REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

The real tragedy behind Iraq war...

POSTED BY: LYNCHAJ
UPDATED: Saturday, June 18, 2005 19:17
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2730
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 7:52 AM

HOTPOINT


You are aware of the large role of American Firms in sanctions busting with the full knowledge of the US Government right?

It was big news about a month ago after a Senate Investigation showed that the illegal shipments of Oil by US firms actually account for 52% of the total, more than everyone else combined in fact.


...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 10:17 AM

CHRISISALL


No, the real tradgedy of the Iraq war was that the shoot first and find WMD's later mentality that allowed the war to be waged in the first place is what caused George Lucas to destroy that terrific scene in Star Wars where Han shoots Greedo first (in self defence, I might add ) to keep people who aren't able to judge for themselves what exactly constitutes a threat to be stategically acted upon from feeling justified in ignorantly doing so.
Oh, and people got killed, too. That was really bad.

Dare anyone to write a run on sentance that convoluted and still make sense Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 1:48 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by lynchaj:
In my opinion, if OFF had never happened, most likely Saddam's regime would had collapsed and we would have had an opportunity to get to the ground truth on all the missing WMD. Then we would have/could have avoided this messy war in the first place.


Actually, I agree with much of what you said, except the part about missing WMD's.
You can't, by definition, miss what never was.
( Okay, before you start, yes, he was working on them, yes, he was/is a monster, yes, it's good he's behind bars, yes, many Iraquis are happy, and they have at least a shot of a better republic, I just woulda liked it better if Bush had said "He has to go, and were gonna do it, period." Then again, I woulda liked it better if another President said "Yeah, I f@#*ed with her, it's non of your buisness." Oh well...)

Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 1:51 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by lynchaj:
I sure would miss your witty comments.


Does that mean you think my post about George Lucas was funny?

It made me laugh Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 8:23 PM

HOTPOINT


Quote:

Originally posted by lynchaj:
Next time, would you mind posting a link to support your assertions?

Is this what you were referring to? I searched for a bit and had a hard time finding it from a reputable source.



My apologies I didn't think it was a particularly obscure story. By the way it wasn't just Senator Levin who produced the report on his own and as for it not being an "official" finding that doesn't mean it wasn't true and indeed the US company that chartered the Tankers has actually confirmed the story!

Here's another couple of links for you

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4554507.stm

"The US was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions, on occasion, the US actually facilitated the illicit oil sales."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1485546,00.html

Investigators found correspondence showing that Odin Marine Inc, the US company chartering the seven huge tankers which picked up the oil at Khor al-Amaya, repeatedly sought and received approval from US military and civilian officials that the ships would not be confiscated by US Navy vessels in the Maritime Interdiction Force (MIF) enforcing the embargo.

Odin was reassured by a state department official that the US "was aware of the shipments and has determined not to take action".

The company's vice president, David Young, told investigators that a US naval officer at MIF told him that he "had no objections" to the shipments. "He said that he was sorry he could not say anything more. I told him I completely understood and did not expect him to say anything more," Mr Young said.

An executive at Odin Maritime confirmed the senate account of the oil shipments as "correct" but declined to comment further.


Quote:

Originally posted by lynchaj:

If the corporations broke the law, then they should be prosecuted. Where are the lawsuits against the alleged perpetrators?



If the US Government was aware this was going on then they would be equally culpable

Quote:

Originally posted by lynchaj:

I am not sure what point you are trying to make. When a third party commits offenses does not make the US Government responsible for Iraqi oil smuggling. Maybe there was some slack cut to Jordan prior to war to ease the impact but I don't see massive US corruption here. Nothing at all like the OFF scandal involving the French and Russians.



It's not an issue of corruption the point is one of hypocrisy and smokescreen.

The US administration and its supporters tries to use the OFF scandal to try and muddy the waters (apologies for the mixed metaphor) around the Iraq situation to make it look like the invasion was in some way made more necessary because of sanctions busting helping to shore up the Saddam regime.

However, if the Administration knew of American firms involved in the sanctions busting too before the war, and did nothing to stop it, that indicates they didn't consider the issue very important at all. It only became important later when trying to spin the media coverage of the Iraq fiasco away from just criticising Washington.



