gone after any vehicle going out back gates.
> 3b) UN Weapons inspectors were thrown out of Iraq when it looked like they
> were closing in on something.
Are you talking about in the late '90s? Or more recently, like right
before the invasion? If the latter, then please do recall that the
inspectors were, in fact, still in Iraq the day before the bombs started to
drop. As for the earlier one, they actually left on their own after having
been caught spying, not inspecting. Yes, Tom, the team over there back then
was not entirely on the up-and-up.
> 3c) Machinery and chemicals necessary for the production of WMD were in fact
> sold illegally by companies in Germany to Iraq and delivered there. Strange
> that these items were never found either.
Much of that equipment had more uses than just weapons. By the way, US
companies also were involved in the sale of equipment, moving stuff through
foreign subsidiaries (which were no more than freight forwarders at that
point).
> 3d) There was a threat of invasion that lasted many months. During this time
> it was made plain to the staff of Saddam Hussein's military that should they
> be found in possession of WMD they were all be liable for the death penalty
> under UN regulations. More months passed. CIA and other intelligence
> services noted a very large number of heavy trucks moving from the areas in
> which it was believed that WMD were being produced or stored and the Syrian
> border.
There's no proof of what was in any trucks, is there?
> Also Syria appeared to be getting altogether too much oil from Iraq
> to pay for the "food for oil" programs that we now know included payoffs to
> the controlling UN officials to the tune of some $6 billion!
"We now know..." Tom, those are what are called "allegations". Who is
making these allegations? Hmmm, could it be... Ahmed Chalabi? Why, YES!!!!
No credible neutral agency has seen the documents he purports to have on
this. But let's look at the history of Mr. Chalabi. He was convicted in
absentia in Jordan years ago for bank fraud (on the order of about $200m).
(Of course, he got himself the position of "Finance Minister" in the IGC.
Fox in the henhouse?) He ran the Iraqi Nat'l Congress out of London, and
was the golden boy of the Pentagon to take over Iraq after the war was
over. He and the INC are the prime movers of intel and reports that the
Pentagon used to argue its case for the war. But the intel community always
had very serious doubts about their stuff - they repeatedly said the
sources were unreliable, at best. INC supplied most of the info about
chem, biological and nuclear weapons before the war - none have been found
as they described it. In fact, none have been found at all.
But wait, it gets better! The CIA had a coup set up in '96 that was
blown - they believe it was blown by Chalabi because it didn't involve him.
The Jordanians have supplied the US with phone intercepts that show that
Chalabi had prior knowledge of the bombing of the Jordanian embassy on
August 7, 2003. He chose not to pass that info along. At the moment, there
are grave suspicions that Chalabi and his aides have been passing highly
sensitive info about US security ops to the Iranians.
So why should anyone believe a damn thing Ahmed Chalabi says about
"payoffs to UN officials"? He had an agenda all along - that was to see
himself in power. His quote? "As far as weąre concerned weąve been entirely
successful. That tyrant Saddam is gone and the Americans are in Baghdad.
What was said before is not important." In other words, he got the US to do
his dirty work, and it didn't matter what bullshit story he told to get
them to do it. The INC, by the way, gets paid $340K per month to tell lies.
Our tax payer dollars at work...
> > 4) Invasion
> > 5) No weapons found, only old junk left to rust out in the desert.
>
> 5a) In fact, weapons inspectors have claimed that there was significant
> evidence that there had been WMD experimentation and possibly large scale
> production.
In fact, not. Ask David Kay. "Among the closely held internal judgments
of the Iraq Survey Group, overseen by David Kay as special representative
of CIA Director George J. Tenet, are that Iraq's nuclear weapons scientists
did no significant arms-related work after 1991, that facilities with
suspicious new construction proved benign, and that equipment of potential
use to a nuclear program remained under seal or in civilian industrial use."
Further:
"I'm personally convinced that there were not large stockpiles of newly
produced weapons of mass destruction," Kay told the New York Times. "We
don't find the people, the documents or the physical plants that you would
expect to find if the production was going on. I think they gradually
reduced stockpiles throughout the 1990's. Somewhere in the mid-1990's the
large chemical overhang of existing stockpiles was eliminated. The Iraqis
say the they believed that [the UN inspection system] was more effective
[than U.S. analysts believed it was], and they didn't want to get caught."
> > 6) Bush asked for more time, urging patience in finding WMD
> > 7) Still no WMD, so other excuses are paraded for public approval:
> > Saddam evil, etc.
>
>
> 7a) US Liberals tell us that they only way they will believe that is if a
> large scale biological attack is made on a major American city and hopefully
> millions die since anything less couldn't possibly be considered "mass
> destruction".
Tom, this is your presentation of what you believe the evil "Liberals"
you so despise might say. Your statement, of course, has no basis in fact,
or, indeed, reality.
>
> > 8) What pretty much everyone who had any sense could see happened, is
> > happening, the country is descending into chaos.
>
> 8a) Since Liberals refuse to actually talk to the people on the ground in
> Iraq they want to believe the news outlets as if they were trying to provide
> a balanced outlook.
You rely on Fox as a media source. Say no more.
> It sort of reminds one of the Loma Prieta Earthquake in California some
(snipper of biblical proportions)
What the hell are you talking about?
> But we're supposed to believe that Iraq is in total turmoil regardless of
> what the majority of Iraqis are saying.
No one has said it's in "total turmoil", but it is heading that way. And
the reports I read have comments from ranking civilian and military people
who say the majority of Iraqis are NOT happy with things as of right now.
Which is one reason why the non-Iraqis are moving into smaller, more
heavily armed compounds. The pictures of the Abu Ghraib abuse is a huge
thing over there - do you think that is winning any "hearts and minds"? I'm
still waiting for the showers of flowers to happen, Tom.
<http://www.irak.be/ned/nieuws/fallujah7.jpg>
TritonRider
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/05-
04-2004/0002166707&EDATE=
Stewart that was a really good piece, right until we got to the last line
there for no apparent reason other than promoting a politival agenda is a
comment on Cyba.
Don't know if you've noticed all the coverage in the BBC but the rest of the
planet seems to be finally admitting that Castro isn't a great hero. It's
ranked as one of the three least free nations for the press. Mexico has just
pulled their ambassador.
I really have to question why he would screw up a really powerfull on target
piece like this by tossing a flag that say I am biased.
Bill C
Steven L. Sheffield
"Stewart Fleming" <stewart...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>
>
> Richard Adams wrote:
>
>> Consider this: If Bush really was a competent leader, would he want
>> to remain in charge of this mess or pass it off to some other schmuck?
>
> Powell seems to have decided...
> <http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/05-04-
> 2004/0002166707&EDATE=>
http://us.gq.com/plus/content/?040429plco_01
The actual article mentioned in the press release.
> Tom, this is what I was getting at in an earlier thread about how an
> otherwise honorable man can lie for his country. There is a limit.
>
> How much would it take for Ari Fleischer to write his memoirs, I wonder...?
>
--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
veloworks at worldnet dot ay tea tee dot net
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea aye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [four word] slash
Tom Kunich
binary gas agent?
I do see your point, Saddam was buying up specialized equipment used in the
making of weapons so that he could use it to make fertilizer.
And you answer that what Chalabi says is allegations while planting another
entire set of allegations. Howard, Howard, Howard!
Tom Kunich
from GQ for crying out loud. Do you propose that some guy who writes for a
magazine that rivals Queer Eye for the Straight Guy is demonstrating
political astuteness?
"Stewart Fleming" <stewart...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:tr_lc.42$FN....@news02.tsnz.net...
benjo maso
"Tom Kunich" <cycl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:SFWlc.7309$Hs1....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
(snip)
> 3d) There was a threat of invasion that lasted many months. During this
time
> it was made plain to the staff of Saddam Hussein's military that should
they
> be found in possession of WMD they were all be liable for the death
penalty
> under UN regulations. More months passed. CIA and other intelligence
> services noted a very large number of heavy trucks moving from the areas
in
> which it was believed that WMD were being produced or stored and the
Syrian
> border.
Do you really think that a nation threatened by a immenent invasion will
bury it most deadly weapons in the sand or export them to another country?
Sadam was undoubtedly a lousy strategist, but even he couldn't have been
that stupid. He had used chemical and biological weapons against the Kurds
and the Iranians, he would have used them against the Americans and British
as well. Or do you think he suddenly had got religion? He or his military
staff certainly couldn't have been afraid of a "death penalty under UN
regulations", because there isn't such a thing. And besides, in the meantime
most Iraqi leaders have been caught. So do you really think the USA still
wouldn't know where to look for those famous "hidden WMD's"? Or do you think
the Americans are too soft on interrogation techniques?
Benjo Maso
TM
"benjo maso" <benjo...@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:c7asuk$1nuhb$1...@ID-75468.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
>
> Do you really think that a nation threatened by a immenent invasion will
> bury it most deadly weapons in the sand or export them to another country?
> Sadam was undoubtedly a lousy strategist, but even he couldn't have been
> that stupid.
He wasn't stupid. He lost one war ('91) and managed to stay in power. It
would be very simple minded to think that Saddam thought he was going to win
the actual military part of any war with the US. He knew that his only
chance was to defeat the US politically. Step one in that for even a simple
minded dictator would be to not get caught with an illegal weapons program.
As long as he did that, others - like you - could make a case for him.
JP
> On 4 May 2004 11:05:43 -0700, SocSecTr...@earthlink.net (JP)
> wrote:
>
> >So, if Bush didn't use the word "imminent" (or equivalent)
> >in justifying the war on Iraq, he attacked Iraq illegally and is
> >therefore guilty of crimes against humanity and should be impeached
> >and sent to the Hague to stand trial.
>
> International law is not that simple, nor does it have just one set of
> reasons for starting a war.
It actually is that simple when it comes to determining the legality
of invading another country.
> First of all, it would fail for the simple
> reason that the declaration of war was a decade ago and for relatively
> straight forward reasons.
Sorry, I can't make much sense out of this sentence because of its
twisted syntax, but Gulf War I provides no rationale for Gulf War II.
> What has existed since is a cease fire that
> was violated by Iraq on an ongoing basis.
> The Bush administration was
> inept for not simply saying that Hussein had violated the cease fire
> too many times and a state of hostilities has resumed.
Self-defense against the no-fly zone is not violation of a cease fire.