...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 15, 2005 8:56 AM

HOTPOINT


Just to follow-up on my earlier post another link for you:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30725-2005Feb16.html

UNITED NATIONS, Feb. 16 -- The Treasury Department provided assurances that the United States would not obstruct two companies' plans to import millions of barrels of oil from Iraq in March 2003 in violation of U.N. sanctions, according to an e-mail from one of the companies.

Diplomats and oil brokers have recently said that the United States had long turned a blind eye to illicit shipments of Iraqi oil by its allies Jordan and Turkey. The United States acknowledged this week that it had acquiesced in the trade to ensure that crucial allies would not suffer economic hardships.

But the e-mail, along with others released this week by Sen. Carl M. Levin (Mich.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Governmental Affairs panel's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, provides evidence that the Bush administration directly abetted Jordan's efforts to build up its strategic reserves with smuggled Iraqi oil in the weeks before the United States invaded Iraq in March 2003.

The illicit oil exports took place outside the Iraq oil-for-food program, which the United Nations administered from 1996 to 2003. While allegations of corruption and mismanagement in that program are under investigation by five congressional committees, the Justice Department and a U.N.-appointed panel, the illicit oil exports outside the program have received less scrutiny. According to investigators, Iraq received more revenue from those exports than from the alleged oil-for-food kickbacks.

"The bulk of [Saddam Hussein's] illicit oil sale revenues actually came from the money he received from unregulated sales of Iraqi oil, entirely outside of the oil-for-food program, primarily to Turkey, Jordan and Syria," Levin said at a hearing Tuesday on the U.N. management of Iraqi oil revenue. "We and the rest of the world looked the other way from those sales even though they were prohibited by the U.N. sanctions regime."




...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 15, 2005 9:46 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. SECOND: I am so very sorry I libelled you by labelling you a Russian Troll. I apologize for this. http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=64646&p=2


Lynch-
Quote:

Saddam's rearming and WMD programs
See, you lost me there. Been proven many times over- there was no rearming, there were no WMD programs. Will you please get your head out of your butt and stop asserting untruths?

Oh, and BTW- just because someone is critical of Bush does not make them "biased". It is very possible that Bush deserves all the criticism that he gets. That can only be determined if one lays aside ones' preconceived notions of what the conclusion should be, and actually looks at the facts. That appears to be too much to expect.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 15, 2005 3:06 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. SECOND: I am so very sorry I libelled you by labelling you a Russian Troll. I apologize for this. http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=64646&p=2


Your assertions are full of empty holes at which you point and gibber. You use lack of evidence only to "prove" that Saddam was wilier than both Kay/Duelfer and UNMOVIC combined. Meanwhile, both the pre- and post-invasion reports are quite clear: there were no WMD programs: no research, no pilot-plants, no production, no stockpiles of either old OR new WMD. Nothing. Nada. Zip. You can think of all kinds of paranoid scenarios, but none of them make sense. I challenged you to come up with a coherent explanation that fits the data, I even offered you three starting scenarios to modify to your heart's content, and you bailed. You "declared victory and left the field". And do you want to know why???

Because you can't think of any credible scenario that backs up your assertions I asked you again in this thread to prove your point. I will ask you AGAIN:

Come up with an evidence-based scenario that explains your assertion that Saddam's actions represented rearming and WMD programs of any sort. Last chance, AJ. Come up with that scenario. If you duck (again) we'll all know how credible your thoughts are on the topic.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 15, 2005 6:28 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. SECOND: I am so very sorry I libelled you by labelling you a Russian Troll. I apologize for this. http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=64646&p=2


Oh, and just to stay on-topic- THEN you can show us how Saddam was an "imminent threat" to the USA.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 16, 2005 5:53 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. SECOND: I am so very sorry I libelled you by labelling you a Russian Troll. I apologize for this. http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=64646&p=2


Hmmm... no reply. Incredible.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 16, 2005 11:54 AM

CHRISISALL


Just watched Escape From New York last night, and seeing the movie convinced me of one thing. If we had become the facist police state in the ninties as depicted in the film, the World Trade Center would still be standing, and we would already run most of the Middle East.
Funny what you get out of a film, huh?


Just a thought Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 16, 2005 6:55 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by lynchaj:
....So answer me this: If President Bush lied about WMD in the Iraq war in 2003, did President Clinton also lie about WMD prior to Desert Fox in 1998?

The scenarios and intelligence are nearly the same except for the US administration and 5 years.



The answer is yes. Are you trying to say that Bush is no better than Clinton?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 16, 2005 10:57 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. SECOND: I am so very sorry I libelled you by labelling you a Russian Troll. I apologize for this. http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=64646&p=2


Well?

The article refers to an opinion piece that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden had a long-standing working relationship. That idea has since been disproven- even Bush admits to that. Your other references also point to disproven or contradictory evidence. It can't all be true and meaningful all at the same time. That's why I keep asking you to synthesize your evidence and come up with one single plausible scenario of what you think Saddam was doing, instead of pointing to contradictory evidence to bolster your VARIOUS self-contradictory suspicions: He had huge stockpiles of old weapons that he refused to get rid of! No- he had huge stockpiles of current, non-degraded WMD! Well, at least he had plans of having huge stockpiles some day! "Something" was going on!

I've asked you the same thing about a half-dozen times in three or four threads. You just point to yet another piece of disproven opinion or something that contradicts what you have already referenced. You have yet to answer the question. But I really don't think its too much to ask you to be coherent, do you?

So I will ask you yet again- What do you think Saddam was actually doing, and what evidence do you have to support it? I'll bet you don't answer this one either.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 17, 2005 7:40 AM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Well?

The article refers to an opinion piece that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden had a long-standing working relationship. That idea has since been disproven- even Bush admits to that. Your other references also point to disproven or contradictory evidence. It can't all be true and meaningful all at the same time.



Hey Signy, I'm sometimes in awe of your thoroughness and shear sticktoitiveness (love that word) with these threads. When I clicked on AJ's link and found the Saddam/Osama canard, I stared for a moment in disbelief, shook my head and went back to checking my email. You'd think a guy who's sole purpose is to discredit, defame and dismiss living controversies wouldn't support his own contentions with long discarded right-wing fantasies in search of the facts.

Again and again, what I see here is a very frightened man trying to justify his terror after the fact. His fear tells him that one of these fantasies about Saddam's power must be true. If not this one than another, but he's sure it's there! How could it not? He wins by a preponderance of fallacy; if Saddam were not a threat, there would not be so much suspicion that he was!

But it's pure scapegoating. The truth is, there is no war for him to win, no end to his terror, no way to be safe. That's why the human race needs to find a way to get along and coexist on this tiny planet, before we eff it up for good and all.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 17, 2005 9:39 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. SECOND: I am so very sorry I libelled you by labelling you a Russian Troll. I apologize for this. http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=64646&p=2


RE: Clinton/ Desert Fox v. Bush/ OIF
Quote:

The scenarios and intelligence are nearly the same except for the US administration and 5 years
I'm prolly being compulsive about this, but I just can't let this go w/o comment. Bush's intelligence had the benefit, or SHOULD have had the benefit, of the UNMOVIC inpsections which represented real, intrusive, on-the-ground information-gathering by covert CIA officers as well as technical experts. And the response differs by 170,000 people; 7,500 casulties and 12,000 disabling injuries. God, I'm getting so tired of confronting spurious comparisons and "evidence" that AJ just pulls out of his *ss. It's either a serious case of PTSD/ anxiety or blatant lying. I imagine the first case more likely.

HK- Just call me bulldog.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 17, 2005 1:29 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. SECOND: I am so very sorry I libelled you by labelling you a Russian Troll. I apologize for this. http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=64646&p=2


You're diverting the discussion from my main contentions. What about UNMOVIC? What about the dead and mained soldiers? Are you trying to say that doesn't make a difference?