The no-fly zone, while admirable in its purpose, was not the product
of the UN Security Council, and Iraq therefore had the right to fire
on armed planes of a foreign power making incursions over its
territory. I supported the no-fly zones, and I think Iraq would have
been smart to allow the incursions, but Iraq was not breaking a
cease-fire by defending itself.
And I don't know anyone who has tried to claim that as a legal basis
for Gulf War II, probably because no one except a True Believing
Dittohead would take it seriously.
Furthermore, it is clear and explicit that the Security Council has
the sole authority for interpreting its own resolutions; I think we
all know that the Security Council does not agree with your flimsy
excuse.
> That's largely the same reason the North Koreans didn't have to
> explain hacking some U.S. servicemen to death in the demilitarized
> zone some years ago.
Non sequitur.
> Second of all, there is a basis for invading when a state refuses to
> abide by the standards of international law and poses a continuing
> threat to other nations.
No, there's not, unless explicitly authorized by the Security Council.
(See above reference to authority to interpret Security Council
resolutions, in case you're about to tell us that the first resolution
authorized the invasion.)
> That is a rather badly abused basis that has
> been used by the honest and the sanctimonius and those just looking
> for a reason, but it remains a valid basis. Imminent has nothing to do
> with it.
It has everything to do with it, and the basis in international law is
where the word "imminent" originated before making its way into the
public discourse about the justification for the war.
To restate, under the UN Charter, which is a binding treaty as
understood under the US Consitution and explcitly supersedes any other
existing treaties, the only allowable reasons for war are self defense
(Article 51) and Security Council authorized use of force (Article
42). The provisions of Article 51 have been understood to include the
threat of imminent in addition to actual attack. There is nothing
else. The signatories have agreed otherwise not to resort to war,
ever. If Bush does not claim that attack by Iraq was imminent (or
equivalent), he and his conspirators would appear to be war criminals.
JP
JP
> 3a) UN Weapons inspectors in fact found plenty of evidence that there HAD
> been WMD at inspection sights in including such ruses as being held at the
> front gate while large trucks were hurriedly leaving the rear gate. Many,
> many incidents of this type were recorded.
The UN inspectors were clear that the Iraqis had begun real
cooperation with the inspection teams at the time that the US forced
the inspectors out of Iraq.
> 3b) UN Weapons inspectors were thrown out of Iraq when it looked like they
> were closing in on something.
They weren't thrown out by the Iraqis, though; they were forced out by
the US because we were getting ready to invade Iraq.
For the sake of brevity, I have not bothered to respond individually
to the rest of the claims you listed. They are nevertheless complete
nonsense, the kind of stuff you might pick up on Limbaugh's show,
designed to buck up the True Believers lest they get overwhelmed by
cognitive dissonance.
> But we're supposed to believe that Iraq is in total turmoil regardless of
> what the majority of Iraqis are saying.
Sheesh!
JP
benjo maso
"TM" <x...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cY6mc.2278$Ua5.1...@monger.newsread.com...
To win politically? How? You mean Sadam would have thought that if the
Americans wouldn't find WMD's, they would offer him excuses, reinstall him
in power, rebuilt the cities, sew on the lost limbs of Iraqi citizens and
pay damages? Besides, you underestimate the megalomania of dictators in
general and Sadam in particular. I would be surprised if he was really
convinced that he couldn't win.
Benjo Maso
Richard Adams
>
> > Consider this: If Bush really was a competent leader, would he want
> > to remain in charge of this mess or pass it off to some other schmuck?
>
> Powell seems to have decided...
> <http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/05-04-2004/0002166707&EDATE=>
>
> Tom, this is what I was getting at in an earlier thread about how an
> otherwise honorable man can lie for his country. There is a limit.
Powell indicated early in the first term that he was less than happy
with things and wouldn't be part of a second term. I think his
memoirs, if he really opened up would be an eye opener. He looks like
he's aged 20 years in the past 3.
> How much would it take for Ari Fleischer to write his memoirs, I wonder...?
A fat wad of cash, but what are you expecting? Another memoir like
O'Neill's or Clarke's probably wouldn't really shake public opinion
much, those in denial will remain so (and chalk it up to another axe
to grind for lucre) and those who see what's been going on will
continue to shake their heads in wonderment.
It is already quite something that two books by people from an
administration still in place have had their works published. It was
noted someone, probably BBC, that this is highly unusual and that it's
so unusual says something.
TM
>
>
>
> To win politically? How?
The strong opposition to the US is indicative of the manner in which Saddam
sought to win. In fact, I would say he won the political war because the US
had to go almost alone. He did this by turning the coalition against itself
and turning himself and his country into the victim despite the fact they
were the original aggressors in the conflict.
>You mean Sadam would have thought that if the
> Americans wouldn't find WMD's, they would offer him excuses, reinstall him
> in power, rebuilt the cities, sew on the lost limbs of Iraqi citizens and
> pay damages?
No. But what if a last minute settlement to avoid the initial hostilities
were a fairly blanket inspection of the country. Surely, no one would
advocate leaving ditching the wmd to the last minute?
>Besides, you underestimate the megalomania of dictators in
> general and Sadam in particular.
I've never met the man. He seems ruthlessly pragmatic with above average
intelligence to me. I will not argue that he doesn't have an ego!
>I would be surprised if he was really
> convinced that he couldn't win.
>
We disagree. I think he knew he would not have air superiority and that
fact would rule out any chance of a military victory in the conventional
sense. He would only be able to win by making the cost too high for the US
in causalities and public opinion. This again, is why it was in his best
interest to do anything but be caught with wmd. Priority one.
B. Lafferty
It looks, at present, as though the "coalition" hasn't won. Does that mean
that Saddam hasn't lost yet? We need to define winning in this context.
TritonRider
>It is already quite something that two books by people from an
>administration still in place have had their works published. It was
>noted someone, probably BBC, that this is highly unusual and that it's
>so unusual says something.
>
Yeah, If you offer enough money to holdovers from a past organization or
disgruntled employee, and tell them what you expect. They will write it.
There are plenty of these about every president, but these are higher profile
do to the amount of money his ideological opponents are willing to spend, and
the number of outlets willing to publish just about anything negative about
this administration.
A lot of what pisses me off is that a ton of the stuff being run are lies of
omission. Rather than present events and people as they happened and let people
decide for themselves, you are presented with maybe 2/3 of a full story and the
other 1/3 if mentioned at all is minimalized.
That is immoral and unethical for what are supposed to be fact based news
outlets.
I don't give a crap what they run on the opinions/editorial page, but in the
"news" I don't want opinions I want what happened.
This is exactly why over 70% of Americans don't trust anything they get as
news. It's not anymore, it's all based on the news outlet's or talking heads
bias.
That's why you have to read both the "National Review" and "The Nation" to
even begin to get a handle on complicated issues.
Bill C
Chris
"benjo maso" <benjo...@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:c7asuk$1nuhb$1...@ID-75468.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> news:SFWlc.7309$Hs1....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> (snip)
> > 3d) There was a threat of invasion that lasted many months. During this
> time
> > it was made plain to the staff of Saddam Hussein's military that should
> they
> > be found in possession of WMD they were all be liable for the death
> penalty
> > under UN regulations. More months passed. CIA and other intelligence
> > services noted a very large number of heavy trucks moving from the areas
> in
> > which it was believed that WMD were being produced or stored and the
> Syrian
> > border.
>
>
> Do you really think that a nation threatened by a immenent invasion will
> bury it most deadly weapons in the sand or export them to another country?
> Sadam was undoubtedly a lousy strategist, but even he couldn't have been
> that stupid.
He always tried to avoid direct confrontation with US forces while bluffing
to gain as much as possible. This is true not only with WMDs but with almost
all of his best weapons, jet fighters, etc. Considering his history, it
would be expected that he would retreat at the last moment in the face of a
US invasion and preserving his weapons may have been more important to him
then hiding them to avoid "prosecution" but whatever the case, he had plenty
of motive to do this. It does make sense even if the explanations from some
do not.
Chris
You have not explained any of his actions. You have only cast doubts over
what others are saying. Why not offer your view of his actions and motives
if you imagine it to be superior and more logical than those you criticize?
Richard Adams
It doesn't seem to occur to a lot of those who saw Saddam as an
Immenent Threat that he never used chemical weapons against US or
Coalition forces. When Iraq took prisoners most were treated well - a
courtesy lost on some damn fools running prisons in Iraq. Initial
news reports, including those from the Pentagon said american
prisoners were abused, were later refuted. Even Jessica Lynch's story
kept changing until the truth came from her own mouth.
Much as people try to tar Saddam, the Republican Guard and Iraqi
Intelligence as threatening, dangerous and willing to resort to
desperate means to retain power, that didn't play out against the US.
They're certainly guilty of many things, but the only war they waged
against the US was political. Now that Major Combat is over and
they're no longer in charge, those fighting coalition forces aren't
anywhere near so restrained in their tactics.
The fool that many portrayed Saddam as hasn't been born out, he saw
how decisively his forces were defeated in '91 and changed his tactics
to avoid an armed confrontation with a force he knew would be
overwhelming. He was crafty, but he apparently didn't count on a new
US leader determined to overthrow his government, through whatever
excuses necessary. 9/11 was simply convenient, if it hadn't happened
what would Iraq be like today? Same thing, using some other context
to invade?
benjo maso
>
> "benjo maso" <benjo...@chello.nl> wrote in message
> news:c7b16d$1rle0$1...@ID-75468.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
>
> >
> >
> > To win politically? How?
>
> The strong opposition to the US is indicative of the manner in which
Saddam
> sought to win. In fact, I would say he won the political war because the
US
> had to go almost alone. He did this by turning the coalition against
itself
> and turning himself and his country into the victim despite the fact they
> were the original aggressors in the conflict.
The US didn't have to go almost alone, the US choose to go for it before
they had built up the same kind of coalition as in the first Gulf War. Sadam
had nothing to do with it.
> >You mean Sadam would have thought that if the
> > Americans wouldn't find WMD's, they would offer him excuses, reinstall
him
> > in power, rebuilt the cities, sew on the lost limbs of Iraqi citizens
and
> > pay damages?
>
> No. But what if a last minute settlement to avoid the initial hostilities
> were a fairly blanket inspection of the country. Surely, no one would
> advocate leaving ditching the wmd to the last minute?