And yes, I am saying Feith was lying. He wrote the memo. He and Wolfowitz relied on allegations from an informer that the DIA and CIA had already determined was unreliable. As far as I can tell, the CIA staffers and technical experts did an honest job. But reports were corrupted further up the chain by people directly appointed by Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld. I keep saying the same thing, and each time you appraoch it, it's like a new revelation. You REALLY don't get it, do you?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 17, 2005 1:50 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. SECOND: I am so very sorry I libelled you by labelling you a Russian Troll. I apologize for this. http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=64646&p=2


Quote:

...nexus of rogue regimes like Saddam Hussein, WMD, and terrorists


I already looked into it for another dicussion. They were a combination of readily-available common industrial and pool-adjusting chemicals (sulfuric acid, chlorine, peroxides etc.) and available explosives to spread the chemicals, not WMD. Note the article says "poison gas", not chemical weapons... big difference. Oh, and the militants supposedly came through Syria, not Iraq. Hmmm... terrorists, yes. But no WMD and no Saddam in sight. Your boat is full of holes and sinking fast. I advise you to jump ship.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 17, 2005 1:59 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. SECOND: I am so very sorry I libelled you by labelling you a Russian Troll. I apologize for this. http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=64646&p=2


Quote:

Did he ever? If Saddam never did have unreported WMD, then why did the UN inspectors keep coming back over asking to see the WMD or proof of its destruction?

Did the UN lie as well?

At what point in time did Saddam obviously go from someone who possessed WMD to someone who obviously did not possess WMD?



Saddam "had" WMD in the 1980s and early '90s. As the joke goes... "We know, we have the receipts." What was not destroyed in the Gulf War was destroyed (but not inventoried) by 1996. What was lost (like those infamous ancient warheads) also lost potency by that time. Saddam went from having WMD to NOT having WMD by 1996. That fact was about to be certified in 2003 by UNMOVIC.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 17, 2005 2:10 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. SECOND: I am so very sorry I libelled you by labelling you a Russian Troll. I apologize for this. http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=64646&p=2


Quote:

CIA Questions Saddam's Ties to Al Qaeda, Bush Administration Claims That Zarqawi Sought Safe Haven in Iraq Put in Doubt
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/IraqCoverage/story?id=144396&page=1

Quote:

8. ...UNMOVIC did not find evidence of the continuation or resumption of programmes of weapons of mass destruction or significant quantities of proscribed items... Hans Blix, final report to the UN Security Council
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/un/unmovic-s-2003-
580_n0337692.pdf

Quote:

the chemical weapons which Iraq has been known to possess – nerve agents like sarin and tabun – have a shelf life of five years, VX just a bit longer. Saddam's major bio weapons are hardly any better; botulinum toxin is potent for about three years, and liquid anthrax about the same (under the right conditions)....The U.S. Defense Department’s “Militarily Critical Technologies List” (MCTL) is “a detailed compendium of technologies" that the department advocates as “critical to maintaining superior US military capabilities. It applies to all mission areas, especially counter-proliferation.” Written in 1998, it was recently re-published with updates for 2002. So what is the MCTL’s opinion of Iraq's chemical weapons program? In making its chemical nerve agents, “The Iraqis . . . produce(d) a . . . mixture which was inherently unstable,” says the report. “When the Iraqis produced chemical munitions they appeared to adhere to a ‘make and use’ regimen. Judging by the information Iraq gave the United Nations, later verified by on-site inspections, Iraq had poor product quality for their nerve agents. This low quality was likely due to a lack of purification. They had to get the agent to the front promptly or have it degrade in the munition.” Furthermore, says this Defense Department report, “The chemical munitions found in Iraq after the [first] Gulf War contained badly deteriorated agents and a significant proportion were visibly leaking.” The shelf life of these poorly made agents were said to be a few weeks at best – hardly the stuff of vast chemical weapons stores. There was some talk shortly before the first Gulf War that the Iraqis had been creating binary chemical weapons, in which the relatively non-toxic ingredients of the agent remain unmixed until just before the weapon is used; this allows the user to bypass any worry about shelf life or toxicity. But according to the MCTL, “The Iraqis had a small number of bastardized binary munitions in which some unfortunate individual was to pour one ingredient into the other from a Jerry can prior to use” – an action few soldiers were willing to perform.
www.bluebus.org/archives/000175.php


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 17, 2005 4:04 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by lynchaj:
...Why has not President Bush been impeached? Why was he re-elected if he committed arguable one of the biggest crimes in history?



That's the question alright. The answers aren't pretty.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 18, 2005 11:00 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I thought I'd review this thread and catch up

It starts out with OFF, but at one point LynchAJ seems to give up completely on OFF and responds to WMD topics exclusively.

To support his assertions, he relies on outdated reports which have since been superseded and takes selected quotes out of context. Despite serious bias in selection, NONE of his quotes or sources actually documents WMD of concern (not even the Duelfer report, which specifically discounts CW relics -see below):

1) He quotes one sentence of what he calls the "UNMOVIC Report". UNMOVIC was withdrawn from Iraq before it could complete its inspections because of imminent US attack. Regarding the quote
Quote:

There has been a surge of activity in the missile technology field in the past four years. — UNMOVIC Report, March 6, 2003
only PNAC (yes PNAC) calls it the "UNMOVIC Report" so I'm guessing the quote came from there. The UN calls it "UNMOVIC Working Document, Unresolved Disarmament Issues" and it has many interesting quotes, like this one
Quote:

No proscribed activities (chemical and biological), or the result of such activities from the period of 1998-2002 have, so far, been detected through inspections.

2) He quotes David Kay's first INTERIM report
Quote:

“If I can speak of what we have found in addition to intent, we have found a large body of activities
with its unfulfilled promise that in 6 months they'd find WMD, or at the very least evidence of same. (Which they did not.)

3) He quotes Hans Blix
Quote:

“The long list of proscribed items unaccounted for and as such resulting in unresolved disarmament issues was neither shortened by the inspections, nor by Iraqi declarations and documents.”
leaving out this portion (from the UN Wire News):
Quote:

UN INSPECTORS FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF PROHIBITED WEAPONS PROGRAMMES AS OF 18 MARCH WITHDRAWAL, HANS BLIX TELLS SECURITY COUNCIL ... "it is not justified to jump to the conclusion that something exists just because it is unaccounted for."


And then a fairly meaningless quote from Cohen about belief.

He then cites Duelfer's report as 'proof' Iraq had WMD ("if you honestly read the entire report and still claim there was no presence of WMD programs, evidence of WMDs themselves") but seems to have overlooked these items from the report (key findings):
Quote:

"The Iraq Survey Group (ISG) has uncovered no evidence Iraq retained Scud-variant missiles, and debriefings of Iraqi officials in addition to some documentation suggest that Iraq did not retain such missiles
after 1991.


Quote:

Iraq Survey Group (ISG) discovered further evidence of the maturity and significance of the pre-1991 Iraqi Nuclear Program but found that Iraq’s ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively
decayed after that date.
• Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.
• Although Saddam clearly assigned a high value to the nuclear progress and talent that had been developed up to the 1991 war, the program ended and the intellectual capital decayed in the succeeding years.

Quote:

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.
... Iraq implemented a rigorous and formalized system of nationwide research and production of chemicals, but ISG will not be able to resolve whether Iraq intended the system to underpin any CW-related efforts.


Quote:

In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes. Indeed, from the mid-1990s there appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the Presidential level.


LynchAJ (hmmmm ... is that an imperative sentence?) then references Feith's since disproved BS that Hussein had ongoing cooperation with al Qaeda (from 2003), an item that SignyM and HKCavalier both addresses.

Then honestly, the whole thing spins out of AJ's control. He says that even an insignificant number of old useless weapons are WMD just the same (what did he think Iraq was going to do with them, roll them down hills?), then he says that it was really all about what Hussein intended to do, then says that despite ongoing UN inspections, Bush couldn't have known any more than Clinton, then says the UN went back b/c of its own concerns (had nothing to do with the US making it a condition to avoid war), then claims that no certainty can be reached b/c it's all history anyway, then points to a recent plot in Jordan to support a contention that Iraq was leagued with al Qaeda in the past (a complete non sequitor), then supports his claim that Bush didn't lie because he's not in jail (yet) ...

AJ - WHAT are you possibly trying to argue? I agree with SignyM - can you come up with ONE idea about things that actually exist instead of gibbering and pointing at an empty box?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 18, 2005 12:01 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


The first time I clued into the fact it wasn't about WMD (well before the US attacked) was when I realized that Bush could not politically or strategically afford to send a couple of hundred thousand US personnel into a situation where tens of thousands were certain to die. (You know, from those massive stockpiles of WMD.)