>
> >Besides, you underestimate the megalomania of dictators in
> > general and Sadam in particular.
>
> I've never met the man. He seems ruthlessly pragmatic with above average
> intelligence to me. I will not argue that he doesn't have an ego!
Like most ruthless dictators he was surrounded by people who wouldn't dare
to contradict him or say something he didn't like. Under those circumstances
it's almost impossible to develop a realistic view of one's self and of
what's exactly going on.
> >I would be surprised if he was really
> > convinced that he couldn't win.
> >
>
> We disagree. I think he knew he would not have air superiority and that
> fact would rule out any chance of a military victory in the conventional
> sense. He would only be able to win by making the cost too high for the
US
> in causalities and public opinion. This again, is why it was in his best
> interest to do anything but be caught with wmd. Priority one.
Suppose you're right. That not having caught with WMD's was in his best
interest and that he wasn't going to use them anyway, not even when his
country was invaded. In that case why would he have kept them? He certainly
would have destroyed them or let them rust. And according to the UN
inspectors that was exactly what he did.
Benjo Maso
benjo maso
"B. Lafferty" <Ma...@Italia.com> wrote in message
news:pX8mc.6204$a47....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
It's not yet clear who had won. On the other hand it's certain that Saddam
has lost: his two favourite sons are killed and he is in prison.
Benjo Maso
Stewart Fleming
TritonRider wrote:
>>From: Stewart Fleming stewart...@paradise.net.nz
>
>
> http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/05-
> 04-2004/0002166707&EDATE=
>
> Stewart that was a really good piece, right until we got to the last line
> there for no apparent reason other than promoting a politival agenda is a
> comment on Cyba.
Non-sequitur, eh?
I suppose you could read it in the same way as the Roman senator who
ended every speech by saying "and by the way, Carthage must be destroyed..."
benjo maso
"Chris" <chrismc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4099361a$0$35090$8126...@news.nntpaccess.com...
You're forgetting that there is no proof whatsoever that he preserved his
WMD's. The UN inspectors said he didn't. The Americans spent almost a year
and a few hundred million dollars to prove that they were wrong, but in
vain. And as long as it hasn't been proven that Saddam still had his WMD's
any hyposthesis why he could have had hidden them is IMO rather useless.
Benjo Maso
benjo maso
>
> "benjo maso" <benjo...@chello.nl> wrote in message
> news:c7b16d$1rle0$1...@ID-75468.news.uni-berlin.de...
Why should I? Anybody who claims Saddam had preserved his WMD's has much to
explain. I haven't.
Benjo Maso
Benjamin Weiner
> You're forgetting that there is no proof whatsoever that he preserved his
> WMD's. The UN inspectors said he didn't. The Americans spent almost a year
> and a few hundred million dollars to prove that they were wrong, but in
> vain. And as long as it hasn't been proven that Saddam still had his WMD's
> any hyposthesis why he could have had hidden them is IMO rather useless.
This conversation reminds me of an old, bad childrens' joke:
- Why do elephants paint their toenails red?
- I dunno, why?
- So they can hide in cherry trees, dummy!
- But there aren't any elephants in cherry trees!
- See, it works!
Robert Chung
>
> Non-sequitur, eh?
> I suppose you could read it in the same way as the Roman senator who
> ended every speech by saying "and by the way, Carthage must be
> destroyed..."
Cato.
TritonRider
>Non-sequitur, eh?
>I suppose you could read it in the same way as the Roman senator who
>ended every speech by saying "and by the way, Carthage must be destroyed..."
>
In the original story, at least it's in context. I disagree with the position,
but at least now it could be discussed reasonably as part of the news. In the
cut and paste piece it's just a random political statement.
Or as you said he used it purposely as a tag line to make HIS political
position clear.
Bill C
Ewoud Dronkert
>> I suppose you could read it in the same way as the Roman senator who
>> ended every speech by saying "and by the way, Carthage must be
>> destroyed..."
>
>Cato.
The Elder (to distinguish him from the violent valet).
Curtis L. Russell
wrote:
>> First of all, it would fail for the simple
>> reason that the declaration of war was a decade ago and for relatively
>> straight forward reasons.
>
>Sorry, I can't make much sense out of this sentence because of its
>twisted syntax, but Gulf War I provides no rationale for Gulf War II.
The syntax isn't twisted. We declared war a decade ago. We had good
reasons for doing so. There was no peace at the end of that war- just
a ceasefire. A ceasefire does not end a war unless superceded by a
peace treaty or other formal end of hostilities.
Hussein fired on enough U.S. planes in legitimate flight patterns to
warrant declaring the ceasefire violated and proceeding back to
hostilities. The reason for their fllight is not specifically relevant
- it is enough that it was a U.S. plane for the U.S. to declare the
cease fire violated.
Technically a better basis for hostilities than anything that the
administration actually used.
While I didn't think the war was appropriate at the point it was
declared (since the administration wants to declare a new war, I'll
use that terminology), it is interesting the 'damned if you do, damned
if you don't' that all U.S. presidents will be dealing with as the
head of the lone superpower. Rwanda - we're at fault for not going in
early enough. For standing aside as innocent civilians were killed.
They were killed by a government as legally elected as that of Iraq.
Republican or Democrat, the 'loyal opposition' will try the president
on the basis of what is 'true' in a much clearer hindsight. If the Al
Queda had dropped some canisters of gas in New York, Bush would be
just as condemned for doing too little as he is accused of acting
precipitously now. Maybe his arrogance is simply realizing that and
deciding a course that he thought - at the time - would lead to the
fewest overall casualties.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
Tom Kunich
>
> To win politically? How?
Mostly by paying off UN officials to protect him and then allow the bleeding
hearts of the world to beg the US to let Saddam continue dropping people
into industrial paper shredders, raping women in front of their husbands
before killing them both and lots of other nice things that the Europeans
are willing to overlook as long as they're lives continue to go smoothly
along. And then there was that funny deal with the Spanish. And, say, why
did it take the US and NATO to deliver Milosevic to the Hague where it now
appears the world court will be unable to prove a single charge against him.
Benjo, all that nasty business aside, it might be that the weapons program
was a hoax on a grand scale. But so what? Precisely what difference does it
make whether there WERE WMD or not as long as they had convinced the world
that they were there? Hussein was controlling the region and threatening
other countries on the strength of those weapons whether they existed or
not.
He and his administration were nasty beasts who deserved a great deal less
than what they are presently receiving. Most of them should have been dumped
into paper shredders if we had any dignity and a bit less civility.
I suggest that if you believe that Saddam was a megalomaniac you simply
don't understand the man at all. He was a TYPICAL middle eastern dictator.
Do you suppose for a second that Syria's al-Asad is different in any other
way aside from being just slightly more conservative in the international
eye? What is going on under the Ayatollahs in Iran? What does each of those
little waring tribal leaders in Afghanistan act like?
Tom Kunich
>
> It's not yet clear who had won. On the other hand it's certain that Saddam
> has lost: his two favourite sons are killed and he is in prison.
Benjo, you underestimate Lafferty. As a lawyer he doesn't see that yet as a
failure. After all, there's ALWAYS another appeal.
TM
>
> In that case why would he have kept them? He certainly
> would have destroyed them or let them rust. And according to the UN
> inspectors that was exactly what he did.
>
You're too much!
You clearly imply above that you believe that he had wmd. Earlier you state
that you believe he would use them against the US if he had the chance. So,
according to you, he has the capacity to produce wmd and the intent to use
them. He just didn't happen to have them handy at precisely the correct
time for your tastes! You're joking, right?
Stewart Fleming
TritonRider wrote:
> In the original story, at least it's in context. I disagree with the position,
> but at least now it could be discussed reasonably as part of the news. In the
I read the original when it became available here this afternoon and
it's clear the Cuba statement is just athrowaway comment.
> cut and paste piece it's just a random political statement.
To be fair, the press release did list "highlights". Odd choice for
that one, unless you remember that the point of a press release is to
push buttons and generate interest.
On related topic, someone please tell me that Matt Drudge is being
satirical here:
<http://www.drudgereport.com/rcmu.htm>
Howard Kveck
"Tom Kunich" <cycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "benjo maso" <benjo...@chello.nl> wrote in message
> news:c7b16d$1rle0$1...@ID-75468.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > To win politically? How?
>
> Mostly by paying off UN officials to protect him
There you go again on this "pay off" business - not substantiated at
this time...
> Benjo, all that nasty business aside, it might be that the weapons program
> was a hoax on a grand scale. But so what? Precisely what difference does it
> make whether there WERE WMD or not as long as they had convinced the world
> that they were there? Hussein was controlling the region and threatening
> other countries on the strength of those weapons whether they existed or
> not.
If he was, in fact, "controlling the region", why did none of his
neighbors feel strongly enough about it to join the "coalition" against
him? It seems like it would be in their interests to be rid of him, yet
none joined...
--
tanx,
Howard
"Moby Dick was a work of art, What the hell happened?"
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
Howard Kveck
"benjo maso" <benjo...@chello.nl> wrote:
I don't think it took him very long to figure out he was never going to
remain in power once the ball started rolling, Benjo. Bush made it obvious
that no matter what Saddam did, the US would be coming in. I look at it
this way: He may have thought that (1) if he gave up any weapons he had,
he'd have no chance to defend himself, or (2) he could hide any weapons he
had and inflict max damage once the US actually invaded. If he'd chosen
(2), he'd be slaughtered because of it. Choice (1) is really no better
because of Bush's way of approaching the situation. The problem with Bush's
approach was that it made it clear that invasion was inevitable, rather
than a last resort. I think he knew this time was different from GW1, in
that GHWB always made it clear that once they were out of Kuwait, that was
about it.
Howard Kveck
"Tom Kunich" <cycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You tell me Howard, how long would it take to load up a tanker truck full of
> binary gas agent?
Don't you think it's a moot point, since the inspectors who were around
then have reported that they felt they had full cooperation, and did not
describe any situations like the ones you did? And that they (and the US
teams, of which there have been several, including the one lead by David
Kay) have not only found no weapons, but no evidence that there were any
around recently?
> I do see your point, Saddam was buying up specialized equipment used in the
> making of weapons so that he could use it to make fertilizer.
The reports of the inspectors indicate that the equipment was not as
specialized as you seem to believe. And, once again, they also report that
there is no evidence of any new production going on.
> And you answer that what Chalabi says is allegations while planting another
> entire set of allegations. Howard, Howard, Howard!
Much of what I listed is easily verifiable, and has been in the public
record and open knowledge for some time. Other things were described in a
manner that made it apparent that they were allegations that are taken very
seriously by the intel people - it is worth noting that Chalabi seems to be
on the way out as a US resource. My point was that Ahmed Chalabi is like a
combination of the boy who cried wolf and a street hustler; he has an
agenda (which can be summed up as putting himself first and foremost) and
will say and do anything to forward that agenda. Hence, any allegations he
makes but will not allow independent verification of should be taken with a
large grain of salt.
If you want more info on him:
<http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/05/04/chalabi/print.html>
TritonRider
>On related topic, someone please tell me that Matt Drudge is being
>satirical here:
><http://www.drudgereport.com/rcmu.htm>
I would guess so but I don't read Drudge. He's in the same category for me as
Michael Moore and Jayson Blair. When I want to be amused by fake news theres
only the incomparable "Weekly World News" available at supermarket checkout
stands everywhere.
http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/
Try it when they come back.
Bill C
Carl Sundquist
"TritonRider" <trito...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> I would guess so but I don't read Drudge. He's in the same category for
me as
> Michael Moore and Jayson Blair. When I want to be amused by fake news
theres
> only the incomparable "Weekly World News" available at supermarket
checkout
> stands everywhere.
> http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/
I've wondered if Tom Kunich and Ed Anger are the same person.
TritonRider
>I've wondered if Tom Kunich and Ed Anger are the same person.
Carl YOU owe me a keyboard if I can't get the tea out of it that I just spewed
into it. On second thought the laugh was more than worth the cost of a new
keyboard.
Bill C
benjo maso
"TM" <lk...@lkjk.com> wrote in message
news:109j9iu...@corp.supernews.com...
Perhaps I haven't made myself clear enough, but what I mean is quite simple.
First of all: of course Saddam once had wmd's and he has used them. That's
an indisputed fact. The question is; what did he do with them after the
first Gulf war. IMO it has absolutely no sense keeping wmd's if you have no
intent to use them anyway. But if you do have an intent to use them, war
seems to be the proper moment, especially when your country is invaded and
you don't have the troops and the arms to withstand the attack. So the
logical reason that Saddam didn't use wmd's is that he just didn't have
them. The theory that he must have buried them somewhere seems to quite
illogical. What's more, even after the Americans have searched for a year
and spent hundreds of millions dollars there is still no proof whatsoever
that Saddam did conceal them. And I'm afraid the theory of president Bush
that they still might be somewhere, because in Libya there was a stock of 50
tons mustard gas on a chicken farm, doens't hold water IMO - and not only
because they were only 26 tons of mustard gas in Libya of which nothing was
found on a chicken farm.
Benjo Maso
benjo maso
Yes, but in this case only in heaven or hell, I'm afraid ...
benjo maso
"Howard Kveck" <YOURh...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
news:YOURhoward-DEBBA...@netnews.comcast.net...
That seems all very logical, and it's quite possible you're right. On the
other hand, I wonder why Saddam didn't use the scorched earth strategy, why
he didn't blow up the oil wells, as the Iraqi's did in Kuwait. IMO it's not
impossible that he didn't because he still thought he had a chance to win.
Of course, all those claims that he would destroy the invading armies, etc.
were propaganda. But on the other hand, people have often an inclination to
believe their own propaganda. At the end, even Goebbels did.
Benjo Maso
Robert Chung
There's some resemblance. One of the things that's hard to get in Paris is
a Weekly World News.
Eddie Clontz died earlier this year.
TM
"Curtis L. Russell" <cur...@the-md-russells.org> wrote in message
news:acti90ha1fqa750tv...@4ax.com...
> On 5 May 2004 08:08:36 -0700,
>it is interesting the 'damned if you do, damned
> if you don't' that all U.S. presidents will be dealing with as the
> head of the lone superpower.
Agreed.
> Republican or Democrat, the 'loyal opposition' will try the president
> on the basis of what is 'true' in a much clearer hindsight. If the Al
> Queda had dropped some canisters of gas in New York, Bush would be
> just as condemned for doing too little as he is accused of acting
> precipitously now.
Agreed. What is sad to me is that if Clinton or Kerry were president on
9/11 I am almost certain that they would have made the same deciscion and
that 90% of the posters here would be arguing the other side!
I say this because it is relatively uncontested that Iraq and Al Queda both
wish to see the US destroyed and were committed to attacking the US
mainland. It is also fairly uncontested that they were working on, or at
one time had, wmd. Would any president allow them the time to launch an
attack that the US's worst enemies would agree justified retribution? This
seems to be the only scenario that would satisfy many of the posters.
>Maybe his arrogance is simply realizing that and
> deciding a course that he thought - at the time - would lead to the
> fewest overall casualties.
To get back to your 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' point, if you
were making the call what side would you error on? If you thought there was
a reasonable chance that stronger attacks were possible, would you want to
treat the causalities created by the attack or created by stopping the
attack from happening?
JP
> wrote:
>
> >> First of all, it would fail for the simple
> >> reason that the declaration of war was a decade ago and for relatively
> >> straight forward reasons.
> >
> >Sorry, I can't make much sense out of this sentence because of its
> >twisted syntax, but Gulf War I provides no rationale for Gulf War II.
>
> The syntax isn't twisted. We declared war a decade ago. We had good
> reasons for doing so. There was no peace at the end of that war- just
> a ceasefire. A ceasefire does not end a war unless superceded by a
> peace treaty or other formal end of hostilities.
Your reference to a declaration of war a decade ago had an unclear
implied antecedent (which war?). There was no declaration of war for
Gulf War I which was well over a decade ago, so everything that
follows in your assertion is not worth considering.
> Hussein fired on enough U.S. planes in legitimate flight patterns to
> warrant declaring the ceasefire violated and proceeding back to
> hostilities. The reason for their fllight is not specifically relevant
> - it is enough that it was a U.S. plane for the U.S. to declare the
> cease fire violated.
This is complete nonsense. There is no such thing as a "legitimate
flight pattern" in an unauthorized intrusion by an armed warplane of a
foreign power. And, regardless, there would have been no justification
for renewing hostilities without explicit authorization from the UN
Security Council.
> Technically a better basis for hostilities than anything that the
> administration actually used.
What they might have used but didn't is completely beside the point.
What they did use is the point, and the paradox remains: imminent or
not, liar or war criminal?
> While I didn't think the war was appropriate at the point it was
> declared (since the administration wants to declare a new war, I'll
> use that terminology), it is interesting the 'damned if you do, damned
> if you don't' that all U.S. presidents will be dealing with as the
> head of the lone superpower. Rwanda - we're at fault for not going in
> early enough. For standing aside as innocent civilians were killed.
>
> They were killed by a government as legally elected as that of Iraq.
The big difference is that the Rwandans were being massacred by the
hundreds of thousands. That was not happening, or anything close to
it, at the time of our invasion of Iraq. In fact, at the time Hussein
was doing his bloodiest work, we were supplying him with intelligence
and Rumsfeld was shaking his hand.
But we probably should have done something in Rwanda. The damning
would have come from the GOP.
> Republican or Democrat, the 'loyal opposition' will try the president
> on the basis of what is 'true' in a much clearer hindsight. If the Al
> Queda had dropped some canisters of gas in New York, Bush would be
> just as condemned for doing too little as he is accused of acting
> precipitously now. Maybe his arrogance is simply realizing that and
> deciding a course that he thought - at the time - would lead to the
> fewest overall casualties.
I'm not waiting for al Qaeda to drop gas canisters on New York; I'm
saying it now: Bush is doing too little to protect the homeland, while
acting precipitously, stupidly, stubbornly, in Iraq. The many tens of
billions (not to mention national focus) being spent on the war in
Iraq could have done real things in hardening our homeland defenses,
for which almost nothing has been done beyond securing airliners
against future hijackings.
JP
Steve
YOURhoward-A0D6E...@netnews.comcast.net, "Howard Kveck"
> In article <mmhmc.8789$V97....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, "Tom
> Kunich" <cycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "benjo maso" <benjo...@chello.nl> wrote in message
>> news:c7b16d$1rle0$1...@ID-75468.news.uni-berlin.de...
>>
>>> To win politically? How?
>>>
>> Mostly by paying off UN officials to protect him
>>
> There you go again on this "pay off" business - not substantiated at this
> time...
>
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38040
Tom Kunich
>
> That seems all very logical, and it's quite possible you're right. On the
> other hand, I wonder why Saddam didn't use the scorched earth strategy,
why
> he didn't blow up the oil wells, as the Iraqi's did in Kuwait.
That seems a strange idea Benjo. Saddam knew he was defeated and every one
of his generals KNEW he was defeated. Most of them simply went home knowing
that if they blew up the oil wells that they would be hunted down by either
the US or their own people later. Better to avoid your "duty" to a fallen
dictator whowill never again be able to take revenge than to stand before a
court of Iraqis who have never been known as particularly generous in their
treatment of prisoners.
benjo maso
The point is that in Howard's opinion Saddam knew - even before the war
began - he would be defeated anyway. But if that was the case, why didn't he
blow up his oil wells or at least booby-trap them the very moment the
invading armies were crossing the border to make it the Americans as much as
possible? It would have been easy, he had several weeks to take the
necessary preparations and he didn't need poententially mutinous generals:
it could even have been done with a remote-control device. A possible answer
might be that he thought he could somehow force the invaders to withdraw
within a relatively short period of time. Of course I can't read Saddam's
mind, so it's only a hypothesis, but I don't think it's impossible.
Benjo Maso
Tom Kunich
>
> Perhaps I haven't made myself clear enough, but what I mean is quite
simple.
> First of all: of course Saddam once had wmd's and he has used them. That's
> an indisputed fact. The question is; what did he do with them after the
> first Gulf war. IMO it has absolutely no sense keeping wmd's if you have
no
> intent to use them anyway. But if you do have an intent to use them, war
> seems to be the proper moment, especially when your country is invaded and
> you don't have the troops and the arms to withstand the attack.
Hmm, Benjo, you seem to be under the impression that Saddam was all alone in
command of every single troop at his disposal. That is wrong. Saddam was the
chief commander but under him was an entire echelon of commanders all the
way down to the people who would have set the weapons off. And everyone one
of them knew that if they DID use WMD that they would swing on a rope like
the Nuremburg trial Nazis.
After Gulf War I there was no Iraqi general that was under any false
impressions that they would win even a single battle against the American
forces. Saddam was sunk completely and everyone knew it, not the least of
whom was Saddam himself.
With the death of a half dozen more of Saddam's military leaders there will
be essentially no military command of the small number of rebels.
benjo maso
I think you're overestimating the willingness of military leaders to rebel.
It almost never happens. After the battle of Kursk in the summer of 1943 it
was clear that Germany had lost the war. And yet it took a year before
Stauffenberg and some other officers rebelled. The overwhelming majority
continued to fight to the very end. Neither did the cruelties stop in '43.
On the contrary, they were more and more intensified. Besides, only a few of
the German military leaders were ardent followers of Hitler. Most of them
considered him as an upstart en would have been happy if he had been removed
from his function as commander in chief. On the other hand, Saddam was
surrounded by men who thanked their careers to Saddam and were completely
dependent from him. But again: there are all kind of speculations needed to
explain why nobody managed to find Saddam's wmd (there is no proof
whatsoever that military leaders disobeyed Saddam's orders). Don't you think
is much more simple to accept that Saddam just didn't have them?
Benjo Maso
Curtis L. Russell
wrote:
>Your reference to a declaration of war a decade ago had an unclear
>implied antecedent (which war?). There was no declaration of war for
>Gulf War I which was well over a decade ago, so everything that
>follows in your assertion is not worth considering.
The Persian Gulf Joint Resolution isn't an authorization of the use of
armed conflict and declaration of war once Bush determined certain
conditions were met? Read it and explain how it is anything else but a
provisional declaration of war, executed as such when the ground war
began.
Much of your reply is nothing but splitting hairs and taking a
personal political position and claiming it to be fact. The fact is
that the use of force within the defined meaning of war by U.S. law,
albeit with reference to relevant U.N. resolutions, was authorized and
clearly war was in force once the ground war began. This war 'ended'
with a cease fire, but no authorization was removed for use of
continued force.
>I'm not waiting for al Qaeda to drop gas canisters on New York; I'm
>saying it now: Bush is doing too little to protect the homeland, while
>acting precipitously, stupidly, stubbornly, in Iraq. The many tens of
>billions (not to mention national focus) being spent on the war in
>Iraq could have done real things in hardening our homeland defenses,
>for which almost nothing has been done beyond securing airliners
>against future hijackings.
That I will agree with, and that the U.S. had better get used to the
risk associated with being a superpower in this day and age. We cannot
prevent the loss of lives no matter to what level we remove freedoms.
So I find any real loss of personal freedoms to be a poor trade for
the gain in security.
Howard Kveck
Steve <sds...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net> wrote:
> WHAT the F*CK are you talkin about!!!!!!!! (you blind bunch of liberal
> bats..)
>
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38040
Steve, the current issue of the Economist goes into this at length.
"Nothing, so far, has been proved, certainly not as far as the UN is
concerned. His evidence and nearly all the other allegations against the UN
have so far been based on documents found in Iraqi government archives. But
no one, other than he and the GC's 25 members, has seen or authenticated
the documents." The person described above is Claude Hankes-Drielsma. The
Economist calls him, "a British financial adviser who was appointed by his
old friend, Mr Chalabi, who chairs the finance committee of the GC in Iraq,
to advise it on its investigations into the affair."
Chalabi and Hankes-Drielsma are in a standoff with Bremer and the rest
of the CPA over this, in that they are refusing to share the documents they
claim to have with those people or the Volcker Commission, who were
appointed by the UN to investigate the matter.
Obviously, both sides in this dispute have motivations. If the UN gets
involved, then it takes another whack at Chalabi's desire to end up running
things. The US is trying desperately to get more UN involvement to slow the
deteriorating situation in Iraq, and antagonizing them over something like
this would be very counterproductive. Which is why the US may sacrifice
their former golden boy.
Since no one has seen the documents that Chalabi and co. are claiming to
have on this, that makes the claims "unsubstantiated".
Robert Chung
"President Bush, who started the year with formidable poll ratings, is
sliding into troubled territory. In January, Bush's job-approval rating
was higher in the USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll than that of any recent
president at that point in his first term [...] But in May, his approval
rating has dipped below 50%."
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/bushjobapproval.png
Tom Kunich
>
> That I will agree with, and that the U.S. had better get used to the
> risk associated with being a superpower in this day and age. We cannot
> prevent the loss of lives no matter to what level we remove freedoms.
> So I find any real loss of personal freedoms to be a poor trade for
> the gain in security.
Right you are. Ostriches hiding their heads in the sand yet again. "If you
don't protect me I'll vote in someone else who also won't protect me."
Kerry wants to pull out of Iraq, increase taxes and give driver's licenses
to illegal aliens. Kerry is against ethnic profiling unless he's for ethnic
profiling. Kerry is willing to allow unlimited entry to the USA for
terrorists if they say, "Mother May I".
Tom Kunich
>
> I think you're overestimating the willingness of military leaders to
rebel.
> It almost never happens.
Here's a question then - how did Saddam end up in power? You are going to
have to stop thinking that people like Hussein and lunatics. They are mostly
highly intelligent men who have planned almost every step of their political
progress. Hussein is not a dolt. Neither were his generals.
Also, the military ethic in the middle east is NOT the same as it is in
Europe and you need to understand that as well. Or perhaps you didn't note
that when Israel kicked the crap out of the combined Arab forces in '56 that
all of the Arab armies retreated to their capital cities and held victory
parades. A more recent example is that after the Americans pulled back from
Fellujah, that the defeated forces there have claimed victory.
Tom Kunich
>
> The point is that in Howard's opinion Saddam knew - even before the war
> began - he would be defeated anyway.
EVERYONE knew that Saddam would be defeated. What sort of intellectual reach
was that? Saddam had but one possible path to his own survival. He had to
bluster and try to fake his way out of an invasion by frightening the
world's cowardly Liberals. He needed nothing more than what you recently saw
in Spain, utter and complete surrender to the terrorists.
> But if that was the case, why didn't he
> blow up his oil wells or at least booby-trap them the very moment the
> invading armies were crossing the border to make it the Americans as much
as
> possible?
You just don't understand do you? As soon as one American foot crossed the
border almost all of the generals admitted defeat. They put only enough
energy into the defence of Iraq to be able to be recruited into a new Iraqi
Army without being rejected as cowards.
Can it be that you have been so protected from the real world in the
flatlands that you can't even understand the real world outside?
Benjo, here's a lesson - find out who the Red Rams were and what they did in
Indonesia.
benjo maso
> "benjo maso" <benjo...@chello.nl> wrote in message
> news:2fvuf6F...@uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > I think you're overestimating the willingness of military leaders to
> rebel.
> > It almost never happens.
>
> Here's a question then - how did Saddam end up in power?
I mean of course rebelling against their own commanders. Of course, it has
happened quite often that the army seized power.
You are going to
> have to stop thinking that people like Hussein and lunatics. They are
mostly
> highly intelligent men who have planned almost every step of their
political
> progress. Hussein is not a dolt. Neither were his generals.
I have never thought that Saddam was a lunatic. I was only not so sure that
his view was realistic. Not because he was mad or stupid, but because he was
surrounded by men who would have dared to contradict him.
> Also, the military ethic in the middle east is NOT the same as it is in
> Europe and you need to understand that as well. Or perhaps you didn't note
> that when Israel kicked the crap out of the combined Arab forces in '56
that
> all of the Arab armies retreated to their capital cities and held victory
> parades. A more recent example is that after the Americans pulled back
from
> Fellujah, that the defeated forces there have claimed victory.
They were not completely wrong. And claiming questionable victories is not
specifically Arab.
Benjo Maso
benjo maso
You might be surprised to know that our flatland was already part of the
real world before the USA existed. What's more, because we live in a small
country we have always kept our eyes opened to the rest of the world. That's
one of the reasons why we know that it's simply not true that everybody was
thinking that Saddam would be defeated and in such short time. For instance,
the Russians were flabbergasted. It took the Russian army a month and 5000
dead soldiers to take Grozny. They had thought that the capture of Bagdad -
ten times as big as Grozny - would take much longer and would cause so much
losses that it was far from impossible that the Americans would be forced to
withdraw. That for instance was the opinion of former generals Atchalov and
Maltsev and they knew what they were talking about - they had advised Saddam
how to defend the city. "The American tanks will be burned and their
infantery will be massacred", they declared. And by the way, I don't think
that all the Iraqi generals would have thought differently from their
advisers.
Benjo Maso
Carl Sundquist
> specifically Arab.
>
You've got that right. Just read any post-race press release.
JP
>
> The Persian Gulf Joint Resolution isn't an authorization of the use of
> armed conflict and declaration of war once Bush determined certain
> conditions were met? Read it and explain how it is anything else but a
> provisional declaration of war, executed as such when the ground war
> began.
If something that is not a declaration of war can be considered
equivalent to a declaration of war, then something that is not an
"armistice" can be considered an armistice.
But I'll indulge your argument a little further by pointing out that
the original war was justifiable as a "mutual defense" response to
Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, and because of the Security Council
resolution authorizing the use of force to free Kuwait. If the allies
had marched onto Baghdad in '91, that could have been argued to be a
reasonable conclusion of fighting the war to liberate Kuwait. But to
go back 12 years later, after Iraq was defeated and no longer
occupying Kuwait and claim that it is just a continuation of Gulf War
I is just plain absurd.
> Much of your reply is nothing but splitting hairs and taking a
> personal political position and claiming it to be fact.
Hardly. We are discussing what makes a war justifiable under
international law, and I am referring to the international law to
justify my position. You are taking your own personal opinion about
what you consider to be justifiable and applying it to the Iraq War
retroactively. Your position is not only not supportable by
international law, it is ridiculous to use it as out for Bush, because
Bush went to war for the reasons he did, not the reasons you think he
should have.
> The fact is
> that the use of force within the defined meaning of war by U.S. law,
> albeit with reference to relevant U.N. resolutions, was authorized and
> clearly war was in force once the ground war began.
I'm not claiming that Bush violated US law by invading Iraq, I'm
claiming he violated international law if he invaded Iraq without an
imminent threat to the US or one of our allies. The recent UN
resolution regarding Iraq did not authorize war, and it doesn't matter
if you think it did because you don't count. The only body that can
interpret the meaning of a Security Council resolution is the Security
Council.
> This war 'ended'
> with a cease fire, but no authorization was removed for use of
> continued force.
Says you. Like I said, you don't count. I find it very ironic that
Bush I apologists say they didn't march to Baghdad because the '90
resolution only authorized ejecting the Iraqis from Kuwait. Now you're
telling me that 12 years later it allows the US to pretend the war
didn't ever stop. That's some stretch. Let's send Bush to the Hague
and see if the judges buy it. I'll be completely willing to allow you
an "I told you so" if they find Bush not guilty.
> That I will agree with, and that the U.S. had better get used to the
> risk associated with being a superpower in this day and age. We cannot
> prevent the loss of lives no matter to what level we remove freedoms.
> So I find any real loss of personal freedoms to be a poor trade for
> the gain in security.
This is at least one thing I *do* agree with you on. However, I'm not
talking about giving up personal freedom; I'm talking about
strengthening security at places like ports to inspect containers,
installing passive bomb detection equipment in train stations and
subways (even if it doesn't work, its presence could be a deterrent),
hardening chemical and nuclear power plants, and for God's sake,
giving "first responders" the money they need to buy the equipment
they need to deal with unconventional weapons. We don't go to war
against Iraq, we've got another $100 billion for these kinds of things
(if not for the stupid taxcuts which made both the war and homeland
security unaffordable).
JP
Tom Kunich
news:109niqc...@corp.supernews.com...
Are you dissing Ronde Champ again? Who could forget his dinner with Johann
Museeuw?
Tom Kunich
>
> And by the way, I don't think that all the Iraqi generals
> would have thought differently from their advisers.
I doubt that in spades. Iraqi generals were seen simply taking off their
uniforms and driving home as the Americans got even close to their lines.
The defense of Iraq was almost entirely in the hands of lower ranking
officers who had been ordered to stand and fight and who hadn't the
resources nor the manpower to put up anything more than a running battle at
the very best.
This WAS NOT a sign of Iraqi cowardice. It was a calculated military
decision by most of the non-Saddam family leaders who knew defeat was
imminent and murdering their own troops was pointless and cruel. Most
generals are the cream of their populations and certainly Iraqi generals
behaved in a manner consistent with that point of view. I don't think that
you properly appreciate the defeat Iraq suffered at the hands of us in Gulf
War I. Entire columns of Iraqi tanks were destroyed completely - every
single vehicle from tanks to individual jeeps. Many of these divisions were
destroyed to the last man as well. No Iraqi general could have held the
slightest hope that 10 years further on the USA would be less efficient.
Russian generals, you might recall, were unable to defeat Afghanistan in
years and it took the USA a matter of weeks. That might betray a certain
lack of strategic and tactical sense concerning their foes. Although
Russians exibited immense courage and strength at Stalingrad they sure as
hell didn't show much after than unless you think that the invasion of
Poland was a noted victory.
At this time there is no military in the world that could hope to hold off
American forces for more than the hours it takes to bring up non-nuclear
weapons of such power than troops dug in 5 miles from the fighting can be
buried under rubble. Were the US military desireous of cleaning up Fallujah
it would have required a SINGLE BOMB to flatten the city. You have to
remember that the US Military strategy was to use weapons and not manpower
to win wars. That's why the US combats losses in this war have been
miniscule compared to past wars. We have lost fewer US people in Afghanistan
and Iraq than were lost in the Trade Towers! In fact, almost as many
American military would have died in training accidents over the same period
of time.
The upshot of all of this is that anyone that is telling you that the
Americans won't do what they say they'll do is not speaking from a position
of knowledge. Osama Bin Laden has counted on the American government running
away and that is why the entire Arab nations are so against Bush. How DARE
he not be the coward they believed all Americans to be!
TritonRider
>From yesterday's USA Today:
>
>"President Bush, who started the year with formidable poll ratings, is
>sliding into troubled territory. In January, Bush's job-approval rating
>was higher in the USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll than that of any recent
>president at that point in his first term [...] But in May, his approval
>rating has dipped below 50%."
>
One of the supposed Republican strongholds was the military. We'd seen a huge
change in that since '86, but not complete. It's crap like this from the senior
Pentagon types that'll make it complete.
http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Hacks%20Target%20Ho
mepage.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=64&rnd=395.0322164136524
or
http://makeashorterlink.com/?T5F414E38
Bill C
Stewart Fleming
Howard Kveck wrote:
> In article <BCBFB1D2.99A5%sds...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>,
> Steve <sds...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>>WHAT the F*CK are you talkin about!!!!!!!! (you blind bunch of liberal
>>bats..)
>>
>> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38040
>
>
> Steve, the current issue of the Economist goes into this at length.
Interesting cover on the front of the Economist too...
<http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayCover.cfm?>
And the New Yorker...
http://www.newyorker.com/
benjo maso
> "benjo maso" <benjo...@chello.nl> wrote in message
> news:2g1vn3F...@uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > And by the way, I don't think that all the Iraqi generals
> > would have thought differently from their advisers.
>
> I doubt that in spades. Iraqi generals were seen simply taking off their
> uniforms and driving home as the Americans got even close to their lines.
> The defense of Iraq was almost entirely in the hands of lower ranking
> officers who had been ordered to stand and fight and who hadn't the
> resources nor the manpower to put up anything more than a running battle
at
> the very best.
Some of the generals didn't and others were bribed, as it seems.
>
> This WAS NOT a sign of Iraqi cowardice. It was a calculated military
> decision by most of the non-Saddam family leaders who knew defeat was
> imminent and murdering their own troops was pointless and cruel. Most
> generals are the cream of their populations and certainly Iraqi generals
> behaved in a manner consistent with that point of view. I don't think that
> you properly appreciate the defeat Iraq suffered at the hands of us in
Gulf
> War I. Entire columns of Iraqi tanks were destroyed completely - every
> single vehicle from tanks to individual jeeps. Many of these divisions
were
> destroyed to the last man as well. No Iraqi general could have held the
> slightest hope that 10 years further on the USA would be less efficient.
I don't believe that. The two former Russian generals were also well aware
of the blows the Iraqi army had received in the first Gulf war. The also
knew that they Iraqi's were still much better equipped than the chechens in
Grozny. So knew Sadam and so knew the Iraqi's. However, they underestimated
the military strength of the Americans and probably hadn't expected either
the quick march of the USA to Bagdad.
>
> Russian generals, you might recall, were unable to defeat Afghanistan in
> years and it took the USA a matter of weeks. That might betray a certain
> lack of strategic and tactical sense concerning their foes. Although
> Russians exibited immense courage and strength at Stalingrad they sure as
> hell didn't show much after than unless you think that the invasion of
> Poland was a noted victory.
I'm sorry? Stalingrad was psychologically extremely important, because it
was the first time the Soviets defeated the Germans. But the biggest
battle - the two Battle of Kursk - were still to come plus a series of
battle on smaller scale. And nobody ever doubted the often reckless courage
the Russian soldiers showed in those encounters.
The trouble of the present Russian army isn't so much a lack of strategic
and tactical sense, but that is an inefficient corrupt bureacracy. The
American army is much more professional, much better run and far better
equipped.
> At this time there is no military in the world that could hope to hold off
> American forces for more than the hours it takes to bring up non-nuclear
> weapons of such power than troops dug in 5 miles from the fighting can be
> buried under rubble. Were the US military desireous of cleaning up
Fallujah
> it would have required a SINGLE BOMB to flatten the city.
Sure. If Iraq was only a military problem, it would be a piece of cake.
Unfortunately it is not.
> You have to
> remember that the US Military strategy was to use weapons and not manpower
> to win wars. That's why the US combats losses in this war have been
> miniscule compared to past wars. We have lost fewer US people in
Afghanistan
> and Iraq than were lost in the Trade Towers! In fact, almost as many
> American military would have died in training accidents over the same
period
> of time.
>
> The upshot of all of this is that anyone that is telling you that the
> Americans won't do what they say they'll do is not speaking from a
position
> of knowledge. Osama Bin Laden has counted on the American government runni
ng
> away and that is why the entire Arab nations are so against Bush. How DARE
> he not be the coward they believed all Americans to be!
I don't know what Osama expected and neither do you. But I wouldn't
surprised if he is rather satisfied. The USA captured his enemy Saddam and
because the reason why so many muslims feel resentment against the USA is
not because "they hate freedom and democracy", but because they feel
terribly humiliated, it must have become much easier to recruit new
terrorists.
Benjo Maso
Chris
>
> "TM" <lk...@lkjk.com> wrote in message
> news:109j9iu...@corp.supernews.com...> > news:c7bfk8$218dc$1...@ID-75468.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > >
> > > In that case why would he have kept them? He certainly
> > > would have destroyed them or let them rust. And according to the UN
> > > inspectors that was exactly what he did.
> > >
> >
> > You're too much!
> >
> > You clearly imply above that you believe that he had wmd. Earlier you
> state
> > that you believe he would use them against the US if he had the chance.
> So,
> > according to you, he has the capacity to produce wmd and the intent to
use
> > them. He just didn't happen to have them handy at precisely the correct
> > time for your tastes! You're joking, right?
>
>
> Perhaps I haven't made myself clear enough, but what I mean is quite
simple.
> First of all: of course Saddam once had wmd's and he has used them. That's
> an indisputed fact. The question is; what did he do with them after the
> first Gulf war. IMO it has absolutely no sense keeping wmd's if you have
no
> intent to use them anyway. But if you do have an intent to use them, war
> seems to be the proper moment, especially when your country is invaded and
> you don't have the troops and the arms to withstand the attack.
Not really. You can't unring a bell (posessing WMD and *using* WMD are
entirely different) and it looks to me that Sadam wanted the WMDs for
strategic puposes. He thougth it worked for him to have them as a threat,
but he knew that using them against the US or any western force would have
exposed him and his country to the kind of retaliation that he knew he would
never survive. As it turns out, he was wrong about a few things. He clearly
thought that using against other Eastern forces (and population) while using
them against the West only as a threat (and then hiding them or otherwise
taking them out of sight) would not provoke the US to do anything more than
he could handle. Knowing that he has or had them at any time, combined with
his past use of them and his conduct in recent years is plenty of
justification for attacking Iraq.
People make those kind of judgement errors all the time and Sadam's time
came to an end because of this. The rest of this nonsense is all about the
political fallout of a decision that had to be made. Bush could have been a
bit wiser in some of his moves but did anyone think that there would be no
criticism in an election year?
<Yawn!>
So the
> logical reason that Saddam didn't use wmd's is that he just didn't have
> them. The theory that he must have buried them somewhere seems to quite
> illogical. What's more, even after the Americans have searched for a year
> and spent hundreds of millions dollars there is still no proof whatsoever
> that Saddam did conceal them. And I'm afraid the theory of president Bush
> that they still might be somewhere, because in Libya there was a stock of
50
> tons mustard gas on a chicken farm, doens't hold water IMO - and not only
> because they were only 26 tons of mustard gas in Libya of which nothing
was
> found on a chicken farm.
>
> Benjo Maso
>
>
>
>
Chris
"Howard Kveck" <YOURh...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
news:YOURhoward-DEBBA...@netnews.comcast.net...
> In article <c7b16d$1rle0$1...@ID-75468.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> "benjo maso" <benjo...@chello.nl> wrote:
>
> > "TM" <x...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:cY6mc.2278$Ua5.1...@monger.newsread.com...
> > >
Whoa there! You make it sound like poor Sadam was forced in to this
stand-off. Saddam certainly has plenty of chances to end this problem
diplomatically, but not while preserving his power or that of his cronies.
That is why Saddam chose to gamble. In the end, it was his ego that would
not allow him to make the smart move of stepping aside. Are you telling me
that 2 years ago, Saddam knew that he would be in a US jail but simply had
no way to avoid it? Don't take this personally Howard, I think you are a
bright guy but you sound like you are working for Democratic Party
propaganda team with statements like that.
I think he knew this time was different from GW1, in
> that GHWB always made it clear that once they were out of Kuwait, that was
> about it.
>
Chris
> > that GHWB always made it clear that once they were out of Kuwait, that
was
> > about it.
>
>
> other hand, I wonder why Saddam didn't use the scorched earth strategy,
why
not
> impossible that he didn't because he still thought he had a chance to win.
Precisely. He screwed up. The only mistake you seem to be making is that
Saddam (or any other Military Commander) will use any and all weapons
available. Please explain how using any "WMD" would assist a military
operation to defend a homeland. The posession of WMDs are primarily seen as
cheap and crude way for smaller powers to deter greater powers from
attacking them. There is an implied threat that attacking Iraq or North
Korea could cause them to attack the US populations with their crappy WMDs.
Like any strategic game, the key is knowing what the value of the other
partie's assets are. WMDs are to scare populations in order to put political
pressure on the foe to avoid attacking them. The funny thing is that
everyone seems to know that actually using them causes the reverse. The most
foolish thing Bin Laden has ever done was the WTC \ Pentagon attacks. He
over reached and now much of the world wants him dead. Using WMDs would have
precisely the same effect on any country foolish enough to do so and yet
plenty of countries have them. Bush should not have been more honest and
enumerated all of the reasons for the attack. I guess for politcal reasons
he wanted to have a more streamlined presentation of his justification and
that was foolish.
> Of course, all those claims that he would destroy the invading armies,
etc.
> were propaganda. But on the other hand, people have often an inclination
to
> believe their own propaganda. At the end, even Goebbels did.
>
> Benjo Maso
>
>
Chris
> "benjo maso" <benjo...@chello.nl> wrote in message
> news:2fvr8nF...@uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > The point is that in Howard's opinion Saddam knew - even before the war
> > began - he would be defeated anyway.
>
> EVERYONE knew that Saddam would be defeated. What sort of intellectual
reach
> was that? Saddam had but one possible path to his own survival. He had to
> bluster and try to fake his way out of an invasion by frightening the
> world's cowardly Liberals.
Gee Tom, I would have worded that a little differently. I you really trying
to help people see what has happened or do you simply like to get in to
fights with anyone that hates conservatives (or your personally)?
He needed nothing more than what you recently saw
> in Spain, utter and complete surrender to the terrorists.
He could have gotten by with less than that even. All he needed was a
stalemate before the hostilities started and then a way forward. It worked
for 10 years. Saddam just did not understand how the WTC attacks changed the
world. Not that he was responsible for the attacks, but he was competing in
the same arena and it just got too complicated for him to understand how far
how he could go. Elsewhere Howard states that Saddam could not have avoided
war once Bush went in to his post 9/11 posture. I disagree only in that I
think he could have stepped down to avoid war for his country.
>
> > But if that was the case, why didn't he
> > blow up his oil wells or at least booby-trap them the very moment the
> > invading armies were crossing the border to make it the Americans as
much
> as
> > possible?
>
> You just don't understand do you?
Nor do you.
>As soon as one American foot crossed the
> border almost all of the generals admitted defeat. They put only enough
> energy into the defence of Iraq to be able to be recruited into a new
Iraqi
> Army without being rejected as cowards.
LOL.
Robert Chung
>
> One of the supposed Republican strongholds was the military. We'd
> seen a huge change in that since '86, but not complete.
1986? Huge change?
Howard Kveck
"Chris" <chrismc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Howard Kveck" <YOURh...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
> news:YOURhoward-DEBBA...@netnews.comcast.net...
> > I don't think it took him very long to figure out he was never going to
> > remain in power once the ball started rolling, Benjo. Bush made it obvious
> > that no matter what Saddam did, the US would be coming in. I look at it
> > this way: He may have thought that (1) if he gave up any weapons he had,
> > he'd have no chance to defend himself, or (2) he could hide any weapons he
> > had and inflict max damage once the US actually invaded. If he'd chosen
> > (2), he'd be slaughtered because of it. Choice (1) is really no better
> > because of Bush's way of approaching the situation. The problem with
> Bush's
> > approach was that it made it clear that invasion was inevitable, rather
> > than a last resort.
>
> Whoa there! You make it sound like poor Sadam was forced in to this
> stand-off. Saddam certainly has plenty of chances to end this problem
> diplomatically, but not while preserving his power or that of his cronies.
> That is why Saddam chose to gamble. In the end, it was his ego that would
> not allow him to make the smart move of stepping aside. Are you telling me
> that 2 years ago, Saddam knew that he would be in a US jail but simply had
> no way to avoid it? Don't take this personally Howard, I think you are a
> bright guy but you sound like you are working for Democratic Party
> propaganda team with statements like that.
I see it this way, Chris: In a situation where Country A wants Country B
to behave in a certain manner, they can make it clear that if B doesn't do
what A wants, A will kick B's ass. But if B does comply, then things are
fine. But the Bush methodology was to make it clear Iraq was going to get
its ass kicked no matter if they complied or not. The threat of violence
was always the -only- option presented to Iraq. I expect that some ego was
involved, but pride was probably a bigger motivator.
As for his options on being captured, well, what choices do you think he
saw, other than death or being in a US jail? I just don't see that he was
going to be let off with going into exile in any other country. The Bush
team made it pretty obvious (imo) that he had only the two options I just
mentioned.
Ewoud Dronkert
> Interesting cover on the front of the Economist too...
I think you meant
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayCover.cfm?url=/images/20040508/20040508issuecovUS400.jpg
> And the New Yorker... http://www.newyorker.com/
https://subscribe.condenet.com/images_covers/cover_newyorker_190.jpg ?
TritonRider
>1986? Huge change?
I've been watching the demographics change since I first enlisted in '86. At
that point I guess it was 85% Republican, now I'd guess that number may be
below 50%. In my mind that's a huge shift from a group that Bush is counting
on, and I think they are counting on the 85% not what it really is today. Add
to that the extended and more frequent deployments, the much higher workload
for those who don't deploy, and the incompetence displayed by this particular
group in the Pentagon. Where military people were willing to hold their noses
and vote Republican anyway before, I don't see it happening this time,
especially against Kerry.
Bill C
TritonRider
should be done.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3695539.stm
They will continue to talk, and complain, and write reports about the
slaughter, but won't take any effective steps, because they might step on
someones toes.
Bill C
Chris
"Howard Kveck" <YOURh...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
If Saddam stepped aside to allow someone else in power you think Iraq would
have been attacked? I don't. Besides, don't assume that everything offered
to Iraq was also made public. It would have been really easy to make Bush
look a lot worse than he is now if they had just worked harder on the issues
cited.
Tom Kunich
> "Tom Kunich" <cycl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message>
news:ErTmc.11619$V97....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> Unfortunately it is not.
And that is the real problem at the moment. However, please note: if the
present "rebels" were anything to worry about they would not be attacking
anything. They would be quiet and wait until after the new government was
installed and most of the American presence gone. THEN they would attack.
The very fact they are behaving as they do means that they are essentially
leaderless and very small in numbers. They are nothing but criminals and can
be dealt with as such.
> I don't know what Osama expected and neither do you.
Err, Benjo, Osama wrote a declaration of war against the USA in which he
OUTLINED what he was thinking.
> The USA captured his enemy Saddam and
> because the reason why so many muslims feel resentment against the USA is
> not because "they hate freedom and democracy", but because they feel
> terribly humiliated, it must have become much easier to recruit new
> terrorists.
Benjo, I believe you are quite misled in that belief.
Tom Kunich
news:409c49a2$0$35063$8126...@news.nntpaccess.com...
>
> "Tom Kunich" <cycl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:BEOmc.11225$Hs1....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > "benjo maso" <benjo...@chello.nl> wrote in message
> > news:2fvr8nF...@uni-berlin.de...
> > >
> > > The point is that in Howard's opinion Saddam knew - even before the
war
> > > began - he would be defeated anyway.
> >
> > EVERYONE knew that Saddam would be defeated. What sort of intellectual
> reach
> > was that? Saddam had but one possible path to his own survival. He had
to
> > bluster and try to fake his way out of an invasion by frightening the
> > world's cowardly Liberals.
>
> Gee Tom, I would have worded that a little differently. I you really
trying
> to help people see what has happened or do you simply like to get in to
> fights with anyone that hates conservatives (or your personally)?
Words, shmurds. Worded differently is still means the same. Any number of
Liberals believe that there is only one way to treat vicious dictators -
give in. If this isn't the case explain why not a single peep came from the
left side of the aisle when Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos committed some of the
greatest attrocities against their own populations of the late 20th century?
> He needed nothing more than what you recently saw
> > in Spain, utter and complete surrender to the terrorists.
>
> He could have gotten by with less than that even. All he needed was a
> stalemate before the hostilities started and then a way forward. It worked
> for 10 years. Saddam just did not understand how the WTC attacks changed
the
> world. Not that he was responsible for the attacks, but he was competing
in
> the same arena and it just got too complicated for him to understand how
far
> how he could go. Elsewhere Howard states that Saddam could not have
avoided
> war once Bush went in to his post 9/11 posture. I disagree only in that I
> think he could have stepped down to avoid war for his country.
I believe that Saddam could have avoided war without stepping down merely by
restructuring his government exactly as Libya is presently doing. Saddam
COULD have won but his mind only worked in one manner - violence.
> > > But if that was the case, why didn't he
> > > blow up his oil wells or at least booby-trap them the very moment the
> > > invading armies were crossing the border to make it the Americans as
> > > much as possible?
> >
> > You just don't understand do you?
>
> Nor do you.
Quite to the contrary, Saddam DID issue orders to blow all the oil wells.
These orders were only carried out on a VERY small percentage of wells not
because they didn't have time, but because the orders generally didn't go
below the general staff. Saddam's generals knew which side their bread was
about to be buttered.
> >As soon as one American foot crossed the
> > border almost all of the generals admitted defeat. They put only enough
> > energy into the defence of Iraq to be able to be recruited into a new
> > Iraqi Army without being rejected as cowards.
>
> LOL.
What do you want to bet that within 1 year most of the general staff of the
Iraqi Army will be leftovers from Saddam?
Howard Kveck
"Chris" <chrismc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> If Saddam stepped aside to allow someone else in power you think Iraq would
> have been attacked? I don't.
The reason I do think that was the case was that Bush had personalized
the antagonism with Saddam ("He tried to kill my dad.") I think that the
Iraqis saw that and figured that even if they offered to replace Saddam,
there was no chance that they would have been able to come up with a leader
that was "acceptable" to the US.
> Besides, don't assume that everything offered to Iraq was also made public.
There may have been, but I can't really include things that I am not
aware of in my assessment of the situation. That would just be supposition.
> It would have been really easy to make Bush look a lot worse than he is now
> if they had just worked harder on the issues cited.
It's completely true that the Iraqis played cat-and-mouse for a long
time, but there was a point where they started to really cooperate. At one
point, for example, they even offered to let the US put CIA people on the
teams that were doing the weapons inspection.
Hey, I know you were hurt for a long time, Chris - have you been able to
get out on the bike yet? Just wondering...
Robert Chung
Robert Chung
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11227-2004May8.html
BTW, there are early reports out this morning that the Defense Department
has decided to ban all "non-essential" e-mail between military personnel
in Iraq and the outside world.
Chris
"benjo maso" <benjo...@chello.nl> wrote in message
> I don't know what Osama expected and neither do you. But I wouldn't
> surprised if he is rather satisfied. The USA captured his enemy Saddam and
> because the reason why so many muslims feel resentment against the USA is
> not because "they hate freedom and democracy", but because they feel
> terribly humiliated, it must have become much easier to recruit new
> terrorists.
Unfortunately this is probably true. Osama may not live long enough to see
what a mistake it was for him to attack on 9-11.
> Benjo Maso
Chris
When there is a Democrat in the White House, they organize peace marches
(maybe) and when there is a Republican, they wait until the US response to
protest THAT with the same sort of peace marches. They really do favor
inaction and they think of it as "peace" (for them only? I do not know but
those I speak to seem very simple and nacissistic).
Chris
"Howard Kveck" <YOURh...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
> In article <409cf968$0$35074$8126...@news.nntpaccess.com>,
> "Chris" <chrismc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If Saddam stepped aside to allow someone else in power you think Iraq
would
> > have been attacked? I don't.
>
> The reason I do think that was the case was that Bush had personalized
> the antagonism with Saddam ("He tried to kill my dad.") I think that the
> Iraqis saw that and figured that even if they offered to replace Saddam,
> there was no chance that they would have been able to come up with a
leader
> that was "acceptable" to the US.
OK, I disagree but I see what your point it. They may have felt there was no
way to trust Bush Jr., I suppose...
> > Besides, don't assume that everything offered to Iraq was also made
public.
>
> There may have been, but I can't really include things that I am not
> aware of in my assessment of the situation. That would just be
supposition.
We do know there were plenty of discussions. Sending Powel should have told
them how serious the US was at a diplomatic solution even though in the end
Powel was left hanging a but. That was not good but I do think there was a
clear window of opportunity for Saddam to act to preserve his life and some
of his lyfestyle. I think *that* is the key point, that to Saddam he could
not imagine any option that was worth it to him. He would rather risk death
than walk humbly to a smaller role outside of the limelight and power he
spent his life (and the lives of so many others) seeking. If this is all
within the scope of what you were talking about (perhaps the Bush team made
offers that would seem to be genuine but that they knew he would not accept
so that they could justify war) then you are probably correct. Saddam had
his chance, but he did not have a chance to keep anything he valued
apparently.
>
> > It would have been really easy to make Bush look a lot worse than he is
now
> > if they had just worked harder on the issues cited.
>
> It's completely true that the Iraqis played cat-and-mouse for a long
> time, but there was a point where they started to really cooperate. At one
> point, for example, they even offered to let the US put CIA people on the
> teams that were doing the weapons inspection.
>
> Hey, I know you were hurt for a long time, Chris - have you been able
to
> get out on the bike yet? Just wondering...
Yeah, things are going really fantastic. I am still have to be cautious this
year, but I was so strict with my winter training that my power and form are
the best ever. It was kind of shocking but cool to find out. I tried to get
back last year but training hard seemed to make my spine a lot more fragile
and I would hurt myself by stepping on a staircase not quite right or
reaching over to pick something up. That would have me in bed for a week or
more. Once I noticed that it seemed to happen towards the latter end of a
macro cycle I realized that intense training was not good for it. I was told
to keep my weight down as much as possible and that is how I justified
continuing the cycling as much as I always had, and I now see that I was a
bit too optimistic. This year I am not doing any training at all behond my
program and all I have are the normal (for the injury) residual spasms that
are easily controlled with meds (post ride though, you can't take this stuff
and do much else). I think I also benefitted from really scrutinizing my
blood from an optimal health standpoint rather than "race legal". I am
working with a MD that uses every specialty available than can posssibly
help and this guy is brilliant. Thanks for asking Howard.
Chris
> > > (snip)
> > > > 3d) There was a threat of invasion that lasted many months. During
> this
> > > time
> > > > it was made plain to the staff of Saddam Hussein's military that
> should
> > > they
> > > > be found in possession of WMD they were all be liable for the death
> > > penalty
> > > > under UN regulations. More months passed. CIA and other intelligence
> > > > services noted a very large number of heavy trucks moving from the
> areas
> > > in
> > > > which it was believed that WMD were being produced or stored and the
> > > Syrian
> > > > border.
> > >
> > >
> > > Do you really think that a nation threatened by a immenent invasion
will
> > > bury it most deadly weapons in the sand or export them to another
> country?
> > > Sadam was undoubtedly a lousy strategist, but even he couldn't have
been
> > > that stupid.
> >
> bluffing
> > to gain as much as possible. This is true not only with WMDs but with
> almost
> > all of his best weapons, jet fighters, etc. Considering his history, it
> > would be expected that he would retreat at the last moment in the face
of
> a
> > US invasion and preserving his weapons may have been more important to
him
> > then hiding them to avoid "prosecution" but whatever the case, he had
> plenty
> > of motive to do this. It does make sense even if the explanations from
> some
> > do not.
>
>
> You're forgetting that there is no proof whatsoever that he preserved his
> WMD's.
No, I am not. Bush used it as a reason and it was a mistake to imply he
could *prove* it.
The UN inspectors said he didn't. The Americans spent almost a year
> and a few hundred million dollars to prove that they were wrong, but in
> vain.
Yep. Dumb dumb dumb.
And as long as it hasn't been proven that Saddam still had his WMD's
> any hyposthesis why he could have had hidden them is IMO rather useless.
>
> Benjo Maso
Wait a minute. I expect reasonable people to concede that there is more than
one standard for proof. Why is it that people seem to act as if the
"reasonable doubt" standard is the only appropriate standard of proof for
anything and everything? There was sufficient evidence for the attack, but
not to prove anyone guilty in a criminal court. There is a difference. Hell,
use the civil standard for proof (preponderance of evidence) and I think
that is all anyone needs to put the whole conversation away. The Bush team
has been politically a bit stupid and over confidant. Show me where proof
"beyond a reasonable doubt" is required? Yes, there is a reasonable doubt
that he had them when the US attacked. No, there is no proof "beyond a
reasonable doubt".
Can we move on?
Chris
"TritonRider" <trito...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040506071453...@mb-m01.aol.com...
> >From: Stewart Fleming stewart...@paradise.net.nz
>
> >On related topic, someone please tell me that Matt Drudge is being
> >satirical here:
> ><http://www.drudgereport.com/rcmu.htm>
>
> I would guess so but I don't read Drudge. He's in the same category for
me as
> Michael Moore and Jayson Blair. When I want to be amused by fake news
theres
> only the incomparable "Weekly World News" available at supermarket
checkout
> stands everywhere.
Hah, I'll take "The Daily Show" for my fake news. Nothing but the finest for
me.
> http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/
> Try it when they come back.
> Bill C
Tom Kunich
>
> The reason I do think that was the case was that Bush had personalized
> the antagonism with Saddam ("He tried to kill my dad.")
It must give you great pleasure to be omniscient. Personally I think that
Bush considered the problem terrorism and not Saddam. Removing Saddam would
have put immediate and immense pressure on terrorism in EVERY Arab country.
And, gee, that's exactly what happened. Even with the examples of Libya's
and North Korea's reactions you still don't get it.
Tell me Howard, what exactly is it that you do for a living? I have this
idea that you're a mechanic or a janitor or something else that requires
infinitely great knowledge of political hacksmanship.