Then when I saw him moving the goalposts every time Hussein complied with each new demand, it became completely clear that war was pre-ordained.

One motive, which set the timing, became clear to me when I learned that Iraq was about to sign oil development contracts with France and Russia, and that any contracts, once signed, were legally binding on any subsequent occupying force.

Powell's UN presentation, which I studied carefully, was a masterwork of deception, mixing old information with unsupported speculation, and relying heavily on 'information' that he 'couldn't' provide to the UN.

That US ground troops weren't directed at any time to investigate and secure WMD sites made the lie more apparent. (Also, that the US had to be pressured into formally looking for WMD at all, and only months after the 'end' of the war.)

I learned that Bush 'fixed intelligence around' his goal from carefully reading the Senate Report. That is how I knew years ago about Bush's specific lies about yellowcake, aluminum tubes, and CW and BW. What, when, where, who, and how.


Other people relied on other information to come to the same conclusions.

Anyway, there's more, but I have a lot to do.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 18, 2005 12:31 PM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.


Quote:

Originally posted by lynchaj:


What do I think Saddam was doing? .... He was gathering his WMD capabilities, hiding them, protecting them, and waiting for the UN sanctions to collapse so he could move WMD production back into high gear.

Why? ...I believe his most likely scenario was to restart the Iran/Iraq war or at a minimum counteract the growing Iranian nuclear threat.



Even if your belief is true, why would we be against it? Aren't there rumors about Iran being next?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 18, 2005 2:48 PM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by lynchaj:
I do want to say to the folks here that it is quite a bit of fun and even a bit healthy I think to hash this out. You have your opinion and I respect that.

I'd like to thank FFF.net for having RWED forum, especially out of the main FFF.net forums, as it does a lot of good to have peaceful discussions among people who disagree on their world views.

Andrew Lynch



Hear, hear! LynchAJ, in another thread a couple weeks ago, I felt the need to tell you that you were being needlessly rude and to knock it off. Since then, I've read with interest the evolution of the discussions which you innitiated. I appreciate you're focus on the issues and your seriousness, which I initially misjudged. Thanks for your thoughtful contribution to the RWED. Keep flyin'!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 18, 2005 4:10 PM

MNGIBSO


Rue, you are my hero. I have rarely seen such an effective and incontestable refutation of a spurious argument. Using the very documents that LYNCHAJ was selectively quoting against him. Pure genious - My hat is off to you, keep up the good work.

Mark

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 18, 2005 7:17 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


LynchAJ,

I hope we will meet in discussion some other time over another topic of interest.

Sincerely,
Rue

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
List of States/Governments/Politicians Moving to Ban Vaccine Passports
Sat, June 25, 2022 13:26 - 132 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!!!
Sat, June 25, 2022 13:02 - 10804 posts
A thread for Democrats Only
Sat, June 25, 2022 12:46 - 6288 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Sat, June 25, 2022 10:29 - 898 posts
CNN's Alisyn Camerota: Abortion Isn't Just A Women's Issue, "It's Hard To Get Pregnant Without A Man"
Sat, June 25, 2022 10:00 - 2 posts
Iranian islamic does mass shooting at Oslo gay bar during pride
Sat, June 25, 2022 09:36 - 2 posts
Fuck Joe Biden*
Sat, June 25, 2022 09:25 - 6 posts
Pro-Abortion Terrorists Continue to Firebomb Pregnancy Centers?
Sat, June 25, 2022 09:00 - 5 posts
Why does Frogistan support Criminal Pedophiles?
Sat, June 25, 2022 08:44 - 2 posts
Biden* to punish border agents who were found NOT whipping illegal migrants
Sat, June 25, 2022 08:39 - 2 posts
ASSHOLE Joe Biden* tops -15 on the Job Approval Aggregate
Fri, June 24, 2022 22:33 - 7 posts
I know this doesn't really belong here but... favorite songs!
Fri, June 24, 2022 22:19 - 176 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL